Jeremiah 25:8-14

Why are those from Babylon also called Chaldeans in Jeremiah, and do they exist today as a people?

One verse uses both names. The answer to the second half of the question is written into that same verse.

Read the passage in the ESV All questions

The question as it came to us

Anyone reading Jeremiah straight through hits this within a few chapters. The enemy is the king of Babylon. Then it is the army of the Chaldeans. Then, in a single sentence, it is both: God will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans (Jeremiah 25:12). Two names, no explanation, and Jeremiah plainly expects his hearers to need none.

The second half of the question is the one that surprises people, because it has a complication. Ask whether Chaldeans exist today and the answer looks obviously yes: there are Chaldean churches in Baghdad, a Chaldean patriarch, and tens of thousands of people in Michigan and California who will tell you without hesitation that they are Chaldean. So the question is not idle. It is whether those people are the people in Jeremiah.

Both halves have clean answers, and the second one is a great deal more interesting than a simple yes or no.

Short answer

On the first half: the ruling house was Chaldean, and the name spread to the whole state. The Chaldeans (Akkadian Kaldu, Hebrew Kasdim) were a tribal people who settled the marshy far south of Mesopotamia, near the head of the Persian Gulf, and who appear in Assyrian records from the ninth century BC. They were not the old Babylonian population, but they lived among them, and for two centuries their chiefs kept seizing the throne of Babylon whenever Assyria’s grip loosened. One of them turns up in Scripture: Merodach-baladan, who held Babylon twice and who sent envoys to flatter Hezekiah (Isaiah 39:1), was a Chaldean tribal leader.

So when Nabopolassar broke Assyria and founded the empire in 626 BC, and his son Nebuchadnezzar carried Judah away, the dynasty was reckoned Chaldean, and the label did duty for the whole apparatus: the state, the land, the army. Chaldean worked much as Norman did in England after 1066, a ruling stock giving its name to a kingdom most of whose people were nothing of the kind. Jeremiah simply uses whichever fits the sentence: into the hand of the Chaldeans and into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon (32:28), one enemy named twice.

On the second half: no, not as a people. After Cyrus took Babylon in 539 BC the Chaldeans stop appearing as a distinct nation anywhere. They were absorbed into the general Aramaic-speaking population of the region, and within a couple of centuries the word itself had changed jobs: to a Greek or a Roman, Chaldaeus meant an astrologer, because Babylon’s fame for reading the sky outlived Babylon. Daniel already shows the word doing both duties, ethnic and professional, in the same book. Jeremiah’s Chaldeans, as a people with a homeland and an army, are gone, and they have been gone for about two and a half thousand years.

The people called Chaldeans today are a different thing, and they are real. They are the Chaldean Catholic Church: Iraqi Christians in communion with Rome, who worship in Syriac and speak a modern dialect of Aramaic, with a large diaspora in Detroit and San Diego. Their name is ecclesiastical rather than tribal. Rome first used Chaldean in 1445 for Eastern Christians entering communion, and in April 1553 the patriarch’s title was changed from Patriarch of the Eastern Assyrians to Patriarch of the Chaldeans. The likeliest reason for that choice is the best detail in the whole question: it appears to have been taken from the Bible’s phrase for Abraham’s home town, Ur of the Chaldeans. The modern name descends from a verse about Abraham, not from a bloodline traced back to Nebuchadnezzar’s tribe.

That answer should be given respectfully, because these are living Christians who have suffered enormously in our own lifetime, and some of them do claim ancient descent. What can be said with confidence is that they are indigenous Mesopotamian Christians from the same soil, that their name was given to them in the sixteenth century, and that no one has traced a line from them to the tribes of the southern marshes.

Curiosity It starts as a reading question, the kind you ask when two names for the enemy turn up in one paragraph. It does not stay there. The reason there is no Chaldean nation today is written into the same verse that uses both names, so the curiosity turns into a demonstration of the thing Jeremiah spent forty years saying.

What is settled, and what is not

The left column is what the text itself establishes, and its first item is the whole of the first half of the question. The right column is where the evidence genuinely runs out.

Settled, Scripture states it

Scripture treats the two names as one enemy. Not a hint of two powers. I am giving this city into the hand of the Chaldeans and into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon (Jeremiah 32:28); the punishment falls on the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans (25:12). One army, two words for it.
The empire was God’s instrument, not God’s rival. Three times Jeremiah calls the invader Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant (25:9; 27:6; 43:10). Habakkuk hears the same thing and cannot bear it: behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation (Habakkuk 1:6). The verb is God’s in both places.
The instrument was going to be judged in its turn. Said in the same breath as the sentence on Judah: God will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, making the land an everlasting waste (25:12). Being used by God is not the same as being approved by God, and Babylon was told so in advance.
The exile had a stated limit. When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place (29:10). The deportation was a sentence with a term on it, not an ending.
Babylon fell, exactly as promised. Cyrus took the city in 539 BC and the Chaldeans never ruled again. The prophets had described it: Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the splendor and pomp of the Chaldeans, would be like Sodom and Gomorrah (Isaiah 13:19), and Jeremiah’s sentence was that you shall be a perpetual waste (51:26).

Not given in this age

Where the Hebrew word came from. The Akkadian is Kaldu and the Hebrew is Kasdim, and the two do not line up the way loanwords normally do. Several explanations have been offered and none has settled the matter. Our English Chaldean reaches us through the Greek of the Septuagint rather than straight from the Hebrew.
Whether the dynasty’s founder was himself Chaldean. The Neo-Babylonian house is conventionally called the Chaldean dynasty, and that is the ordinary shorthand, but no ancient source states Nabopolassar’s ancestry. He called himself, uniquely among Mesopotamian kings, a son of a nobody, and some scholars now connect his family with Uruk instead. The empire’s Chaldean character is not in doubt; the founder’s parentage is.
Whether today’s Chaldean Christians descend from the ancient tribes. Not established, and not disproved either. The name was conferred in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries by Rome, on Christians whose language and liturgy are Aramaic and Syriac. Where the family lines actually run, over two and a half millennia in the same river valley, no one can say.
Exactly when the Chaldeans stopped being a people. There is no last Chaldean and no recorded moment of disappearance. There is a nation in the records, and then there is a word that means astrologer.

What happened to the word

One name, moving from a tribe to an empire to a profession to a church. Band widths follow the order of events and are not to scale, since some of these stages last centuries and two of them are a single year.

From the marshes to Michigan

The arc that answers both halves of the question. Everything to the left of Cyrus is the people Jeremiah preached about. Everything to the right is the name outliving them.

Tribes settle the southern marshes; Assyria records them from the 9th century BC Chaldean chiefs seize Babylon: Merodach-baladan writes to Hezekiah 626 BC: a new dynasty in Babylon Nebuchadnezzar; Judah deported; Jeremiah preaches 539 BC: Cyrus takes the city The people absorbed; the word comes to mean astrologer 1445 and 1553: Rome gives the name to a church in the same land

The four things the word can mean

Almost every muddle about the Chaldeans is one of these four senses being mistaken for another. Jeremiah uses the second, and only the second.

1. The tribe Kaldu in Assyrian records, Kasdim in Hebrew: a people of the far south of Mesopotamia, distinct from the older Babylonians, organised in tribal houses, persistently rebellious against Assyria. This is the strict ethnic sense, and it is the oldest.
2. The empire, its land and its army The sense Jeremiah uses throughout, with Ezekiel and Habakkuk alongside him. The ruling house was reckoned Chaldean, so the whole state took the name, exactly as we say Norman England or Ottoman Turkey. When Jeremiah says the Chaldeans are at the wall he means the imperial army of Nebuchadnezzar, most of it not Chaldean by blood at all.
3. A class of astrologers and diviners Babylon’s reputation for reading omens in the sky outlived its independence. Herodotus already uses Chaldeans for the priests of Bel, and to later Greek and Latin writers a Chaldaeus is simply an astrologer. Daniel shows the transition in progress, using the word ethnically of a king (5:30) and professionally of a guild of wise men (2:2) in the same book.
4. A modern Christian community The Chaldean Catholic Church: Iraqi Christians in communion with Rome, Syriac in liturgy, Aramaic-speaking, with cathedrals in Baghdad and Erbil and large communities in metropolitan Detroit and San Diego. The name is sixteenth-century and ecclesiastical. These are the Chaldeans a reader is likeliest to meet, and they are not the Chaldeans of Jeremiah 25.

What the text says

The two names sit in one verse, doing one job Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity (Jeremiah 25:12). If the reader needed to tell them apart, this is the sentence in which Jeremiah would have had to. He does not, because there is nothing to tell apart. Watch it happen again at 32:28, and at 21:4 where the Chaldeans who are besieging you are plainly Nebuchadnezzar’s troops.
A Chaldean king of Babylon turns up a century before Nebuchadnezzar At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah (Isaiah 39:1). He was a Chaldean tribal chief who took Babylon’s throne twice in defiance of Assyria, and his embassy to Jerusalem was almost certainly an attempt to recruit Judah into a revolt. Hezekiah showed him the treasury, and Isaiah told him what it would cost (39:5-7). The pattern of Chaldeans ruling Babylon was already a century old when Jeremiah began to preach.
Habakkuk uses the same name for the same problem For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth (Habakkuk 1:6). Habakkuk had asked why God tolerated wickedness in Judah; the answer names the Chaldeans, and the prophet’s second complaint is worse than his first: how can a holy God use a nation more wicked than the one he is punishing (1:13)? The name carries a political fact and a theological crisis in the same sentence.
God calls the man who burned the temple his servant Three times, and it never stops being startling: Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant (25:9; 27:6; 43:10). The word is the one used of Moses and of David. It does not mean Nebuchadnezzar was godly, and Jeremiah says so by promising his punishment three verses later. It means the empire was doing God’s work while certain it was doing its own, which is the doctrine of providence stated as a job title.
Genesis calls Abraham’s home town Chaldean, centuries early Ur of the Chaldeans (Genesis 11:28, 31; 15:7), repeated by Nehemiah (9:7). The Chaldeans did not reach southern Mesopotamia until long after Abraham left it, so this is a later name attached to an older place, for readers who would otherwise not know where Ur was. Scripture does this elsewhere without embarrassment: Abram pursues raiders as far as Dan (Genesis 14:14), a city that would not be called Dan for centuries. It is what we do when we say Caesar landed in England.
Daniel shows the word changing meaning in real time In Daniel the Chaldeans are a nation, ruled by Belshazzar the Chaldean king (5:30), over the realm of the Chaldeans (9:1). They are also a professional guild summoned alongside the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers (2:2), who answer the king in Aramaic and cannot tell him his dream. Both senses, one book. By the time Greeks and Romans are writing, only the second survives.
The sentence on Babylon is as detailed as the sentence on Judah Two whole chapters of it (Jeremiah 50 and 51), and it is not vague: you shall be a perpetual waste (51:26). Isaiah had said the same, that Babylon, the splendor and pomp of the Chaldeans, would be like Sodom, and that it will never be inhabited or lived in for all generations (13:19-20). The site in southern Iraq has been excavated, photographed and visited. It has not been a city for a very long time.
The empire ends; the deported people do not This is where the whole question turns. Judah went into Babylon as a defeated remnant and came out a people, with the Law read aloud in the square (Nehemiah 8), idolatry behind them for good, and the shape of synagogue and canon that they still have. Babylon went into the same century as the greatest power on earth and came out a word for a fortune teller. The prophet who announced both outcomes was standing in the ruins of the losing side when he said it.
And the exile becomes a heading in the family tree of Christ Matthew organises the whole genealogy around it: fourteen generations to David, fourteen to the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ (Matthew 1:17). The catastrophe that was meant to end the line of David is reduced, in the opening paragraph of the New Testament, to a section marker on the way to him.

How others have answered

Named only where the words were written about this passage. Quoted phrases are theirs; the summary around them is ours.

Herodotus (Histories I.181-183, c. 430 BC) The earliest surviving outside description, and it is already using the word in the third sense. Herodotus describes the great temple of Bel at Babylon and calls the priests who serve it Chaldeans, with no suggestion that he means an ethnic group. Within a century of Cyrus, a well-travelled Greek writing about Babylon itself takes the term to name a profession.
Berossus, through Josephus (Against Apion I.128-153, AD 90s) Berossus was a Babylonian priest who wrote a history of his own country in Greek around 290 BC. His work is lost, and survives chiefly because Josephus quoted it to prove to Greek readers that the Jewish Scriptures were corroborated by Babylonian records. Through that double filter we get Nebuchadnezzar’s campaigns and his building works from the Babylonian side. Notice what that means: the Chaldean account of these events reaches us only in fragments, quoted by a Jew, in defence of the Bible.
The Babylonian Chronicles and the Cyrus Cylinder Clay rather than literature, and the more useful for it. The chronicle tablets record Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem in his seventh year with enough precision to fix the date, and the fall of Babylon to Cyrus in 539. The Cyrus Cylinder states the new king’s policy of restoring displaced peoples and their sanctuaries, which is the policy Ezra 1 describes from the receiving end. The cylinder does not mention the Jews, and honest use of it says so; what it establishes is that the decree in Ezra fits exactly the kind of thing this king did.
John Calvin (Lectures on Jeremiah) Calvin lectured through Jeremiah near the end of his life, and the servant language is where he is most careful. His consistent argument across the prophets is that God governs the wicked without becoming the author of their wickedness: the Chaldeans intend plunder and glory, God intends the correction of his church, one action and two purposes, and the guilt of the act is entirely theirs. It is the same distinction this site works from elsewhere, applied to an invading army.
Augustine (City of God) Augustine is the reason Babylon means more in Christian speech than a place in Iraq. His whole work is built on two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, and Babylon is his standing name for the first: a city built on love of self, magnificent, ordered, genuinely accomplished, and temporary. That reading is not an allegory imposed on Scripture. Revelation had already done it with the name (18:2), and it is why the disappearance of an actual Chaldean people is a point of Christian theology rather than a piece of trivia.
The Chaldean Catholic Church, on its own name The community’s own histories date the title to Rome. Chaldean was applied in 1445 to Eastern Christians of Cyprus entering communion, and in April 1553 the patriarch Yohannan Sulaqa’s title was changed from Patriarch of the Eastern Assyrians to Patriarch of the Chaldeans, most likely with Ur of the Chaldeans in view. Within the community, and among its Assyrian and Syriac neighbours, the naming is still argued over, sometimes warmly, and it is not our argument to settle. What belongs on this page is the plain chronology, and the fact that these Christians have kept the faith in that valley through the Islamic conquest, the Mongols, Ottoman rule, and, within the last dozen years, the loss of the Nineveh Plain.

Where it lands

Put the two halves of the question side by side and the answer preaches itself.

The Chaldeans were the superpower of their century. They broke Assyria, took Egypt’s measure at Carchemish, levelled Jerusalem, burned the temple of God and carried its furniture home as loot. Anyone standing in the smoke in 586 BC, watching the last king of David’s line led away blinded (Jeremiah 52:11), would have said that the Chaldeans were the permanent fact and the Jews were the vanishing one. Jeremiah, standing in the same smoke, had been saying the opposite out loud for forty years, and had been beaten and imprisoned for saying it.

Today the Chaldeans are not a people. Their name survives on a Christian church that received it from a verse about Abraham, and in an old word for a man who reads the stars. The nation whose army fills the book of Jeremiah has no descendants anyone can trace, no language anyone speaks and no land anyone claims. The people they deported still read Jeremiah.

That is not a lesson about the resilience of a culture. It is a specific promise of God, kept where it could be checked: the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8), written to people living under Chaldean rule, about the empire they could see out of the window. Every civilisation that has looked permanent since has gone the same way, and Augustine gave the pattern its name.

And it lands on Christ, because that is where the exile lands. The deportation was not the end of the line of David. Matthew makes it the middle of it, one of three headings on the road to the Christ (Matthew 1:17). The Chaldeans were the instrument of a judgment that purged Judah of idolatry for good, preserved a remnant, and delivered the family through which the Messiah came. They were, in the word God insisted on, servants, and they never knew it. When Revelation wants a name for the last proud city to fall it reaches for theirs (18:2); when it wants a name for what stands instead, it is a city coming down out of heaven, whose builder is God.

What the passage does not settle

This page cannot tell you what became of the individual descendants of the Chaldean tribes, because nobody can. People are not abolished when a nation stops being named: they marry, move and are absorbed, and their great-grandchildren speak another language. What the record shows is the disappearance of a people as a people, which is what Jeremiah 25:12 and Isaiah 13:19-20 said would happen, and that is all this page claims. It is not a claim about anybody’s ancestry.

It also leaves open the etymology, the parentage of Nabopolassar, and whether the Chaldean Christians of Iraq have any real line back to the ancient tribes. On that last one, treat confident answers in either direction with suspicion, particularly confident answers offered in the middle of an argument about what a community ought to be called.

One thing is worth saying plainly, since this question is about a people who suffered. Nothing here licenses satisfaction at Babylon’s end. Jeremiah, who announced it, is the prophet who wept over a ruined city and wrote a book of laments about it, and the God who sentenced Babylon is the one who sent a prophet to Nineveh and then had to explain to him why he should not be angry that it repented.

Questions to sit with

For reading this with someone else, a family, a study, or a friend who asked in the first place.

Jeremiah told a city under siege that the invading army was God’s servant. What did it cost him to say that, and what does the reaction in chapters 37 and 38 suggest about how it was heard?
God used the Chaldeans and then judged them for what he used them to do. Sit with that until it stops sounding like a trick, and then say in your own words why it is not one.
Which empire looks permanent to you? Name it honestly, then read Isaiah 13:19-20 again.
The exiles came out of Babylon with the Scriptures read aloud in public and idolatry behind them for good. Is there anything God has used in your life that you would never have chosen and would not now give back?
There are Christians in Iraq today whose grandparents worshipped where Nebuchadnezzar ruled, and who have lost their homes in our lifetime. When did you last pray for them by name?