Introduction: Prophetic Command and Social Reform in Crisis
Jeremiah 34:10 recounts the initial compliance of Judah’s leaders and people with a prophetic covenant to release their Hebrew slaves. Set during the Babylonian siege of Yerushalayim, the event temporarily reflected covenantal repentance and social righteousness. The verse uses repetition and coordinated clauses to depict public obedience, drawing attention to its legal and liturgical character:
וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ֩ כָל־הַשָּׂרִ֨ים וְכָל־הָעָ֜ם אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֣אוּ בַבְּרִ֗ית לְ֠שַׁלַּח אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־עַבְדֹּ֞ו וְאִ֤ישׁ אֶת־שִׁפְחָתֹו֙ חָפְשִׁ֔ים לְבִלְתִּ֥י עֲבָד־בָּ֖ם עֹ֑וד וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֖וּ וַיְשַׁלֵּֽחוּ׃
Then all the officials and all the people who had entered into the covenant heard, to release each his male servant and each his female servant—free, that none should enslave them again—and they listened and released them.
This verse shows how Hebrew narrative uses grammatical repetition, infinitival purpose clauses, and covenantal language to frame a moment of public obedience. Yet the subsequent context (vv. 11–17) reveals the temporary and superficial nature of this compliance, heightening the rhetorical power of the current verse.
Grammatical Feature Analysis: Coordinated Subjects and Dual Verbs
The verse begins with a wayyiqtol construction: וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ (“and they heard”), with a compound subject: כָל־הַשָּׂרִים וְכָל־הָעָם (“all the officials and all the people”). This deliberate double phrase emphasizes universal compliance, with both leaders and commoners united in the covenantal act.
The relative clause אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ בַבְּרִית (“who had entered into the covenant”) adds a temporal and participatory qualifier, defining the group’s prior commitment. The perfect verb בָּאוּ with בַבְּרִית links their hearing to an earlier, formal decision, suggesting accountability for covenant obedience.
The phrase לְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדֹּו וְאִישׁ אֶת־שִׁפְחָתוֹ is an infinitival purpose clause, expressing the intent behind the covenant: “to release each man his male slave, and each man his female slave.” The repetition of אִישׁ serves distributive emphasis, personalizing the obligation.
The appositive חָפְשִׁים (“free”) defines the condition of release. This term is associated with manumission (cf. Exod. 21:2) and carries legal status implications. The subsequent clause לְבִלְתִּי עֲבָד־בָּם עֹוד (“that none should enslave them again”) uses the construct infinitive of negation לְבִלְתִּי to express an absolute prohibition against recapturing or reenslaving the freed persons.
The verse ends with a rhetorical mirroring: וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ וַיְשַׁלֵּחוּ (“and they heard and they released”), repeating the initial verb and pairing it with the key covenantal action. This poetic reinforcement highlights the moment of obedience as both audible (listening to God’s word) and actionable (setting free).
Exegetical Implications: Public Repentance and Performative Law
The syntax of this verse captures what appears to be sincere national repentance. The use of coordinated subjects and infinitival constructions mirrors covenantal formulas from Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut. 29:9–14), aligning obedience with national identity.
Yet the poetic symmetry of וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ וַיְשַׁלֵּחוּ will be undercut in the next verse (וַיָּשֻׁבוּ – “but they turned back”), making this a theologically ironic structure. The apparent public righteousness is exposed as superficial. Still, the syntax here preserves the formal legitimacy of the act—they did release them, even if only briefly.
Legal scholars note that this verse echoes Exodus manumission laws (Exod. 21; Deut. 15), but uses prophetic vocabulary to enforce them. The combination of legal terminology with prophetic narrative grammar turns the obedience into a performative legal gesture, not mere social policy.
Cross-Linguistic and Literary Parallels
Ancient Near Eastern manumission documents often contain similar structures—naming rulers or officials, followed by legal obligations toward servants. However, in Jeremiah 34, prophetic discourse places divine moral weight behind these laws. The syntax mimics legal formulae but is embedded in a theological frame.
The Septuagint preserves the clause structure: καὶ ἤκουσαν πάντες οἱ ἄρχοντες καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς… καὶ ἀπέλυσαν, reflecting both universality and obedience. The Greek continues the repetition, sustaining the liturgical tone of the Hebrew original.
Theological and Literary Significance: Obedience Framed by Covenant Syntax
This verse portrays a moment of public virtue, framed by formal, legalistic syntax that signals solemnity. Yet the broader context reveals that syntax alone cannot sustain obedience—the act must be internalized. The double use of וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ signals both reception and performance, but cannot guarantee permanence.
In prophetic theology, grammar becomes covenantal accountability. This verse reads almost like a liturgical response to the prophetic call—but it is undone in the next movement of the narrative.
They Heard and They Released: Syntax of Conditional Repentance in Jeremiah 34:10
Jeremiah 34:10 captures a nation’s brief moment of covenantal clarity. Through parallel structures, infinitival intent, and distributive emphasis, it portrays obedience with solemnity. Yet the fragility of this grammar of repentance reminds the reader that real freedom—like covenant loyalty—requires more than syntax. It requires steadfastness of heart.
