Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 24:1
In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him.
2Ki 24:1. Nebuchadnezzar came up ] We learn from Jeremiah (Jer 46:2) that Pharaoh-nechoh was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at the Euphrates near Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. The Egyptian king had probably left his army at Carchemish on his own return to Egypt. After routing the Egyptian force the king of Babylon came forward to attack those lands which had submitted to Pharaoh, Judah among the rest.
Nebuchadnezzar was the son and successor of Nabopolassar, who founded the Babylonian Empire. It was while Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in this expedition against the Egyptians and their allies that he was recalled to take the throne of Babylon. He had been acting as general for his father, though to the Jewish mind he would appear as king of Babylon, especially as he so soon after became in reality king and was made known to them as such by terrible experience.
Jehoiakim became his servant three years ] i.e. He undertook to pay a certain yearly tribute to Babylon. The conqueror appears also to have carried off captives from Jerusalem, for it was at this time that Daniel and his companions were taken away (Dan 1:1). It would seem from the history in 2Ch 36:6 that Nebuchadnezzar’s intention had been to take Jehoiakim away, for it is stated that he ‘bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon’. See on this also the language of Eze 19:9. But by some means he was maintained on his throne. After three years of vassalage, however, he rebelled, probably thinking that he could get help from Egypt.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In his days – i. e., 605 B.C., which was the third completed Dan 1:1, and fourth commencing Jer 25:1, year of Jehoiakim.
Nebuchadnezzar – or Nebuchadrezzar, which is closer to the original, Nabu-kudurri-uzur. This name, like most Babylonian names, is made up of three elements, Nebo, the well-known god Isa 46:1, kudur, of doubtful signification (perhaps crown perhaps landmark), and uzur protects. Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, and second monarch of the Babylonian empire, ascended the throne, 604 B.C., and reigned 43 years, dying 561 B.C. He married Amuhia (or Amyitis), daughter of Cyaxares, king of the Medes, and was the most celebrated of all the Babylonian sovereigns. No other pagan king occupies so much space in Scripture. He was not actual king at this time, but only Crown Prince and leader of the army under his father. As he would be surrounded with all the state and magnficence of a monarch, the Jews would naturally look upon him as actual king.
Came up – Nebuchadnezzar began his campaign by attacking and defeating Necos Egyptians at Carchemish Jer 46:2. He then pressed forward toward the south, overran Syria, Phoenicia, and Judaea, took Jerusalem, and carried off a portion of the inhabitants as prisoners Dan 1:1-4 : after which he proceeded southward, and had reached the borders of Egypt when he was suddenly recalled to Babylon by the death of his father.
Three years – Probably from 605 B.C. to 602 B.C. Jehoiakim rebelled because he knew Nebuchadnezzar to be engaged in important wars in some other part of Asia.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 24:1-16
In his days Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up.
Wickedness, retribution and divine control, as revealed in Nebuchadnezzars invasion of Judah
In glancing through these chapters there are two objects that press on our attention.
(1) A national crisis. The peace, the dignity, the wealth, the religious privileges of Judah are converging to a close. Israel has already been carried away by a despot to a foreign land, and now Judah is meeting its fate. All nations have their crises–they have their rise, their fall, their dissolution
(2) A terrible despot. The name of Nebuchadnezzar comes for the first time under our attention.
I. The wickedness of man. The wickedness here displayed is marked–
1. By inveteracy. It is here said of Jehoiachin, He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done. In 2Ki 24:18 the same is also said of Zedekiah, He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that Jehoiachin had done. The wickedness here displayed is marked–
2. By tyranny. At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. What right had Nebuchadnezzar to leave his own country, invade Judah, plunder it of its wealth, and bear away by violence its population? The wickedness here displayed is marked–
3. By inhumanity. And the King of Babylon . . . he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the kings house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon King of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. The wickedness here displayed is marked–
4. By profanity. He burnt the house of the Lord, etc. Thus this ruthless despot desecrated the most holy things in the city of Jerusalem and in the memory of millions.
II. The retribution of heaven. In the retribution here displayed we are reminded of two facts: That the sins of one man may bring misery on millions. Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; and also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon, All the misery here recorded comes to the people for the sins of Manasseh. Here is the hereditary principle of Divine government. Will not the following facts anyhow modify the severity of the complaint?
(1) That no man is made to suffer more than he actually deserves on account of his own personal sin.
(2) That the evils which thus descend to us from our ancestors are not to be compared with those we produce ourselves.
(3) That whilst the hereditary principle of the Divine government entails evils, it also entails good. Great as are the evils that have come down to us from posterity, great also is the good.
(4) This hereditary principle tends to restrain vice and stimulate virtue. The parent knowing, as all parents must know, the immense influence he exerts upon his offspring, and having the common natural affection, will be set more or less on his guard; he will restrain evil passions which otherwise he would allow to sport with uncontrolled power, and prosecute efforts of a virtuous tendency, which otherwise he would entirely neglect.
2. The pernicious influence of a mans sin in the world may continue after his conversion. Manasseh repented of the sins he had committed, and received the favours of his God. Notwithstanding we find men here suffering on account of the sins he had committed.
3. That retribution, though it may move slowly, yet will move surely. A hundred years had well-nigh passed away, and several generations had come and gone since Manasseh had gone to his grave. Yet avenging justice appears at last, and wreaks upon others the terrible effects of his crimes. The tardy march of retribution men have made the occasion and the reason of continued depravity, Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, etc. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXIV
Nebuchadnezzar brings Jehoiakim under subjection; who, after
three years, rebels, 1.
Bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, invade
the land, 2-4.
Jehoiakim dies, and Jehoiachin his son reigns in his stead,
5, 6.
The Babylonians overcome the Egyptians, 7.
Nebuchadnezzar takes Jehoiachin and his family, and all his
treasures, and those of the temple, and all the chief people
and artificers, and carries them to Babylon, 8-16;
and makes Mattaniah, brother of Jehoiakim, king, who reigns
wickedly, and rebels against the king of Babylon, 17-20.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXIV
Verse 1. Nebuchadnezzar] This man, so famous in the writings of the prophets, was son of Nabopolassar. He was sent by his father against the rulers of several provinces that had revolted; and he took Carchemish, and all that belonged to the Egyptians, from the Euphrates to the Nile. Jehoiakim, who was tributary to Nechoh king of Egypt, he attacked and reduced; and obliged to become tributary to Babylon. At the end of three years he revolted; and then a mixed army, of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, was sent against him, who ravaged the country, and took three thousand and twenty-three prisoners, whom they brought to Babylon, Jer 52:28.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In his days, i.e. in Jehoiakims reign, in the end of his third year, Dan 1:1, or the beginning of his fourth, Jer 25:1, Nebuchadnezzar; the son of Nabopolassar, who quite subdued the Assyrian, first his lord, and then his competitor, and made himself absolute monarch of all those parts of the world. Came up, to wit, against Jehoiakim, as the friend and confederate of Pharaoh, whose forces he had lately conquered, Jer 46:2. He turned and rebelled against him, by the instigation of the Egyptian, who threatened him if he did not rebel, and promised him his utmost assistance if he did.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1, 2. Nebuchadnezzarthe sonof Nabopolassar, the founder of the Chaldee monarchy. This invasiontook place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s, and the first ofNebuchadnezzar’s reign (Jer 25:1;compare Jer 46:2). The youngking of Assyria being probably detained at home on account of hisfather’s demise, despatched, along with the Chaldean troops on hisborder, an army composed of the tributary nations that werecontiguous to Judea, to chastise Jehoiakim’s revolt from his yoke.But this hostile band was only an instrument in executing the divinejudgment (2Ki 24:2) denouncedby the prophets against Judah for the sins of the people; and hence,though marching by the orders of the Assyrian monarch, they aredescribed as sent by the Lord (2Ki24:3).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up,…. Against Jerusalem; this was in the latter end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth of Jehoiakim’s reign, and the first of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 25:1, when Jehoiakim was taken, but restored upon promise of subjection and obedience, and hostages given, at which time Daniel and his companions were carried captive, with some of the vessels of the temple; [See comments on Da 1:1] [See comments on Da 1:2]
and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: which were the fifth, sixth, and seventh years of his reign:
then he turned and rebelled against him; being encouraged by the king of Egypt, who promised to assist him against the king of Babylon; Nebuchadnezzar is the Nabocolasser in Ptolemy’s canon; and Berosus n testifies, that seventy years before the Persian monarchy he made war against the Phoenicians and Jews, and it is from this time the seventy years’ captivity is to be dated.
n Apud Clement. Alex. Stromat. 1. p. 329.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“In his days Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babel, came up; and Jehoiakim became subject to him three years, then he revolted from him again.” , Nebuchadnezzar, or , Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 21:2, Jer 21:7; Jer 22:25, etc.), (lxx), (Beros. in Jos. c. Ap. i. 20, 21), (Strabo, xv. 1, 6), upon the Persian arrow-headed inscriptions at Bisutun Nabhukudracara (according to Oppert, composed of the name of God, Nabhu (Nebo), the Arabic kadr , power, and zar or sar , prince), and in still other forms (for the different forms of the name see M. v. Niebuhr’s Gesch. pp. 41, 42). He was the son of Nabopolassar, the founder of the Chaldaean monarchy, and reigned, according to Berosus (Jos. l.c.), Alex. Polyh. (Eusebii Chr. arm. i. pp. 44, 45), and the Canon of Ptol., forty-three years, from 605 to 562 b.c. With regard to his first campaign against Jerusalem, it is stated in 2Ch 36:6, that “against him (Jehoiakim) came up Nebuchadnezzar, and bound him with brass chains, to carry him ( ) to Babylon;” and in Dan 1:1-2, that “in the year three of the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and besieged it; and the Lord gave Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, into his hand, and a portion of the holy vessels, and he brought them (the vessels) into the land of Shinar, into the house of his god,” etc. Bertheau ( on Chr.) admits that all three passages relate to Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition against Jehoiakim and the first taking of Jerusalem by the king of Babylon, and rejects the alteration of , “to lead him to Babylon” (Chr.), into (lxx), for which Thenius decides in his prejudice in favour of the lxx. He has also correctly observed, that the chronicler intentionally selected the infinitive with , because he did not intend to speak of the actual transportation of Jehoiakim to Babylon. The words of our text, “Jehoiakim became servant ( ) to him,” i.e., subject to him, simply affirm that he became tributary, not that he was led away. And in the book of Daniel also there is nothing about the leading away of Jehoiakim to Babylon. Whilst, therefore, the three accounts agree in the main with one another, and supply one another’s deficiencies, so that we learn that Jehoiakim was taken prisoner at the capture of Jerusalem and put in chains to be led away, but that, inasmuch as he submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and vowed fidelity, he was not taken away, but left upon the throne as vassal of the king of Babylon; the statement in the book of Daniel concerning the time when this event occurred, which is neither contained in our account nor in the Chronicles, presents a difficulty when compared with Jer 25 and Jer 46:2, and different attempts, some of them very constrained, have been made to remove it. According to Jer 46:2, Nebuchadnezzar smote Necho the king of Egypt at Carchemish, on the Euphrates, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This year is not only called the first year of Nebuchadnezzar in Jer 25:1, but is represented by the prophet as the turning-point of the kingdom of Judah by the announcement that the Lord would bring His servant Nebuchadnezzar upon Judah and its inhabitants, and also upon all the nations dwelling round about, that he would devastate Judah, and that these nations would serve the king of Babylon seventy years (Jer 25:9-11). Consequently not only the defeat of Necho at Carchemish, but also the coming of Nebuchadnezzar to Judah, fell in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not in the third. To remove this discrepancy, some have proposed that the time mentioned, “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (Jer 46:2), should be understood as relating, not to the year of the battle at Carchemish, but to the time of the prophecy of Jeremiah against Egypt contained in Jer 46, and that Jer 25 should also be explained as follows, that in this chapter the prophet is not announcing the first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but is proclaiming a year after this the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastation of the whole land, or a total judgment upon Jerusalem and the rest of the nations mentioned there (M. v. Nieb. Gesch. pp. 86, 87, 371). But this explanation is founded upon the erroneous assumption, that Jer 46:3-12 does not contain a prediction of the catastrophe awaiting Egypt, but a picture of what has already taken place there; and it is only in a very forced manner that it can be brought into harmony with the contents of Jer 25.
(Note: Still less tenable is the view of Hofman, renewed by Zndel ( Krit. Unterss. b. d. Abfassungszeit des B. Daniel, p. 25), that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, and that it was not till the following, or fourth year, that he defeated the Egyptian army at Carchemish, because so long as Pharaoh Necho stood with his army by or in Carchemish, on the Euphrates, Nebuchadnezzar could not possibly attempt to pass it so as to effect a march upon Jerusalem.)
We must rather take “the year three of the reign of Jehoiakim” (Dan 1:1) as the extreme terminus a quo of Nebuchadnezzar’s coming, i.e., must understand the statement thus: that in the year referred to Nebuchadnezzar commenced the expedition against Judah, and smote Necho at Carchemish at the commencement of the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 46:2), and then, following up this victory, took Jerusalem in the same year, and made Jehoiakim tributary, and at the same time carried off to Babylon a portion of the sacred vessels, and some young men of royal blood as hostages, one of whom was Daniel (2Ch 36:7; Dan 1:2.). The fast mentioned in Jer 36:9, which took place in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, cannot be adduced in disproof of this; for extraordinary fast-days were not only appointed for the purpose of averting great threatening dangers, but also after severe calamities which had fallen upon the land or people, to expiate His wrath by humiliation before God, and to invoke the divine compassion to remove the judgment that had fallen upon them. The objection, that the godless king would hardly have thought of renewing the remembrance of a divine judgment by a day of repentance and prayer, but would rather have desired to avoid everything that could make the people despair, falls to the ground, with the erroneous assumption upon which it is founded, that by the fast-day Jehoiakim simply intended to renew the remembrance of the judgment which had burst upon Jerusalem, whereas he rather desired by outward humiliation before God to secure the help of God to enable him to throw off the Chaldaean yoke, and arouse in the people a religious enthusiasm for war against their oppressors. – Further information concerning this first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar is supplied by the account of Berosus, which Josephus ( Ant. x. 11, and c. Ap. i. 19) has preserved from the third book of his Chaldaean history, namely, that when Nabopolassar received intelligence of the revolt of the satrap whom he had placed over Egypt, Coele-Syria, and Phoenicia, because he was no longer able on account of age to bear the hardships of war, he placed a portion of his army in the hands of his youthful son Nebuchadnezzar and sent him against the satrap. Nebuchadnezzar defeated him in battle, and established his power over that country again. In the meantime Nabopolassar fell sick and died in Babylon; and as soon as the tidings reached Nebuchadnezzar, he hastened through the desert to Babylon with a small number of attendants, and directed his army to follow slowly after regulating the affairs of Egypt and the rest of the country, and to bring with it the prisoners from the Jews, Syrians, Phoenicians, and Egyptian tribes, and with the heavily-armed troops. So much, at any rate, is evident from this account, after deducting the motive assigned for the war, which is given from a Chaldaean point of view, and may be taken as a historical fact, that even before his father’s death Nebuchadnezzar had not only smitten the Egyptians, but had also conquered Judah and penetrated to the borders of Egypt. And there is no discrepancy between the statement of Berosus, that Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king, and the fact that in the biblical books he is called king proleptically, because he marched against Judah with kingly authority.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Jehoiakim Subdued by Nebuchadnezzar. | B. C. 599. |
1 In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. 2 And the LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely at the commandment of the LORD came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did; 4 And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon. 5 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? 6 So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. 7 And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.
We have here the first mention of a name which makes a great figure both in the histories and in the prophecies of the Old Testament; it is that of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (v. 1), that head of gold. He was a potent prince, and one that was the terror of the mighty in the land of the living; and yet his name would not have been known in sacred writ if he had not been employed in the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of the Jews.
I. He made Jehoiakim his tributary and kept him in subjection three years, v. 1. Nebuchadnezzar began his reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. In his eighth year he made him his prisoner, but restored him upon his promise of faithfulness to him. That promise he kept about three years, but then rebelled, probably in hopes of assistance from the king of Egypt. If Jehoiakim had served his God as he should have done, he would not have been servant to the king of Babylon; but God would thus make him know the difference between his service and the service of the kings of the countries, 2 Chron. xii. 8. If he had been content with his servitude, and true to his word, his condition would have been no worse; but, rebelling against the king of Babylon, he plunged himself into more trouble.
II. When he rebelled Nebuchadnezzar sent his forces against him to destroy his country, bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, who were all now in the service and pay of the king of Babylon (v. 2), and withal retained, and now showed, their ancient enmity to the Israel of God. Yet no mention is here made of their commission from the king of Babylon, but only of that from the King of kings: The Lord sent against him all these bands; and again (v. 3), Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, else the commandment of Nebuchadnezzar could not have brought it. Many are serving God’s purposes who are not aware of it. Two things God intended in suffering Judah to be thus harassed:– 1. The punishment of the sins of Manasseh, which God now visited upon the third and fourth generation. So long he waited before he visited them, to see if the nation would repent; but they continued impenitent, notwithstanding Josiah’s endeavours to reform them, and ready to relapse, upon the first turn, into their former idolatries. Now that the old bond was put in suit they were called up upon the former judgment; that was revived which God had laid up in store, and sealed among his treasures (Deu 32:34; Job 14:17), and in remembrance of that he removed Judah out of his sight, and let the world know that time will not wear out the guilt of sin and that reprieves are not pardons. All that Manasseh did was called to mind, but especially the innocent blood that he shed, much of which, we may suppose, was the blood of God’s witnesses and worshippers, which the Lord would not pardon. Is there then any unpardonable sin but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? This is meant of the remitting of the temporal punishment. Though Manasseh repented, and we have reason to think even the persecutions and murders he was guilty of were pardoned, so that he was delivered from the wrath to come; yet, as they were national sins, they lay still charged upon the land, crying for national judgments. Perhaps some were now living who were aiding and abetting; and the present king was guilty of innocent blood, as appears Jer. xxii. 17. See what a provoking sin murder is, how loud it cries, and how long. See what need nations have to lament the sins of their fathers, lest they smart for them. God intended hereby the accomplishment of the prophecies; it was according to the word of the Lord, which he spoke by his servants the prophets. Rather shall Judah be removed out of his sight, nay, rather shall heaven and earth pass away, than any word of God fall to the ground. Threatenings will be fulfilled as certainly as promises, if the sinner’s repentance prevent not.
III. The king of Egypt was likewise subdued by the king of Babylon, and a great part of his country taken from him, v. 7. It was but lately that he had oppressed Israel, ch. xxiii. 33. Now he is himself brought down and disabled to attempt any thing for the recovery of his losses or the assistance of his allies. He dares not come any more out of his land. Afterwards he attempted to give Zedekiah some relief, but was obliged to retire, Jer. xxxvii. 7.
IV. Jehoiakim, seeing his country laid waste and himself ready to fall into the enemy’s hand, as it should seem, died of a broken heart, in the midst of his days (v. 6). So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers; but it is not said that he was buried with them, for no doubt the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled, that he should not be lamented, as his father was, but buried with the burial of an ass (Jer 22:18; Jer 22:19), and his dead body cast out, Jer. xxxvi. 30.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 24 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 36 (Cont’d.)
Jehoiakim and Nubuchadnezzer Commentary on 2Ki 24:1-7 AND 2Ch 36:6-8
The Chronicles verses make short account of the reign of Jehoiakim, showing that he was bound and fettered by Nebuchadnezzar to carry him away to Babylon. The Kings account shows that this was
the sequel to an earlier event. The order of events seems to be that Jehoiakim paid the tribute to Egypt for a time. But as Nebuchadnezzar extends his empire he comes into conflict with Egypt, who is eventually compelled to withdraw into her own bounds. At that time Jehoiakim was forced to change his allegiance to the Babylonian king and to pay the tribute to him.
Jehoiakim sent the tribute to Nebuchadnezzar for three years, after which he rebelled. The prophecy of Jeremiah reveals much about this petty king. He appears to be a worthy descendant of wicked Ahaz, for his conduct very much resembles that earlier, infamous king of Judah. Judah was very much weakened by his sinful conduct, so that her undefended boundaries were open to marauding groups from most of the surrounding nations, Chaldees, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites. The land suffered greatly. Jehoiakim, chafing under the tribute, sought relief again through Egypt (read Jeremiah, chapters 36, and Jer 2:14-19).
Though Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim to carry him to Babylon he did not survive the journey. His manner of death is mysterious, the only reference being Jer 22:18-19, where it is foretold that he will die unlamented, outside Jerusalem, and receive the burial of a donkey. Nebuchadnezzar at this time also stripped the temple of its holy vessels and carried them to Babylon, where he placed them in his idol temple. It is these from which Belshazzar’s party wined on the night Babylon fell (Dan 5:1-4). Then he carried away the young princes, as foretold by Isaiah to Hezekiah (2Ki 20:16-19). These included Daniel and the three Hebrew children (Dan 1:1-7).
Therefore all these things were but fulfillment of the word the Lord had sent by the prophets to warn Judah for her disobedience to Him. The basis of the judgment lay in the excesses of Manasseh, as already seen. Mention is again made of the innocent blood that wicked man shed (before his conversion), wherein he slaughtered the worshippers of the Lord. After only eleven years Jehoiakim was killed, and his hope for Egyptian succour perished, for Egypt dared not venture outside her own territory. Nebuchadnezzar controlled all the territory from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, over which Pharaoh had formerly claimed sovereignty.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 24:1. In his days Nebuchadnezzar, king of BabylonNebuchadnezzars reign commenced in the fourth year of Jehoiakims. Hales (Sacred Chron.) shows that Jehoiakim was made king by Pharaoh-Necho, of Egypt, in July, B.C. 607; whereas Nebuchadnezzar mounted the throne of Babylon January 21, B.C. 604. The Chaldean cylinders place all chronology back by twenty-two years, so that these dates become B.C. 590 for Jehoiakims accession, and B.C. 586 for Nebuchadnezzars. This Nebuchadnezzar was son of Nabo-polassar, and founded the Chaldee monarchy. This invasion of Judea occurred in Jehoiakims fourth year, therefore, in Nebuchadnezzars first year.
2Ki. 24:2. Bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, &c.Not an organized army, but a congregate host from various nationalities. These, doubtless, had been compelled to own Nebuchadnezzars supremacy, and now, in attacking Judah, both gratified their own hostility against this kingdom, and fulfilled Nebuchadnezzars commands. Joining with the Chaldean troops that were left on the borders, they attacked Judah.
2Ki. 24:3. Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this upon JudahThe judgments long threatened by God through the prophets Micah, Huldah, Habakkuk, and Jeremiah, now began. These bands were but instruments of God, unconsciously working out His behests.
2Ki. 24:6. Jehoiakim slept with his fathersWe have no record of his death; certainly he was not buried in his fathers sepulchre. Jeremiah records the reverse of that (see Jer. 22:18-19). Probably he died soon after reaching Babylon, burdened with his captive chains; but it is equally probable that he was slain by Nebuchadnezzar, and his corpse cast aside unburied. Certainly he perished ignobly, and at the age of thirty-six.
2Ki. 24:8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old, &c.His reign lasted but three months and ten days. For thirty-six years he lingered a captive in Babyloni.e., through Nebuchadnezzars lifetimebut was elevated into some dignity and respect by Evil-merodach, who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar (comp. chap. 2Ki. 25:27-30; Jer. 52:31-34). With the admonitory example and warning doom of his father before him, this wilful and impious youth defied God and His prophets, and reaped disasters which overwhelmed the entire royal household and the nation.
2Ki. 24:12. Jehoiachin, king of Judah, went out to the king of BabylonThis act. describes the going out to surrender. Possibly, persuaded thereto by Jeremiah, but improbably so. It might have been a part played in the hope of gaining favour with the enemy, and retaining his throne as vassal. But Nebuchadnezzar was in no mood to show clemency now. 2Ki. 24:13-16. He carried away all Jerusalem (2Ki. 24:14)In all, about 10,000 exiles. Only the poorest of the people (2Ki. 24:15) were left. Every article of worth in palace and temple was seized. The land was thus bereft of all those inhabitants who were of value to Jerusalem or useful to Babylon. Jeremiah (Jer. 29:1) records that priests and prophets were included; and Josephus tells that Ezekiel was among the prophets who were carried away with these exiles (comp. Eze. 1:1-8). The numbers were: 2,000, consisting of the royal household, princes, state officers, priests, and prophets; 1,000 craftsmen; 7,000 warriors. 2Ki. 24:17-20. The king of Babylon made Mattanish kingAn act of grace; instead of sending a foreign viceroy. He was Josiahs third son (1Ch. 3:15), brother of Jehoahaz, and uncle of Jehoiakin. Zedekiah means the righteousness of God, and as a Hebrew name it intimates that he was allowed himself to choose the title by which to dignify his pitiably poor kingship. A false name in its descriptive import, for he was hardened and impious.W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 24:1-18
A NATION AT BAY
WITH the death of Josiah the history of the Judaic Kingdom virtually closes. The historian treats with almost contemptuous brevity the reigns of the last four kings, who were mere puppets of Egypt and Babylon. The period of the remaining twenty-three years, called by Ewald the death-agony of the nation, is occupied by successive conquests and deportations. The nation is picked at by the invading vulture, bit by bit, till it is picked clean. In the graphic simile of the prophet, the dish is at length emptied and turned upside down. This chapter portrays a nation at bay.
I. A pathetic sight when we consider the greatness of its past history. No nation under the sun had been so favoured as Israel. It was called out of obscurity and was raised into a great nation. From its cradle and throughout its career it was the special ward of heaven. Its pathway was strewn with flowers, margined with mercies, and adorned with brilliant miracles. It was allowed to reach a height of imperial greatness that commanded the honour and astonishment of the mightiest nations in its day. Its soil, its wealth, its culture, its overflowing peace and plenty were the envy of all. But now, see to what unfaithfulness and repeated disobedience has reduced it! How complete a contrast have we here between the expansive greatness and world-wide influence of Solomon, and the lustreless crown and limited resources of Jehoikim! Israel had glittered like a signet ring on the right hand of the Almighty, but it was now plucked off and cast aside (Jer. 22:24-26). And yet, in its decay, there is a touch of the old brave spirit which awakens both sympathy and respect.
II. A pathetic sight when we observe the gigantic forces against which it struggles (24: 1016). The kinglets and small dependencies that had been accustomed to look up to Judah with awe, now swarmed around her in her downfall, and took a savage delight in inflicting injury and indignity. They pecked at her like a speckled bird, and ceased not while there was a feather left. Behind and above all these was the overshadowing power of Babylon with its vast and invincible army. But the most formidable foe of all was the Friend and Patron whom they had offended beyond remedy (2Ki. 24:3; 2Ki. 24:20) Now that Jehovah is against Judah, all her struggles are in vain. And yet, with all these odds against her, Judah obstinately resists. Every one can see the inevitable but herself.
III. A pathetic sight when it is compelled at length to succumb (2Ki. 24:12). It had held out with all the tenacity of despair; to have persisted in opposition would have been fanaticismmadness. Grimly it yields to stern necessity. The sins of Manasseh (2Ki. 24:3-4), sins which the people had approved and practised, had stained too deeply the national character, and emasculated the national life. The strength of true bravery is conscious virtue. In the midst of that beleagured city was a man (Jeremiah) whose counsels, if sooner followed, would have led to a different result; and Jehoiachin, like Hezekiah, might have defied the investing forces to do their worst. Even the victor admires the brave and gallant resistance of the foe who is now his captive.
IV. A pathetic sight when the noblest of its people in rank, usefulness, and moral worth are dragged into ignominious captivity (2Ki. 24:14-16). The brain and sinew of the nation were now to be employed in the aggrandisement of a strange land. The impoverishment of Judah was the enrichment of Mesopotamiathe fall of Jerusalem meant the glorifying of Babylon. The favourites of heaven are now the servants of Nebuchadnezzar; the rulers are changed by the fortunes of war into slaves. It is difficult to describe the feelings of the captive emigrants as they took their last look of the Holy City on their march to Babylon. They were leaving behind all they loved and prized most. Jerusalem was never so dear to them as when they were compelled to leave it.
Who would not bleed with transports for his country,
Tear every tender passion from his heart
And greatly die to make a people happy!Thomson.
LESSONS:
1. A brave nation it slow to believe in its possible extinction.
2. The calamities of a nation are all the more painful when conscious they were preventible.
3. The nation that discards the Divine protectorate it absolutely defenceless.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 24:1-4. The beginning of the national catastrophe.
1. A desperate but futile attempt to recover national independence (2Ki. 24:1).
2. The harrassing inroads of combined enemies (2Ki. 24:2).
3. The forces of destruction are under the Divine sanction (2Ki. 24:3).
4. The national iniquity attains a malignity and turpitude that utterly forfeit the Divine pardon (2Ki. 24:4).
2Ki. 24:2. This passage describes the irruption of different inorganic bands of freebooters. The time of it may correspond to the time of that Scythian domination of which Herodotus speaks. In such an anarchy, waifs and relics of the different nations, which had been extinguished by the Assyrian Empire, would be gathered together. What the Greek historian describes under one vague general name, would present itself to each particular land as a collection of different neighbouring tribes, one more conspicuous and civilized than the rest as its leader. Nebuchadnezzar now presents himself to us as the head and representative of the Chaldan race, as the organiser of these loose bands into a new empire, as the conqueror of Egypt, as the Babylonian ruler of his day.Maurice.
2Ki. 24:3. The judgment came not merely for the actual sins of that one idolatrous king, but, as the whole course of the history shows, because the nation persisted in a class of sins of which those of Manasseh were most conspicuous representatives.Whedon.
2Ki. 24:6. A mystery hangs over his death, befitting the gloom and mystery of the times; one account speaking of him as having fallen in a skirmish with a band of raiders, or in a battle with Nebuchadnezzar, and being left un buried; another as having been murdered in Jerusalem, and cast out on the streets; a third, as having been enticed to Nebuchadnezzars camp, and there put to death, and left without burial. But, whatever the mode of his death, so bitterly was he hated that no funeral dirge was raised for him, though he was the son of Josiah, and his corpse was left thrown out, like that of a dead ass, on the waste land outside the gates of Jerusalem, in the sun by day, and the frost by night. Ultimately, indeed, if we may trust the Septuagint, his dishonoured body was rescued from this last shame, and interied alongside Josiah and Manasseh, in their tomb in the garden of Uzzah, which was connected, apparently, with the royal stronghold on Aphel. But men whispered that on the dried skin of the corpse, as it lay naked before all, the name of the demon, Codonazer, to whom he had sold himself, appeared stamped in clear Hebrew letters.Geikie.
2Ki. 24:7. The fall of a nation.
1. A part of the Divine plan in the government of the world.
2. Removes a prop on which a weaker nation had been accustomed to lean.
3. Prepares the way for the desolating march of Divine vengeance.
The judgment upon Judea was really a judgment upon all nations. Egypt, the land of the Philistines, the kings of Tyrus, the kings of Sidon, the kings of Arabia, the kings of the mingled people that dwelt in the desert, were all forced to drink of a wine cup of fury which had been mingled for them. It was a time of far-reaching destruction and desolation. The great conqueror, the destroyer of boundaries, had gone forth; God had given the inhabitants of earth into his hands for a certain season; no strength or policy would avert or delay the sentence.Maurice.
Easy won, easy lost. This has always been the fortune of conquerors; what one has won by robbery and force, another mightier takes from him. The Lord in heaven makes the great small, and the rich poor (1Sa. 2:7; Psa. 75:7).
2Ki. 24:8-17. A crown lost.
1. By a stubborn persistence in sin (2Ki. 24:9).
2. In sheer inability to resist overwhelming numbers (2Ki. 24:10-12).
3. Involves all its former supporters in degradation and servitude (2Ki. 24:14-16).
4. Is followed by the total impoverishment of a nation (2Ki. 24:13.)
2Ki. 24:8. Though his reign at Jerusalem was so short and unfortunate, he was looked upon by the exiles as the last lawful successor to the throne of David; and notwithstanding the appointment of Zedekiah, Jehoiachin remained the representative king of Judah, and in the preservation of his life through thirty-seven years of imprisonment, and his elevation to kingly honours in the court of Babylon, the theocratic historian discerned the purpose of Jehovah to perpetuate the throne of David.Whedon.
2Ki. 24:12. The incident was never forgotten. Writing after the last fall of Jerusalem, Josephus tells as that as long as the city stood the anniversary of an event so touching was commemorated in the services of the temple as a signal instance of self-sacrifice for the public good. Jehoiachin had gone, with his family, men said, into voluntary captivity, to save the temple from being destroyed, and we may, also, readily believe, to save the city and its inhabitants.Geikie.
2Ki. 24:14-16. Liberty lost.
1. When the king is dethroned and captive.
2. When its brave defenders are vanquished and demoralised.
3. When the Fatherland is in the pitiless grasp of a victorious foe.
The shock of such a calamity was terrible. Nearly a hundred-and-fifty years had passed since the glades beyond the Jordan had resounded with the lamentations of the captives of Gilead, dragged away to Assyria by Tiglath Pileser, and it was over a hundred-and-twenty years since Sargon had marched back to Nineveh, leading the people of the Western half of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes into exile. Assyria had fallen within the last few years, and now itself lay in ruins as desolate as those of the Hebrew cities it had turned into solitudes. But another power had risen as fierce and ruthless, and Judah, the last hope of the chosen people, saw its king and its leading citizens swept off in chains to the Euphrates.Geikie.
Notice Gods mercy and long-suffering even in His judgments. He still allows the kingdom to stand, and turns the heart of the enemy so that he does not yet make an utter end of it (Eze. 18:23; Eze. 18:32).
2Ki. 24:18-20. The infatuation of rebellion.
1. Notwithstanding the hopelessness of success.
2. An evidence of the blinding nature of incorrigible sin.
3. Invites and hastens the approach of Divine vengeance.
The reign of Zedekiah presents us with the most vivid picture of a king and people sinking deeper and deeper into an abyss, ever and anon making wild and frantic efforts to rise out of it, imputing their evil to every one but themselvestheir struggles for a nominal freedom always proving them to be both slaves and tyrants at heart.Maurice.
2Ki. 24:20. It is characteristic of the high standard of prophetic morality that the violation of this oath, though made to a heathen sovereign, was regarded as the crowning vice of the weak king of Judah.Stanley.
In the course of Gods righteous Providence, his policy as king would prove ruinous to his country. Instigated by ambassadors from the neighbouring states who came to congratulate him on his accession to the throne (Jer. 17:3, with Jer. 28:1), and at the same time get him to join them in a common league to throw off the Assyrian yoke, Zedekiah rebelled. Though warned by Jeremiah against this step, the infatuated and perjured Zedekiah (Eze. 17:13) persisted in his revolt by forming an alliance with Egypt.Jamieson.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
III. THE REIGN AND REBELLION OF JEHOIAKIM 23:36-24:7
TRANSLATION
(36) Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was Zebudah the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. (37) And he did evil in the eyes of the LORD according to all which his fathers had done. (1) In his days, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his vassal three years; then he turned away and rebelled against him. (2) And the LORD sent against him bands of Chaldeans and bands of Arameans and bands of Moabites and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it according to the word of the LORD which He spoke by the hand of His servants the prophets. (3) Surely on account of the word of the LORD it came on Judah to remove them from before His face for the sins of Manasseh, according to all he had done. (4) And also for the blood of the innocent which he shed when he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; and the LORD would not pardon this. (5) Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim and all which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (6) And Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son ruled in his place. (7) And the king of Egypt did not again go out from his land because the king of Babylon had taken the land from the brook of Egypt to the river Euphrates, all which had belonged to the king of Egypt.
Seventeenth King of Judah
JEHOIAKIM BENJOSIAH
609597 B.C.
(Yabweb will set up)
Contemporary Prophets
Jeremiah; Uriah; Daniel
Mother: Zebudah
Appraisal: Bad
He will be buried with a donkey’s burial, dragged off and thrown out beyond the gates of Jerusalem. Jer. 22:19
COMMENTS
Since Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, he was therefore older than his deposed half-brother.[667] He reigned eleven years over Judah, from 609597 B.C.(2Ki. 23:36) Under Jehoiakim, all the idolatrous practices of the Manasseh era were reintroduced (2Ki. 23:37). In spite of the national poverty, this petty little king spent huge sums of money on himself. In one of Jeremiahs blistering sermons he condemned Jehoiakim for building for himself a fancy new palace (Jer. 22:13-14). Jehoiakim was the villain of the closing years of Judahs history. He was everything that is despicable in a national leader. He was a spendthrift, a bigot, an arrogant and irreverent tyrant who brooked no criticism, not even when that criticism came from a man of God. A prophet named Uriah was too bold in his denunciation of the king, and paid for his boldness with his life (Jer. 26:21). Jeremiah was in danger on more than one occasion during the reign of this king.
[667] The mother of Jehoahaz was Hamutal (2Ki. 23:31); the mother of Jehoiakim was Zebudah (2Ki. 23:36). Rumah, the hometown of Zebudah, was in the vicinity of Shechem.
Jehoiakim carefully watched the political developments on the Euphrates River to the north. From July 609 to June 605 B.C. the armies of the Babylonians and the Assyro-Egyptian coalition sparred. For the most part during those years the Babylonians were on the defensive. Finally, the Babylonian army under the brilliant young crown prince Nebuchadnezzar was able to launch a mighty offensive which was to have worldwide significance. The focus of the attack was the fortress of Carchemish on the Euphrates. Nebuchadnezzar won a crushing victory. The tattered Egyptian armies fled southward from Carchemish in disarray. Nebuchadnezzar was able to roam at will through Syria-Palestine, the Hatti-land as he calls it in his annals.
Shortly after Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar went up and besieged Jerusalem. According to one system of counting regnal years, this siege fell in the third year of King Jehoiakim (Dan. 1:1-3).[668] It is not entirely clear whether or not Jehoiakim actually swore allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar at this time. It may be that Jehoiakim merely tried to bribe the Chaldean prince by sending to him some of the valuable Temple vessels and some prize youth of the land, viz., Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego.
[668] Using a different system, Jer. 46:2 dates the battle of Carchemish to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. For a discussion of the two dating systems, see Thiele, MNHK, p. 162ff.
Nebuchadnezzars campaign in the Hatti-land was cut short by the death of his father, King Nabopolassar, on August 16, 605 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar hastened immediately back to Babylon where he was crowned on September 6, 605 B.C. Upon assuming the throne, Nebuchadnezzar returned to the Hatti-land (Syria-Palestine) to continue his conquests. The Babylonian records do not indicate precisely what cities he conquered at this time. A third campaign to the Hatti-land took place in the late spring and early summer of 604 B.C. Nebuchadnezzars official scribe declares that on this occasion all the kings of the Hatti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute.[669] It was probably at this time that Nebuchadnezzar bound King Jehoiakim to take him to Babylon (2Ch. 36:6). No evidence exists that Jehoiakim was actually taken to Babylon, and so one must conclude that for some reason Nebuchadnezzar changed his mind about the matter. Perhaps Jehoiakim took a solemn and sacred oath of allegiance to the Great King, and so Nebuchadnezzar decided to leave him on the throne of Jerusalem as his vassal.[670]
[669] DOTT, p. 79.
[670] It cannot be known for certain on which of the three campaigns of 605604 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem and bound Jehoiakim. However in both Chronicles and Kings he is called king at the time he came against Jerusalem. This would suggest that he had already been crowned king and would thus eliminate the first campaign to the Hatti-land when he was only crown-prince.
Jehoiakim had no intention of remaining permanently the vassal of Nebuchadnezzar. He did serve the Babylonian for three years.[671] But since Pharaoh Necho was regaining strength down in Egypt, Jehoiakim was encouraged to rebel against his overlord. In 601 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar brought his armies down the coastal plain of Palestine apparently intent on invading Egypt and destroying Necho once and for all. However, it appears from a Babylonian text that Nebuchadnezzar met with a stinging defeat on the borders of Egypt.[672] This meant that for the last years of his reign Jehoiakim was an independent ruler.
[671] It is not certain at exactly what time Jehoiakim took his vassal oath to Nebuchadnezzar. What little evidence there is points to the summer of 604 B.C. Gray (OTL, pp. 756f.), however, thinks Jehoiakim was left independent from 604601 B.C. Only in 601 B.C. when Jehoiakim showed signs of sympathy with Necho did Nebuchadnezzar impose tribute on him. Thus in Grays view, the three years of vassalage were 601599 B.C. In the opinion of the present writer, 604601 B.C. is more likely.
[672] See ANET, p. 564.
That Nebuchadnezzar had received a rather severe blow in his battle with the Egyptians in 601 B.C. is indicated by the fact that for some eighteen months he was unable to personally attend to his rebellious vassal in Jerusalem. In the meanwhile, he sent bands of Edomites, Moabites and Ammonites and local contingents of Chaldean soldiers to harass the Judaeans. Though these small units were probably unable to do much damage to the fortified cities of Judah, they did force the rural people to seek refuge in Jerusalem (Jer. 35:11). By authorizing these raids of reprisal, Nebuchadnezzar was unconsciously beginning to fulfill the threats which the Lord had made against Judah through his great prophets. In reality it was the Lord through His permissive will who sent these raiders against Judah (2Ki. 23:2).
The final destruction of Judah had been decreed by the mouth of the Lord. Judah was to be removed from His sightcarried off to a foreign landbecause of the sins of Manasseh (2Ki. 23:3). This should not be interpreted to mean that the nation was being punished for the sins of a man long since dead. Rather the meaning is that the class of sins introduced by Manasseh still persisted in the nation. The sins of Manasseh included: (1) idolatry, accompanied by licentious rites; (2) child sacrifice to Moloch; (3) sodomy; (4) occult practices; and (5) the shedding of innocent blood. This shedding of innocent blood would include child sacrifice, but would also embrace the persecution of righteous saints. This kind of bloodshed continued under Jehoiakim. Reference has already been made to the execution of Uriah the prophet (Jer. 26:23). The blood of innocent saints cried out to God for vengeance. God could no longer overlook or pardon those crimes (2Ki. 23:4).
The author of Kings closes out his brief treatment of the reign of Jehoiakim by referring his readers to the prophetic chronicles of his reign (2Ki. 23:5). The Book of Jeremiah relates several other facts about Jehoiakim: (1) that he executed Uriah the prophet (Jer. 26:23); (2) that he destroyed the scroll of Jeremiahs sermons (Jer. 36:20-23); and (3) that he ordered Jeremiah and Baruch to be arrested (Jer. 36:26).
Jehoiakim died on December 9, 598 B.C. The circumstances of his death are not entirely clear. Jeremiah had predicted that he would be buried with the burial of a donkey. His death, said the prophet, would be unlamented (Jer. 22:18-19). These words suggest that Jehoiakim was assassinated, or at least that his body was dishonored after death by his own countrymen. It is also possible that when the Chaldeans arrived in force at Jerusalem to punish the rebellious city they disinterred the corpse and exposed it to the indignities here described.
Whether by violence or natural death, Jehoiakim was dead when the Chaldeans arrived. His young son Jehoiachin[673] was left to face the wrath of the mighty Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki. 23:6). No further aid from Egypt was forthcoming. Even though Necho had successfully defended his land in the face of the Babylonian campaign of 601 B.C., the Egyptians did not have sufficient power to challenge Nebuchadnezzars hegemony over Syria-Palestine. All the territories between the River of Egypt and the Euphrates to which Pharaoh had laid claim after his campaign of 609 B.C. the Babylonians now controlled (2Ki. 23:7).
[673] Jehoiachin has two other names: Jeconiah (1Ch. 3:16-17; Jer. 27:20 etc.) and Coniah (Jer. 22:24; Jer. 22:28 etc.). The two longer forms both mean Yahweh will establish; the shorter form means Yahweh establishes.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXIV.
(1) In his days.In his fifth or sixth year. In Jehoiakims fourth year Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish (Jer. 46:2), and was suddenly called home by the news of the death of Nabopolassar his father, whom he succeeded on the throne of Babylon in the same year (Jer. 25:1). From Jer. 36:9 we learn that towards the end of Jehoiakims fifth year the king of Babylon was expected to invade the land. When this took place, Nebuchadnezzar humbled Jehoiakim, who had probably made his submission, by putting him in chains, and carrying off some of the Temple treasures (2Ch. 36:6-7). Left in the possession of his throne as a vassal of Babylon, Jehoiakim paid tribute three years, and then tried to throw off the yoke.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon For more than half a century after Merodach-baladan, who was contemporary with Hezekiah, and whom Sennacherib defeated and deposed, (see note on 2Ki 20:12,) Babylonia continued to be an Assyrian fief. But some time during the reign of Josiah, Nabopolassar, the viceroy, revolted from Assyria, and formed an alliance with Cyaxares, the great Median monarch, whom he also assisted in the capture and destruction of Nineveh. By mutual agreement between the two confederates the whole valley of the Euphrates, together with Syria and Palestine, fell to Nabopolassar. He was succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar, (written also Nebuchadrezzar,) whom Rawlinson represents as “the great monarch of the Babylonian empire, which, lasting only eighty-eight years, was for nearly half that time under his sway. Its military glory is due chiefly to him; while the constructive energy, which constitutes its especial characteristic, belongs to it still more markedly through his character and genius. It is scarcely too much to say that, but for Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians would have had no place in history. At any rate, their actual place is owing almost entirely to this prince, who to the military talents of an able general added a grandeur of artistic conception, and a skill in construction, which place him on a par with the greatest builders of antiquity.”
There is a difficulty in the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s first invasion of Palestine. According to Dan 1:1, it occurred in the third year of Jehoiakim; but, according to Jer 25:1, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar synchronized with the fourth of Jehoiakim, and according to Jer 46:2, the defeat of Pharaoh-necho at Carchemish occurred in the same year. We learn, also, from a fragment of Berosus, (in Josephus 2Ki 10:11 ; 2Ki 10:1,) that Nabopolassar, being himself too infirm to go to war, put his son Nebuchadnezzar in command of his army, and that the latter reduced the western provinces, which had been for some years subject to Egypt, and made them subject to Babylon before the death of his father. All this is, perhaps, best explained as follows: The Jewish writers, who knew nothing personally of Nabopolassar, would naturally consider and call Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and date his reign from the time he took command of the Babylonian army. Nebuchadnezzar probably started on his western campaign in the latter part of the third year of Jehoiakim, (Dan 1:1,) and so his first year would synchronize with the greater part of the fourth of Jehoiakim. Jer 25:1. It is possible, as some suppose, that he besieged Jerusalem, and received Jehoiakim’s submission, before the battle of Carchemish, (Jer 46:2😉 but this is hardly probable, since the Egyptian garrison at Carchemish would naturally have stood in his way, and would have first engaged his attention. Therefore it would seem that the date mentioned in Dan 1:1 is either an error, or else to be understood as the time that Nebuchadnezzar began his expedition against Jerusalem.
Jehoiakim became his servant According to 2Ch 36:6, Nebuchadnezzar “bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon.” But it is not said that he carried him to Babylon. Probably that was his intention when he bound him; but upon his submission and pledges of fidelity to his conqueror, the latter contented himself with taking off the vessels of the temple, and a number of captives, among whom were Daniel and his three distinguished companions, (Dan 1:1-7,) while Jehoiakim was left on the throne at Jerusalem as a vassal king. At the end of three years he revolted, but the king of Babylon was at that time too busy in the eastern part of his empire to attend in person to this rebellion, and did not proceed against Jerusalem until after the death of Jehoiakim.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Last Days Of Judah ( 2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:26 ).
As Huldah had forewarned the death of Josiah signalled the beginning of the end for Judah, and in fact within twenty five years of his death (in 609 BC) Jerusalem would be no more. Jehoahaz (nee Shallum), who succeeded him, only lasted three months before the inevitable Egyptian punitive invasion consequent on Josiah’s precipitate action resulted in his being taken into exile in Egypt, to be replaced by his brother Eliakim, who was renamed Jehoiakim as a sign that he was Pharaoh’s vassal. And yet even within that three month period it is apparent that Josiah’s reforms had begun to collapse without Jehoahaz even lifting a hand to prevent it. The violent death of Josiah was seemingly seen as a signal to the Baalists that they could return to their old ways. Indeed Jehoahaz apparently approved of the moves, for the verdict delivered against him was that he had done evil in the eyes of YHWH. The truth was that the reforms had been mainly external, and had not really changed the hearts of the people, who could not wait to backslide.
For a few years Jehoiakim ruled as a vassal of Egypt, who now for a while controlled the land south of the Euphrates, but Egypt’s control over this area was not to last for long, and it was eventually lost to the new rising power of Babylon under first Nabopolassar, and then his son Nebuchadnezzar. The result of Nebuchadnezzar’s advance was that Jerusalem was invested and taken, and a number of important people, including Daniel and his three friends, transported to Babylon ‘in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah’ (Dan 1:1). Jehoiakim himself became a vassal of Babylon (2Ki 24:3), whilst Egypt retreated behind its own borders, and remained there unable to do anything about it (2Ki 24:7). It may have been at this stage that Jehoiakim was bound in fetters to be carried off to Babylon (2Ch 36:6), before finally being restored to his throne.
Unfortunately, like his brother, Jehoiakim also ‘did evil in the sight of YHWH’, and whilst this might partly have been forced on him by Nebuchadnezzar, as he insisted on the gods of Babylon being introduced into the Temple, it was clearly seen as going beyond that. In line with what we have seen previously it indicated that he allowed the syncretistic and false high places to flourish again. Jeremiah tells us that Jehoiakim also ‘shed innocent blood’ like Manasseh (2Ki 24:4), thereby demonstrating his total disregard for the Law of YHWH. This included the blood of Uriah the prophet (Jer 26:23). The Chronicler further speaks of ‘his abominations which he did’ (2Ch 36:8), a description which demonstrates his full participation in idolatry. Thus he fully earned the description which was applied to him. All Josiah’s efforts were proving to have been in vain. Again we see that idolatry had not been removed out of the hearts of the people.
The failure of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt in 601 BC, which resulted in heavy losses for both sides, meant that he had to retire back to Babylon to lick his wounds, and it was probably this that encouraged Jehoiakim to rebel, relying on Egypt for support. But Nebuchadnezzar’s reverse would only be temporary, and when he returned with his armies in greater force and besieged Jerusalem (see Jer 25:1-12) Jehoiakim was seemingly only saved from humiliation by his death, which may well have been at the hands of assassins who were seeking to appease Nebuchadnezzar. He was replaced by his eighteen year old son Jehoiachin who almost immediately surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar and was carried away to Babylon, along with many prominent people (including Ezekiel), being replaced by his uncle Mattaniah, who was given the throne name of Zedekiah. Jehoiachin was, however still seen as king, even though absent, with Zedekiah merely acting as his regent. Under such circumstances it would have required a much more charismatic man than Zedekiah to hold Judah together. But Judah was in ferment and Zedekiah was unequal to the task, and lacking in his response towards YHWH.
The destruction of Assyria had brought great relief to the world and been hailed by all as the end of an era, and Judah still could not reconcile itself to the idea that Babylon had taken over Assyria’s mantle. Who did Babylon think they were? Zedekiah therefore ruled over a people in constant ferment who felt that Babylon’s yoke could be overthrown, and he was encouraged in this by ‘false prophets’. This comes out very strongly in the prophecy of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah is seen as standing almost alone in warning that Babylon must not be opposed (Jer 27:12 onwards). The final consequence was that Zedekiah foolishly rebelled, and the consequence was that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and took it, and later destroyed its walls and burned it to the ground, carrying the cream of the people away to Babylon. Jerusalem was no more. All that remained of Judah was a devastated country, devoid of its most prominent people, and ruled over from Mizpah by a governor, Gedaliah (2Ki 25:22-23).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Reign Of Jehoiakim, King of Judah – 609-597 BC ( 2Ki 23:36 to 2Ki 24:6 ).
Nothing good is said about Jehoiakim in either Kings or Chronicles, whilst Jeremiah portrays him as an oppressive and covetous ruler (Jer 22:17) who presided over a period of religious decay during which the syncretistic high places were restored (e.g. Jer 25:5-7; Jer 26:5-6; Jer 35:14-15). He also introduced hideous Egyptian rites and filled the land with violence (Eze 8:5-17; compare Jer 22:17), capping it by murdering Uriah the prophet for opposing him (Jer 26:20-23). Unlike his father, who had ruled justly and wisely, his thoughts were only for himself, and he built himself a palace without adequately paying his workforce (Jer 22:13-16), thinking to aggrandise himself, but only thereby revealing his folly and that he had little regard for others. But none of this is described here in Kings in detail. Rather it is brought out by the prophetic author in his usual indirect way by referring to the fact that he ‘did evil in the eyes of YHWH’ (always an indication of a restoration of idolatry) and then describing the judgments that came on him as a result of YHWH’s hand at work. This was then followed by bringing out that this was because he was following in the footsteps of Manasseh. But he was not to be seen as being alone in being judged, for YHWH’s judgment was to fall on Judah as a whole, in fulfilment of the words of the prophets which portrayed the depths of sin into which they had fallen (2Ki 24:2). This time they had gone too far. Manasseh had not been alone in his sinfulness. His people had shared in his sin with him. And that was why YHWH would not pardon, and why they would therefore share in the consequent judgment.
We note especially that the author avoids mentioning the arrival of the main Babylonian army to besiege Jerusalem because he wants us to see that the build up of YHWH’s judgment is occurring stage by stage (2Ki 24:2). But he makes crystal clear that the end of it will be the destruction of Judah, because YHWH’s hand is against them, and that meanwhile there is no help to be had from Egypt. Judah will be left isolated, to stand, and fall, alone. It is in fact only when we get to the reign of his son Jehoiachin that we learn that calamity is awaiting Jerusalem, and had already been threatening in the final days of Jehoiakim.
Analysis.
a
b And he did what as evil in the sight of YHWH, according to all that his fathers had done (2Ki 23:37).
c In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years. Then he turned and rebelled against him (2Ki 24:1).
d And YHWH sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Aramaeans, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of YHWH, which he spoke by his servants the prophets (2Ki 24:2).
c Surely at the commandment of YHWH this came on Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did, and also for the innocent blood that he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and YHWH would not pardon (2Ki 24:3-4).
b Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2Ki 24:5).
a So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and Jehoiachin his son reigned instead of him. And the king of Egypt did not come again any more out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken, from the brook of Egypt to the river Euphrates, all that pertained to the king of Egypt (2Ki 24:6-7).
Note that in ‘a’ Jehoiakim began his reign and in the parallel his reign ended. In ‘b’ he did (religiously) what was evil in the sight of YHWH and in the parallel the remainder of what he did can be found in the official annals of the kings of Judah. In ‘c’ Nebuchadnezzar came on the scene (Jeremiah tells us that he came as the servant of YHWH) and in the parallel it was because YHWH had planned to remove Judah out of His sight because of the sins of Manasseh, which were being repeated by both Jehoiakim and Judah. Centrally in ‘d’ YHWH has Himself sent destroyers against Judah in accordance with His own word which He had spoken by the prophets. The word of YHWH has gone out against Judah and will not be called back.
2Ki 23:36
‘Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Zebidah the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah.’
Jehoiakim, who was a year or two older than his half-brother Jehoahaz, began to reign when he was twenty five years old, and reigned for eleven years. The queen mother, Zebidah, came from Rumah. If this was Khirbet al-Rumah, thirty five kilometres (twenty one miles) inland from Mount Carmel, it may indicate how far Josiah had extended his rule, the marriage being in order to establish his hold in the area. It would be a reign full of turmoil because of his sinfulness.
2Ki 23:37
‘And he did what as evil in the sight of YHWH, according to all that his fathers had done.’
Jehoiakim continued to allow, and even approved of, the outbreak of Baalism that had begun during the short reign of Jehoahaz, on the death of Josiah. Once again the syncretistic high places for the worship of both Baal and YHWH were being re-established (turning YHWH into simply another nature God. See e.g. Eze 6:3-4; Eze 6:13; Eze 16:16-39), and altars to Baal and Asherah and even probably to the Sun, were being introduced into the Temple (see Eze 8:16).
2Ki 24:1
‘In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years.
The arrival of Nebuchadnezzar (Nabu-kudurri-usur) of Babylon in 605/4 BC put an end to Egyptian supremacy, with the result that, on Egypt’s withdrawal behind its borders, Jehoiakim had to submit to him as his vassal. This took place in the third year of his reign (Dan 1:1), when Jerusalem was invested and prominent men were taken as hostages to Babylon, including among them Daniel and his three compatriots. It may have been at this time that Jehoiakim was himself taken in chains to Babylon (2Ch 36:6) where he would be forced to make an oath of allegiance. We can compare how similar ignominious treatment, followed by restoration, had been meted out to Manasseh without being mentioned by the author, whilst a similar thing had happened to Pharaoh Tirhakah under Assyrian rule.
This arrival of Nebuchadn(r)ezzar in force, followed subsequently by two further raids, is described in the Babylonian Chronicle as follows:
“In the twenty first year the king of Babylon (Nabopolassar) stayed in his own country while the crown-prince Nebuchadrezzar, his eldest son, took personal command of his troops and marched to Carchemish which lay on the bank of the River Euphrates. He crossed the river against the Egyptian army — they fought with each other and the Egyptian army retreated before him. He defeated them, annihilating them. As for the remains of the Egyptian army which had escaped from the defeat so that no weapon touched them, the Babylonian army overtook and defeated them in the district of Hamath, so that not a single man got away to his own country. At that time Nebuchadrezzar captured the whole land of Hatti (which included Aram, Samaria and Judah). — In his accession year Nebuchadrezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and marched victoriously through it until the month of Sebat. In the month of Sebat he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-land back to Babylon. — In the first year of Nebuchadrezzar (the year after the accession year) he mustered his army in the month of Sivan and went to the Hatti-land. He marched about victoriously in the Hatti-land until the month of Kislev. All the kings of the Hatti-land (including Damascus, Tyre and Sidon, and Judah) came before him and he received their heavy tribute. He marched to the city of Ashkelon and captured it in the month of Kislev.”
2Ki 24:1
‘Then he turned and rebelled against him.’
Nebuchadnezzar’s attempt to invade Egypt three of four years after his succession (i.e. in c 601 BC) resulted in a set back for his army and he had to return to Babylon to recoup. This may well have been what caused Jehoiakim to rebel, probably with promises of support from Egypt. To him things were beginning to look promising.
2Ki 24:2
‘And YHWH sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Aramaeans, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of YHWH, which he spoke by his servants the prophets.’
Being in no position to return immediately to Judah himself, Nebuchadrezzar nevertheless arranged for Judah to be attacked by marauders (who would be tributaries of Babylon) from all sides. The Chaldeans (Babylonians) were possibly occupying troops stationed in Aram and were effective enough to make people take refuge in Jerusalem (see Jer 35:11). They were supported by bands of Aramaeans. The Moabites and Ammonites would harry the land east of Jordan, and possibly also cross the Jordan looking for spoils as they had done in the days of the Judges (Judges 3).
But in the eyes of the author the main cause for this activity was not Nebuchadnezzar, but the word of YHWH (after all, unknown to Nebuchadnezzar, he was YHWH’s servant – Jer 25:9). Thus in the author’s view it was primarily because of Judah’s sins that these attacks were being carried out, in accordance with the words of YHWH’s servants the prophets. History was being seen as subject to His will.
2Ki 24:3-4
‘Surely at the commandment of YHWH this came on Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did, and also for the innocent blood that he shed, for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and YHWH would not pardon.’
The author then again stressed that all that was happening was ‘at the commandment of YHWH’. And this was because He had determined to remove Judah out of His sight as He had warned as long ago as Lev 18:28. He was sick of them. And this situation had come about because of the sins of Manasseh and what he had done, and because of the innocent blood which he had shed, and the fact that he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood. It had been so bad that it was something that YHWH could not overlook because, although the reign of Josiah had at first altered the picture, Judah had turned back to the same behaviour as before, something evidenced by the slaying of Uriah the prophet by Jehoiakim (Jer 26:20-23). Josiah’s death had resulted in YHWH’s covenant being openly slighted on a continual basis and it revealed Judah’s permanent hardness of heart, something which even Josiah had been unable to remedy. That was why Judah was doomed. Compare Deu 29:20.
2Ki 24:5
‘Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?’
As usual the author was not interested in political activities which were not relevant to his case and in respect of them refers his readers to the official annals of the kings of Judah (for the last time).
2Ki 24:6
‘So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and Jehoiachin his son reigned instead of him.’
The closing formula is also used for the last time, for the author is now moving into a description of ‘current affairs’ concerning which he was fully informed. It is significant that we are not told how or where Jehoiakim was buried, leaving us to infer that there was something unusual about it, and indeed his end as a whole is shrouded in mystery. Jer 22:18-19 tells us that he would be buried ‘with the burial of an ass’ and that his body would be thrown unmourned outside Jerusalem. (Josephus tells us that he sought to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar, but was put to death and his body tossed ignominiously outside the walls of Jerusalem, although that may simply be an inference from the words of Jeremiah). However, 2Ch 36:6 ff. tells us that he was bound in fetters in order to be carried off to Babylon, although it is not said that that actually happened. Perhaps he died while in custody outside the walls of Jerusalem and never actually commenced the journey to Babylon. Dan 1:1-2 is also equally ambiguous.
2Ki 24:7
‘And the king of Egypt did not come again any more out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken, from the brook of Egypt to the river Euphrates, all that pertained to the king of Egypt.’
In typical fashion the author added to the closing formula an appropriate comment concerning events. Compare 2Ki 15:12; 2Ki 15:16; 2Ki 15:37 ; 1Ki 15:23; 1Ki 15:32. In this case it was a summary as to the situation with regard to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar’s control of the land south of the Euphrates, down almost to the borders of Egypt (to the Wadi of Egypt, just north of the border), had become such that the king of Egypt did not venture beyond his borders. All that he had previously gained had been lost and any assistance that he may have promised to Judah would thus come to nothing. He was no match for the forces of Nebuchadnezzar.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 24:2 Comments – This era in history was a period of international turmoil, with Babylon and Egypt and Assyria struggling for world power. As a result, many regions of the Near East became unstable because of a loss of control in these areas. This produced roving bands of rebels that found opportunities to exploit its weaker neighbours and bring tremendous fear upon the land. God used these disorganized bands of men to punish His people Israel.
2Ki 24:8-17 The Reign of Jehoiachin Over Judah (598-597 B.C.) 2Ki 24:8-17 records the account of the reign of Jehoiachin over Judah.
2Ki 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2Ki 24:8
1Ch 3:16, “And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.”
Jer 22:24, “As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;”
Comments – We are told in 2Ch 36:9 that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, while 2Ki 24:8 says he was eighteen at this time.
2Ch 36:9, “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.”
Note the Hebrew ( ) son of eighteen years.
Note the Hebrew ( ) son of eight years.
There are several ideas that scholars use to justify this difference in age.
1. Jehoiachin Co-Reigned with His Father – It is possible that Jehoiachin began to co-reign with his father at the tender age of eight, and that he took full leadership at the age of eighteen. However, this is only speculation.
2. Jehoiachin’s Reign Began in the Eighth Year of Babylonian Captivity John Gill refers to John Lightfoot, who suggests that he was eighteen years old when he began to reign, which was the eighth year of the Babylonian captivity based on 2Ki 24:12. [73] However, this is also speculation.
[73] John Gill, 2 Kings, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on 2 Kings 24:8.
2Ki 24:12, “And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign .”
3. A Copyist Error – Many scholars believe that this is a copyist error, this idea being supported by the fact that the ancient Syriac and Arabic versions correct both texts to read “eighteen.”
It is not probable that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign. This is because an eight-year old child would not be considered as doing “that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” (2Ki 24:9), and also because he would not have had wives at this early age, as the Scriptures declare in 2Ki 24:15.
2Ki 24:15, “And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives , and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.”
2Ki 24:8 “and he reigned in Jerusalem three months” Comments – We see in 2Ch 36:9 that he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days.
2Ch 36:9, “Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem : and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.”
Scholars believe that the author of 2 Kings was simply rounding off this figure.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Reign of Jehoiakim
v. 1. In his days, v. 2. And the Lord sent against him, v. 3. Surely at the commandment of the Lord, v. 4. and also for the innocent blood that he shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, which the Lord would not pardon, v. 5. Now, the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? v. 6. So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, v. 7. And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
THIRD SECTION
The Monarchy From The Reign Of Jehoahaz To That Of Zedekiah
(2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:30)
A.The Reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah
2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:7
31Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 32And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that his fathers had done. 33And Pharaohnechoh put him in bands [took him captive] at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign1 in Jerusalem; and put the land to [laid upon the land] a tribute of a hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. 34And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there: 35And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every [each] one according to his taxation [assessment], to give it unto Pharaohnechoh.
36Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. 37And he did that which was evil in the sight of 2Ki 24:1 the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. 2And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy [devastate] it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by 3his servants the prophets. Surely [Only] at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to [in]2 all that he did; 4And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon. 5Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they 6not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. 7And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.
8Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that his father had done. 10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came3 up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his 13[the king of Babylons] reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the kings house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. 14And he carried away [captive] all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 15And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the kings mother, and the kings wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. 17And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his fathers brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.
18Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 19And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that Jehoiakim had done. 20For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence [.] that [omit that; insert And] Zedekiah rebelled 2Ki 25:1 against the king of Babylon. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched 2against it; and they built forts [siege-works] against it round about. And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. 3And on the ninth day of the fourth [omit fourth]4 month the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. 4And the city was broken up [a breach was made in the city], and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the kings garden (now the Chaldees were against the city round about [had invested the city]:) and the king5 went the way toward the plain. 5And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him. 6So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him. 7And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and [he] put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and [they] bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 23:31. Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old. This son of Josiah is called by Jeremiah (22:11) Shallum (), which name, according to Hengstenberg, Keil, and Schlier, is significant, and means: He who shall be recompensed, referring to his fate (2Ki 23:33-34). But why should this king be expressly so named when others, as, for instance, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, met with a similar fate (chaps. 24:15; 25:7)? According to Junius, Hitzig, and Thenius, Jeremiah gave him the name Shallum, with reference to his reign of three months (2Ki 15:13), in the same manner as Jezebel named Jehu Zimri, murdered of his master (2Ki 9:31). But this also is forced and invented. In 1Ch 3:15, in the enumeration of the sons of Josiah, he is called Shallum instead of Jehoahaz, but we may be certain that the chronicler did not put in a symbolical name, which the prophet only once used with particular significance and emphasis, by the side of three other actual names, and in a dry genealogical list. Shallum was the name which this king actually bore before his accession to the throne. When he became king he received another name, just as Eliakim and Mattaniah did (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17). Shallum took the name Jehoahaz, i.e., He-whom-Jehovah-sustains. The people made him king in place of his elder brother, and Shallum seemed a name of evil omen, inasmuch as the former king Shallum [of Israel] only reigned for one month. According to Josephus, Jehoahaz reigned three months and ten days.
2Ki 23:33. And Pharaoh-necho took him captive at Riblah in the land of Hamath. is generally translated: he bound him, or put him in bands, but has also the primary meaning, to make captive, without the notion of fettering, Gen 42:16 (Gesenius), and, taking into consideration 2Ki 17:4, this more general signification is here to be preferred.The city of Riblah (now the village Ribleh) belonged to the district of the Syrian city Hamath at the foot of Mt. Hermon (Antilebanon), on the river Orontes, that is, therefore, on the northernmost boundary of Palestine towards Damascus (1Ki 8:65; 2Ki 14:25; Amo 6:14). Riblah lay in a large and fruitful plain on the high-way which led, by way of the Euphrates, from Palestine to Babylon. At a later time Nebuchadnezzar also established his headquarters there (2Ki 25:6; 2Ki 25:20-21. See Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 323). It can hardly be the same Riblah which is mentioned in Num 34:11 (see Keil on that passage). If Necho had already advanced, since the battle of Megiddo in which Josiah fell (2Ki 23:29), on his way to the Euphrates, as far as Riblah, it cannot be that, during the three months that Jehoahaz reigned, he had also made a detour to Jerusalem and besieged and taken that city. Shalmaneser spent three years in besieging and taking Samaria, which was not so strongly fortified (2Ki 17:5). Moreover, Necho did not probably quit the main army without great necessity while it was advancing against a powerful enemy (Winer). The text says distinctly that he took Jehoahaz prisoner in Riblah and not in Jerusalem, and it gives no support to Keils statement, that, while the main army advanced slowly towards Riblah, he sent a detachment to Jerusalem to take that city and dethrone the king. In that case he must have captured the king in Jerusalem and not in Riblah. The attempt has been made to sustain this notion that Necho took Jerusalem by a statement of Herodotus (II. 159): (at Megiddo) . But it is now universally admitted that cannot mean Jerusalem, but rather that it was some sea-port (cf. Herod. III. 5), although this does not necessarily imply that it was Gaza, as Hitzig and Starke affirm. [It is Kadesh, a city of Syria, on the Orontes, near to Emessa, the ruins of which have lately been discovered.Lenormant.] We are not told how Jehoahaz came to Riblah, but it certainly was not, as the old expositors supposed, with a large army in the intention of repeating his fathers attempt to arrest Nechos advance, for the army of Judah had perished in the battle of Megiddo. According to Josephus, who says nothing of any capture of Jerusalem by Necho, the latter summoned Jehoahaz to come to his camp ( ), and took him captive when he came. This is more probable than that he came of his own accord, perhaps to seek from the victor the ratification of his election to the throne (Thenius). However that may be, he was unexpectedly made a captive at Riblah. We may infer, as Ewald does, from Eze 19:4, where he is likened to a young lion whom the nations had taken in their pit (certainly not, therefore, at Jerusalem), that he was treacherously bound and carried away captive to Egypt. [See the Supplem. Note below, at the end of this section.]The words are translated by Keil: When he had become king in Jerusalem. That, however, had been said just before in 2Ki 23:31, and is understood from the connection as a matter of course, so that it would be a mere idle remark. Neither can the translation: Because he had exalted himself to be king in Jerusalem (Dereser), or, dum regnaret (Vatablus) be sustained. We must, therefore, adopt the keri , as is done by the Chaldee version, the Sept. ( ), and the Vulg. (ne regnaret in Jerusalem). This is further confirmed by the parallel passage (2Ch 36:3) in which the verse is abbreviated: And the king of Egypt put him down () [i.e., removed him, set him aside] at Jerusalem. (The Sept. have in that place which represents the Hebrew of Kings, and they have here which represents the Hebrew of Chronicles.) In 3 Esra 1:3 also we find: . It is not necessary to suppose, with Ewald, that was dropped out from 2Ch 36:3; still less, with Thenius, to read in this place, instead of .And laid upon the land a tribute. The relative amount of the silver and the gold is remarkable, one hundred talents of silver to one of gold, but, as the same figures are given in 2Ch 36:3 and in 3 Esra 1:36, we are not justified in changing them, as Thenius does, appealing to 2Ki 18:14, and adopting the statement of the Sept. that there were ten talents of gold instead of one. It may be that Necho wanted silver, which was rarer in the Orient, or that he did not wish to alienate the country too much from himself by pitiless severity. The entire tribute amounted, according to Thenius, to 230,000 thaler [$165,600]; according to Keil the gold amounted to 25,000 thaler [$18,000], and the silver to 250,000 thaler [$180,000].
2Ki 23:34. And Pharaoh-necho made Eliakim, son of Josiah, king, &c. After the victory at Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho regarded himself as master of the country, and therefore he would not recognize as king Jehoahaz, who had been elevated to the throne by the people without his (Nechos) consent. Possibly also, as has often been assumed, either the elder brother Eliakim, who had been passed over, had appealed to Necho, or the Egyptian party had, by its intrigues, induced Necho, after setting aside Jehoahaz, to appoint the elder brother, and not a foreigner, for instance one of his own generals. He changed his name, as was the customary sign of subjection and vassalage (2Ki 24:17; Dan 1:7). It appears that the choice of a name was left to Eliakim, who only changed to in the composition of his former name so that its signification: God (Jehovah) will-establish, remained the same. Whether he did this in intentional contradiction to the humiliation of the royal dynasty of David, which Jeremiah and the other prophets had threatened (Keil), is very doubtful. Menzel very mistakenly infers that the name Jehoiakim pleased Necho better on account of the connection with the Egyptian moon-God.And took Jehoahaz away, does not mean here: He had taken prisoner, any more than it does in 2Ki 23:30. This much has already been stated in 2Ki 23:33. It only means that he did not leave him in Riblah where he had taken him captive, but took him away from there (Gen 2:15). The Sept. and the Vulg. read, instead of ,; et duxit, and in Chronicles we find , but implies that Jehoahaz came to Egypt before Necho returned thither.In 2Ki 23:35 the details in regard to the payment of the tribute imposed by Necho are given before the history of the reign of Jehoiakim is entered upon, because the payment of that tribute was one of the conditions on which he was elevated to the throne (Keil). = nevertheless, but in order to obtain the sum; he did not pay it out of his own means. He demanded contributions from each one, even from the humblest inhabitant (Ewald). This place shows that by the people of the land we have not to understand, as Thenius does, the national militia, or the male population fit for war.
2Ki 23:36. Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old. He was therefore two years older than Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:31), and must have been begotten by Josiah in the fourteenth year of the latters age. His mother was not the same person as the mother of Jehoahaz. Rumah, her native place, is probably identical with Arumah in the neighborhood of Shechem (Jdg 9:41).
2Ki 24:1. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up. On the name (Jeremiah generally, and Ezekiel always, writes it ), its different forms, and its significance, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, II. p. 840, and Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr. s. 41. [The name is Nabu-kudurri-uzur, and means either Nebo-protects-the-youth (Oppert), or, Nebo-is-the-protector-of-landmarks (Sir H. Rawlinson)Rawlinson, Five Great Mon. III. 80.] He was the son of Nabopolassar, and he appears here for the first time in this history. The question as to the time in Jehoiakims reign at which he made this expedition can be answered from other data with tolerable certainty. According to Jer 25:1, the fourth year of Jehoiakims reign was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and according to Jer 46:2 this fourth year of Jehoiakim was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar inflicted a decisive defeat upon Necho near Carchemish, a large well-fortified city at the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates (Winer. R.-W.-B. I. s. 211 sq.). Moreover, according to Jer 36:1, Jeremiah commissioned Baruch, in this fourth year of Jehoiakim, to write down his discourses in a book which was read in public on a great fast day which was held in the ninth month, that is, towards the end of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 24:9). This fast-day was not ordained on account of a misfortune which had already been experienced. in order, by humiliation and submission, to turn aside the wrath of God, and to implore the divine pity (Keil), but evidently, because Jehoiakim was alarmed at the approach of the Chaldeans, and saw in it danger of a calamity to the country which might perhaps yet be averted (Ewald); for Jehoiakim, when he heard that the book had been read, commanded it to be brought, and then cast it into the fire, because there was written in it: The king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land (22 Kings 24:29, cf. also Jer 24:3). At the time of this fastday, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar had not yet come. His coming was something to be looked forward to even in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim. It follows that his expedition took place, at the very earliest, at the end of the fifth, or at the beginning of the sixth, year of Jehoiakims reign. How far southward he penetrated, whether as far as Egypt, as some suppose, is uncertain. The supposition that he at this time captured the strongly fortified city of Jerusalem (Keil), and even took captive a part of the inhabitants of the city or country, as he did at a later time under Jehoiachin, is not sustained by anything in the Book of Kings or in Jeremiah. It is inconceivable that he should have done so and yet no mention of it be found in Scripture. This much only is certain: that Jehoiakim then became subject to him for three years, that is, until the eigth or ninth year of his reign (Jer 24:1), which may well have come to pass without the capture of Jerusalem, or the deportation of its inhabitants, although we do not know the manner in which it did come about. We have, therefore, to present to our minds the course of events as follows: After Necho had defeated Josiah at Megiddo and taken Jehoahaz captive at Riblah, and had made Jehoiakim king, he pushed on northeasterly towards the Euphrates, but he was met and so severely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish that he was obliged to give up his plan of conquering Assyria and retreat to Egypt. The victor, Nebuchadnezzar, then advanced through the territory east of Jordan, where he had little opposition to encounter (Knobel, Prophet. II. s. 227), and made the king of Judah, who had for five years been a vassal of the king of Egypt, subject to himself. After three years, however, Jehoiakim revolted, but for the remaining two or three years of his reign he was hard pressed by bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites, who were probably incited to invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, for he was too much occupied in other directions, in consequence of the death of his father, to march against Judah in person. When he found opportunity he appeared in person with an army to punish the revolt, and he took vengeance for it upon the son [Jehoiachin] who had recently succeeded Jehoiakim (Thenius), especially because Jehoiachin had not at his accession, immediately submitted to the Babylonian authority.
Against this natural and simple conception of the course of events two biblical texts may be cited. 2Ch 36:6 reads: Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried [some] of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon. It is not here asserted that Jehoiakim was actually brought as a captive to Babylon, and this can, in fact, hardly have been the fact, for he was king in Jerusalem not eight or nine but eleven years (2Ki 23:36; 2Ch 36:5). It would be necessary, therefore, to assume that he was set at liberty again and came back to Jerusalem as king, of which we have no hint anywhere, and which is highly improbable. Certainly he did not die in Babylon (2Ki 24:6; cf. Jer 22:17-19). The Sept. filled out the meagre story of Jehoiakim in Chronicles from this account, but omitted entirely the words: And bound him in fetters, &c., evidently because they considered them incorrect. In view of the remarkable brevity and superficiality with which the chronicler treats the history of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, it appears, as Hitzig supposes (note on Dan 1:2), that he confused the two, for, according to our more detailed and more accurate account, the incidents which he mentions as having occurred to Jehoiakim really happened to Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:13-15). Josephus (Antiq. x. 6, 1) seems to have made the same mistake, for he confuses the history of the two kings. He says that Jehoiakim, on the promise that no harm should happen to him, admitted Nebuchadnezzar into the city, but that the Babylonian broke his word and put to death the king and the principal men threw the body of the king under the wall, and left it unburied, took about 3,000 Jews, among whom was Ezekiel, away captive to Babylon, and placed Jehoiakims son, Jehoiachin, on the throne. Then that, fearing lest Jehoiachin might, out of revenge for his fathers murder, lead the city to revolt, he sent an army to Jerusalem, but gave an oath to Jehoiachin that, in case the city should be taken, no harm should befall him. That then the king of Judah surrendered, in order to spare the city, but was nevertheless taken away into captivity with 10,000 other captives. It appears that Josephus was not able to harmonize the account in Chronicles with the account here, and so he mixed them both up together, not writing history but inventing it.
The other text which may be cited against the construction of the history above given is Dan 1:1 : In the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it ( [pressed it hard] see Isa 21:2; Jdg 9:31; Est 8:11), and the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God, &c. It is true that this passage does not say that the city was besieged and taken, and that then the king was bound and taken away to Babylon. When the Chaldeans had driven the Egyptians out of Palestine, Jehoiakim found himself in great distress, and, in order not to lose his crown and his kingdom, he surrendered to the king of Babylon, gave him some of the temple ornaments and utensils, and, probably enough, also gave him certain hostages, among whom was Daniel. But the statement that this took place in the third year of Jehoiakim does not agree with the statements above quoted from Jeremiah. No one has yet succeeded in removing the discrepancy, although very many attempts have been made (see a critical analysis of these attempts by Rsch in Herzogs Real-Encyc. XVIII. s. 464). The latest of these attempts, that of Keil, which insists that we must regard the third year of Jehoiakim, in Dan 1:1, as the terminus a quo of Nebuchadnezzars coming, i.e., must understand that statement to mean that Nebuchadnezzar began the expedition against Judah in that year; that Necho was defeated at Carchemish in the beginning of Jehoiakims fourth year, and that, in consequence of this victory, Jerusalem was taken and Jehoiakim was made tributary in the same year, is unsatisfactory especially in view of Jer 36:9. There is scarcely any escape remaining except to assume that Daniel reckoned from some other point of time which we cannot now specify. It is not admissible to give his one statement the preference over the numerous chronological statements of Jeremiah, since these are consistent with one another, and with the historical connection, and are, moreover, as will be shown below in the review of the chronology of this period, in perfect harmony with all the other chronological data both in Jeremiah and in the Book of Kings, while the statement in Daniel, if it is taken as fixed and correct, introduces confusion. [See the Supplement. Note below.]
2Ki 24:2. And the Lord sent against him bands, &c. It is not stated what impelled Jehoiakim after three years to try to throw off the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps his courage rose again when Nebuchadnezzar had withdrawn and was fully occupied in other parts of his immense kingdom. Perhaps also he hoped for aid from Egypt. Before Nebuchadnezzar himself could come, bands ( in distinction from , 2Ki 25:1, not an organized army) devasted the country, though they could not take the capital. All the nationalities here mentioned had no doubt been obliged to recognize Nebuchadnezzars supremacy, and they gratified their own hate against Judah at the same time that they served his purposes (Thenius). The in does not refer to Jehoiakim (Luther: dass sie ihn umbrchten [that they might put him to death]), but to Judah which immediately precedes. This is evident from 2Ki 24:3. On 2Ki 24:2-4 Starke observes: It is expressly said: The Lord sent, and again: According to the word of the Lord, and in 2Ki 24:3 again: Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this (i.e., it came to pass only because the Lord had commanded it), and again in 2Ki 24:4 : The Lord would not pardon, in order that in all this the hand of God might appear and be recognized, and that men might not think that these judgments came upon Judah by accident, or merely on account of the physical strength of the Babylonians. The author means to say that the judgments which had long been threatened and predicted by the prophets (Isaiah, Micah, Huldah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah) now began. The invasion of all these bands on every side was the presage of the downfall of the kingdom, for from this time on came one misfortune after the other, and the kingdom and nation moved on steadily towards their downfall.
2Ki 24:3. Only at the commandment of the Lord, i.e., it came only for the reason that God had so willed it. Instead of Ewald and Thenius desire to read as in 2Ki 24:20, i.e., because of the wrath of God. The Sept. have: ; the Vulg. has: per verbum. The change in the text is not necessary. For the sins of Manasseh, see notes on chap. 21. The sin of Manasseh was far greater and heavier than that of Jeroboam. Judah gave itself up to this sin so entirely that not only were all the warnings and exhortations of the prophets ineffectual, but also the stern measures of Josiah could not effect anything in opposition; on the contrary, as we see from the words of Jeremiah, after his death this sin once more permeated the national life. The sins of Manasseh were not, therefore, avenged upon the people, but, because they persisted in them, they fell under the judgments of God. [That is, the nation was not punished under Jehoiakim for sins which Manasseh and his contemporaries had committed. The sins of Manasseh had become a designation for a certain class of offences, and a particular form of public and social depravity, which was introduced by Manasseh, but of which generation after generation continued to be guilty.W. G. S.] Keil is mistaken when he thus states the connection between 2Ki 24:1 and 2Ki 24:2, and the following verses: After God had given the nation into subjection to the Babylonian supremacy, as a punishment for its sins, every revolt against that power was a revolt against Him.In 2Ki 24:5 we find the last reference to the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. The history of Jehoiakim therefore seems to have formed the conclusion to this book.
2Ki 24:6. So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers. The details which are given elsewhere in mentioning the death of a king, as to his burial and the place of his sepulture, are here wanting, certainly not through accident or error. Jeremiah says of Jehoiakim, Jer 22:19 : He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem, and, Jer 36:30 He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat and in the night to the frost. As the statement that he slept with his fathers means neither more nor less than that he came to death, this text does not exclude or deny the fulfilment of the prophecy; nor can the statement which is interpolated in the Sept.: , , for which there are no corresponding words in the Hebrew, avail, as Thenius believes, to prove the non-fulfilment of the prophecy. On the contrary, Ewald infers from the prophecy, which, however, he says was written, in its present form, after the event, that the following is the circumstantial story of Jehoiakims death: Probably he had complied with a treacherous invitation of the enemy to visit his camp, for the purpose of making a treaty, and as soon as he came out he was taken prisoner in the very sight of his own capital. But as he resisted with rage and violence, he was borne away by force, and shamefully put to death. Even an honorable burial, for which his family no doubt entreated, was harshly refused. This representation of the incident goes beyond the prophecy even, and builds history upon it. Winer supposes that Jehoiakims body was thrown out after, and in consequence of, the capture of the city in the reign of Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:10), on which occasion either the enemy, or perhaps the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves, showed their rage against the hated king, but, according to Jeremiah, he met with no burial at all. We therefore limit ourselves to the assumption, which is also made by Keil, that he perished in a battle with some one of the irregular marauding bands mentioned above, and was not buried.
2Ki 24:7. And the king of Egypt came not again any more, &c. This remark is here inserted in order to show under what circumstances Jehoiachin succeeded his father (2Ki 24:6), and how it came that he only reigned for so short a time (2Ki 24:8). Necho had retired finally from Asia after such losses that he could not venture again to meet his victorious enemy, therefore Judah could expect no more support from him. Much less could it attempt alone to resist the conqueror from whom it had revolted. The river of Egypt is not the Nile, but the stream now known as Arish, which forms the southern boundary of Palestine (1Ki 8:65; Isa 27:12).
2Ki 24:8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old, &c. The form of the name which occurs here and in Chronicles (II. 36:8, 9), is the full and original form. The signification is He-whom-Jehovah-confirms. In Eze 1:2 we find ; in Jer 27:20; Jer 28:4 : ; and in Jer 22:24; Jer 22:28 : , which last is probably a popular abbreviation of the name. Instead of eighteen years the chronicler gives eight years, evidently through an omission of = 10. The grounds adduced by Hitzig (note on Jer 22:28) in favor of eight are swept away by ver 15 of this chapter, where the kings wives are mentioned. There is no reason to cast suspicion upon the more accurate statement of the chronicler: three months and ten days, as Thenius does. Elnathan belonged to the at the court of Jehoiakim, Jer 26:22; Jer 36:12; Jer 36:25.
2Ki 24:10. At that time, &c. The chronicler says instead: When the year was expired [more correctly it would read: At the turning-point of the year, i.e., either the spring equinox, or the beginning of the Jewish year, both of which came at nearly the same time; the time at which military movements were commenced], i.e., in the spring, not late in the summer or in the autumn (Thenius). Nebuchadnezzar sent out his generals (), in the first place, with the army to besiege the city. Afterwards he came himself, in order to be present at the capture (see notes on 2Ki 24:2).And Jehoiachin, king of Judah, went out, &c., 2Ki 24:12. , as in 2Ki 18:31, is the ordinary expression for besieged who go out to surrender to the besiegers (1Sa 11:3; Jer 21:9; Jer 38:17). Jehoiachin perceived that the city would not be able to hold out very long, and therefore determined to surrender, in the hope of meeting with grace from Nebuchadnezzar, and of being allowed to keep his kingdom, though as a vassal. He therefore went out with his mother as the Gebirah (1Ki 15:13), and with his ministers and officers, but his hopes were all disappointed. Nebuchadnezzar distrusted him, not without reason, and he desired to punish the father in the son. , he seized him, not he received him graciously (Luther and the Calw. Bib.), for, if the latter were the meaning, he would have restored him as a vassal, but he dethroned him and took him into exile. The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, who became king in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25:1), fell in the year after the eleven-year reign of Jehoiakim had closed. On Jer 52:28 sq. see below.
2Ki 24:13. And he carried out thence, &c., that is, from the city which he had entered after seizing the king and his chief men. In the first place he took all there was in the treasuries of the temple and the royal palace, and then he took the utensils of the temple. The meaning of is not altogether clear. To tear off the gold surface (Keil) is a meaning which is not applicable to all the vessels, for many of these were entirely of gold, as, for instance, the candlesticks, and such, we may be sure, he did not leave behind. The Sept. have , the Vulg. concidit or confregit (2Ki 18:16), hence Thenius renders it: to crush into shapeless masses, but, if this had been done, Cyrus would not have been able to give these articles back again to the Jews, as it is stated in Eze 1:7-11 that he did do. We must understand it to mean, to tear away violently, avellit (Winer), for the most of these articles were no doubt fastened to the floor of the temple. does not mean the temple as a whole, but the sanctuary, the dwelling, all the articles in which were of gold. Nebuchadnezzar did not take away the brazen vessels from the forecourt until he destroyed Jerusalem (2Ki 25:13 sq.).As the Lord had said, 2Ki 20:17; cf. Jer 15:13; Jer 17:3.
2Ki 24:14. And he carried away captive all Jerusalem. He left only the poorest and humblest of the population, because nothing was to be feared from them (see Jer 39:10 : the poor of the people which had nothing). 2Ki 24:14 states in general, and in round numbers, what persons were taken into exile. There were two classes: first, the , the chiefs [E. V. princes], not the military chiefs, but the chief men of rank, the nobles, and the , i.e., the mighty men of wealth, the rich (2Ki 15:20); and second, , the artisans, the workers either in brass, or iron, or wood (Isa 44:12-13; Gen 4:22; 1Ki 7:14), and , i.e., not common laborers who broke stone and carried burdens (Hitzig on Jer 24:1), but, literally, one who shuts in, encloses, or locks up, from , to close, or shut up, and so, according to Ewald: persons who are skilled in siege operations (from , to invest or enclose, cf. Jer 13:19), but we prefer to understand by it locksmiths, inasmuch as these also made weapons (1Sa 13:19). When these persons were taken away into captivity the rest were deprived of the power to revolt or to make war. There were in all ten thousand of the exiles. 2Ki 24:15-16 are not a mere repetition of 2Ki 24:14; they particularize what 2Ki 24:14 stated in general. The king and his court are mentioned first, then the (keri, ), that is, the mighty men of the land, who are included in the in 2Ki 24:14, then the , who are there called . There were seven thousand of the rich and noble, and one thousand of the two classes of artisans. in 2Ki 24:16 (not ) gathers in one all who have been mentioned, and it is then specified in regard to them that they were all men in the prime of life, and that they were familiar with the use of weapons (Thenius). We see from Jeremiah 29. that there were also priests and prophets among them, and according to Josephus, (Antiq. x. 6, 3) especially . Cf. Eze 1:1-3. 2Ki 24:17. Mattaniah was, according to 1Ch 3:15, the third son of Josiah, so that he was the uncle of the exiled king Jehoiachin (Jer 37:1). , 2Ch 36:10, must not, therefore, be translated: his brother, but: his cousin, or, his relative, a sense in which it frequently occurs. (Sept. ). On the change of name see notes on 2Ki 23:34. Nebuchadnezzar did not choose the name, he only approved of the new name chosen by the king, as Necho had done in the case of Jehoiakim. , gift, is changed to , justice, righteousness, so that the name means: the righteousness of Jehovah, that is, he by whom Jehovah executes justice. It is hardly probable that the king meant by this name to identify himself with promised by Jeremiah (23:6), as Hengstenberg and Von Gerlach think; it is much more likely that the prophet took occasion from the kings name, with which his character did not at all correspond, to promise that one should come to whom alone this name might justly be applied.Nebuchadnezzar showed himself merciful in that he put another member of the native dynasty on the throne, and did not appoint a stranger and foreigner as viceroy.
2Ki 24:18. Zedekiah was twenty and one years old. Of the passage from this verse on to the end of the book, Jer 52:1-34 is a duplicate, almost word for word. The only differences are that Jerem. lacks 2Ki 25:22-26, and 2 Kings lacks Jer 52:28-30. It follows that neither one is borrowed from the other. Moreover there are also a few other slight differences, as, for instance, 2Ki 25:16-17 compared with Jer 52:20-23. It is certain that the fifty-second chapter of Jeremiah is an appendix to the discourses of that prophet, and that it does not come from his hand, for it is impossible that he should have survived the liberation of Jehoiachin (Jer 52:31). (See the Introd. 1.) Although it is not true that the text in Kings is thoroughly corrupt (Hitzig), yet that in Jerem. is, on the whole, to be preferred, and is therefore the more original. On the other hand, that of Kings has some peculiar excellences, as, for instance, 25:6, 7, 11, 17 compared with Jer 52:9-10; Jer 52:15; Jer 52:20. We are driven to a conclusion similar to that which we reached in regard to the history of Hezekiah (see p. 201), and which is adopted also by Keil and Thenius, that both narratives were borrowed from one source which is now lost.The mother of Zedekiah was also, according to 2Ki 23:31, the mother of Jehoahaz; he was, therefore, the full brother of the latter, and the step-brother of Jehoiakim (Jer 23:36). On 2Ki 24:20 see notes on 24:3. The author means to say that, as this king and the people persisted in their evil ways, the judgment which had long been threatened was executed in this reign. The special occasion of it was his revolt from Nebuchadnezzar who had put him upon the throne, and, according to 2Ch 36:13 and Eze 17:13, had taken an oath of fidelity from him. The year of this revolt cannot be accurately determined. At the commencement of his reign he sent an embassy to Babylon, as it seems, in order to bring about the release of the captives who had been carried away under Jehoiachin (Jer 29:3 sq.). In his fourth year he himself went thither with Seraiah, probably with the same intention, but in vain (Jer 51:59). Then came ambassadors from the neighboring peoples who wanted to unite with Zedekiah in a common effort to cast off the Babylonian yoke (Jer 27:3). False prophets encouraged him to agree to this (Jeremiah 28). This led him to send to Egypt that they might give him horses and much people (Eze 17:15). As the Chaldean army was before Jerusalem in Zedekiahs ninth year, the revolt must have taken place, at the latest, in his eighth year, but it probably took place in his seventh, or perhaps even earlier.
2Ki 25:1. And it came to pass in the ninth year, &c. These dates can be given thus accurately to the month and the day, because the Jews were accustomed during the exile to fast on the anniversary of these days of disaster (Zec 7:3; Zec 7:5; Zec 8:19). It is evident from 2Ki 25:6 that Nebuchadnezzar did not come to Jerusalem himself, but remained at Riblah (2Ki 23:33), and sent his army from thence against Jerusalem. According to Jer 34:7 they also besieged Lachish and Azekah, the only two strongholds remaining. The word cannot mean a wall (De Wette), for it stands in contrast with as something different (Eze 4:2; Eze 17:17; Eze 21:27). It is ordinarily derived from speculari, to observe, to watch, and is understood to mean a watch-tower, or, collectively, watch-towers (Hvernick on Eze 4:2; Gesenius, Keil), but , which does not refer to observation but to an encircling on all sides, does not fit this meaning. The Sept. translate it in Eze 4:2, by , a bulwark, a rampart, in Eze 17:17; Eze 21:27 by , a machine for throwing missiles, and this place they translate: ; the Vulg. has munitiones. Hitzig understands by it lines of circumvallation, and Thenius the outermost of the siege lines, built only of palisades, and intended to prevent the introduction of supplies, &c., but this last cannot be so accurately determined. We must, therefore, content ourselves with the less definite meaning, bulwark, or, siege-work. Vatablus: Machinam bellicam, qualisqualis fuerit.
2Ki 25:2. Unto the eleventh year, &c. The siege lasted in all one year five months and twenty-seven days, for the city was very strongly fortified (2Ch 32:5; 2Ch 33:14). This is conclusive against the assumption that a capture of the city is implied in 24:1 sq. According to Jer 37:5; Jer 37:11, the besieging army, or at least a part of it, raised the siege and marched against the Egyptian army which was coming to the help of the Jews. It would thus appear that the siege was interrupted for a time.Jeremiah gives the date in 2Ki 25:3 more accurately (see Jer 39:2; Jer 52:6): In the fourth month, on the ninth [day] of the month. The first words have been omitted by some accident in the version, in Kings, and they must be supplied. How severe the famine was, and what horrors came to pass as a consequence of it, may be seen from Lam 2:11-12; Lam 2:19; Lam 4:3-10 (Eze 5:10; Bar 2:3). See also Jer 37:21. The famine did not begin on the ninth of the fourth month, but had become so severe at that time that the people were no longer capable of making a strong resistance; so on that day the enemy was able to storm the city.
2Ki 25:4. And a breach was made in the city. This breach was on the north side, for, according to Jer 39:3, the leaders of the Chaldean army, when they came in, halted and seated themselves in the middle gate, that is, in the gate which was in the wall between the upper, southern city (Zion), and the lower northern city, and which led from one of these into the other. When the king learned of this he took to flight with his warriors by night. In the text before us not only is Zedekiah, king of Judah (Jer 39:4) omitted after , but also the predicate (Jer 39:4; Jer 52:7) is omitted after men of war. All the old versions supply at least one of these words. They fled towards the south, because the enemy had penetrated by the north side, and there was no hope of escaping that way, but even on this side they had to fight their way through, for the Chaldeans had invested the entire city (). The attempt derived its only hope of success from the darkness, and from the greater weakness of the besieging force on the south side.By the way of the gate between, &c. This gate, called the gate of the fountain (Neh 3:15), was at the southern end of the ravine between Ophel and Zion, the Tyropoion. At this point, inasmuch as it was the site of the pool of Siloam and there were cisterns to be protected, and inasmuch also as the formation of the ground made it a convenient place for the enemy to attack (Thenius), two walls had been built, between which was this gate (Sept.: , and in Jer 52:7 : . This double wall is also mentioned in Isa 22:11. The way of the gate is the way through that gate out of the city. It is not quite certain whether the kings garden was inside or outside of this double wall; Thenius assumes that it was outside (see Map of Jerusalem Before the Exile, appended to his commentary). It is said in Eze 12:12 : The prince shall bear upon his shoulder in the twilight, and shall go forth; they shall dig through the wall () to carry [him] out thereby. Here cannot be understood to refer to either of those walls, for he went through the gate; moreover it would have been impossible to break through such a wall in the night. We must therefore understand it of that wall which the enemy had built all around the city (2Ki 25:1), and which it was necessary to break through. The fugitives then took the way to the plain (), that is, to the plains or meadows through which the Jordan flows, and which were called the plain (Jos 11:2; Jos 12:3; 2Sa 2:29; 2Sa 4:7). Their intention was to cross the Jordan and escape, but they were overtaken near Jericho, six hours journey from Jerusalem.
2Ki 25:6. So they took the king, &c. On Riblah see notes on 2Ki 23:33. Nebuchadnezzar was not present at the storming of Jerusalem (Jer 39:3), he awaited the result in his camp (Thenius). Instead of the plurals and in 2Ki 25:7, we find in Jer 39:5; Jer 52:9 the singular with Nebuchadnezzar as the subject. Although the latter may be the more original reading, the sense is the same in either case, for Nebuchadnezzar certainly did not put Zedekiahs sons to death with his own hand; he appointed a tribunal which judged and executed them. Instead of the singular Jeremiah has, in the places quoted and elsewhere, the plural, . With it means, to deal with and decide a question of law. This trial cannot have occupied much time, for it was a matter of common notoriety that Zedekiah had broken his oath of allegiance and revolted. The sons of Zedekiah, not all his children, had fled with him. They also were regarded as rebels and put to death, in order to put an end to the dynasty. His daughters were taken away as captives according to Jerem. 41:20. As for Zedekiah himself, he was to suffer a painful punishment as long as he lived. His eyes were put out. This form of punishment was used by the Chaldeans and ancient Persians (Herod. 7:18). Princes are still disabled in this way in Persia when it is desired to deprive them of any prospect of the throne. A rod of silver (or of brass), heated glowing hot, is passed over the open eye (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 15). The Vulg. has oculos ejus effodit, and on Jer 52:11 : oculos eruit. It was also a customary mode of punishment in the Orient to pierce out the eyes (Ctes. Pers. 5). Plate No. 18 in Botta (Monum. de Nin.) represents a king who is in the act of piercing out with a lance the eyes of a captive of no ordinary rank who kneels before him (Thenius). See Cassel on Jdg 16:21. However the act of piercing out the eyes is not generally expressed by , but by , Jdg 16:21; 1Sa 11:2; Num 16:14.With fetters of brass, and double fetters at that, . He was doubly fettered hand and foot, and brought to Babylon. In Jer 52:11 the words follow: And put him in prison till the day of his death. The Sept. have: , evidently having in mind Jdg 16:21. The author of the Book of Kings may have thought that this statement was unnecessary, since every person who was in chains was put in the prison as a matter of course. According to Jer 39:6; Jer 52:10, All the nobles of Judah were put to death with the sons of Zedekiah, that is, those who had fled with him. There is no reason to regard this as a false feature of the story borrowed from 2Ki 25:21, as Thenius does.
[Supplementary Note on contemporaneous history. In the note on p. 247 we brought our notice of contemporaneous history down to the year 640, the year in which Josiah ascended the throne. The commotion of the next sixty years, during which Assyria ceased to be a nation, Egypt was humbled, and the Median and Babylonian empires advanced to the first place, amounted to an historical cataclysm. In the Bible we have references to these movements only when, and in so far as, they affected the fortunes of the Jewish people. This they did in the most important manner, and, in order to understand the influence of the neighboring nations on Judah at this time, it is necessary to have a comprehensive, if not exhaustive, knowledge of the historical movements which were in progress in Asia.
It should be distinctly understood that the history of the period now before us is very obscure. We have no historical inscriptions to guide us, and are thrown upon the authority of literary remains which are imperfect and inconsistent. Our chief authorities, Rawlinson and Lenormant (Sir H. Rawlinson and Oppert) differ very materially. It is therefore to be understood that what is here given is only conjectural and provisional.
The great question in dispute, on which the adjustment of the fragments of information which we possess into a smooth narrative depends, is as to the year in which Nineveh was taken, whether it was in 625 (Rawlinson), or in 606 (Lenormant). The weight of authority is in favor of the latter, though it is open to serious historical objections. It is, at present, impossible to bring this question to a final decision.
In 640 Asshur-edil-ilani (L.), or, Asshur-emidilin (R.) was on the throne of Assyria. His reign ended about 6265. Rawlinson, putting the fall of Nineveh at this date, identifies this king with the Saracus, or Assaracus, of Abydenus. Lenormant, putting the fall of Nineveh in 606, supposes that Saracus was another and the last king, who reigned from 625 to 606. The last king was far inferior to his ancestors. Under him the empire was unable to meet the attacks which fell upon it.
The Medes, whose first attack on Assyria, under Phraortes, we mentioned above (p. 247), were a hardy mountain people who now arose into prominence. Cyaxares, the successor of Phraortes, made elaborate preparations to renew the attempts at conquest towards the west. He was ready for the attack (Rawl.), or made it (Lenor.), either alone (R.) or in conjunction with the Chaldeans, under Nabopolassar (L.), either in 634 (R.) or in 625 (L.). This attack was interrupted by the appearance of new actors on the scene. A horde of barbarians from the north, Scythia, poured down upon the nations in the Euphrates valley. They were of the same origin as the Goths, Huns, Avari, and Vandals, who appeared in Europe early in the Christian era, and their behavior, whithersoever they came, was the same as that of the barbarians who entered Europe. They poured over Media, Assyria, and Babylonia, and spread westward into Syria and Palestine. On the borders of Egypt they found Psammetichus besieging Ashdod. He persuaded them by gifts to turn back, and thus checked their advance in this direction. Herodotus says that their sway lasted for nineteen years. It is difficult to tell what this means, for in some countries, Media for instance, the natives overcame them sooner than in others. They were not able to found any permanent authority in any country. They perished by luxury and vice, were slain, or employed as mercenaries. Jeremiah refers to them in Jer 6:22 sq.; Jer 8:16; Jer 9:10; Jer 5:15, and, in the 50th chap., where he foretells the destruction of Babylon, the Scythian invasion furnishes the colors of the picture in which he describes it. Rawlinson puts their invasion in 632; Lenormant in 625. Rawlinson supposes, that after the Scythian invasion had subsided, the Medes renewed the attack on Nineveh, and secured the alliance of Nabopolassar, in 625, when Nineveh was taken and destroyed.
In 610 Psammetichus died, and Necho succeeded on the throne of Egypt. Necho reigned from 610 to 595. He was young and ambitious, and he planned an expedition into Asia, no doubt, if Assyria had already fallen, with the intention of winning the western provinces for himself. He marched through Philistia and Samaria. Here Josiah of Judah marched out to meet him (2Ki 23:29). We do not need to seek far for a reason for Josiahs action. It may have been inspired, as is generally supposed, by a desire to manifest fidelity to his suzerain, Babylon (R.), but it is a more simple explanation to notice that, under the existing weakness of Assyria, Josiah had been able to exercise sovereignty over some portion of Samaria (2Ki 23:15 sq.). If the Babylonians were already the supreme power, they had not interfered with this. If Egypt conquered Samaria, it was at an end. Josiah, therefore, had a very natural and simple interest in opposing the Egyptian invasion. If Necho intended at this time to measure his strength with the Babylonians, he certainly desisted from that project. The words in 2Ch 35:21 throw no light on the party he intended to attack. There is ground here for believing that Nineveh had not yet fallen, and that the Babylonians had not yet displayed their power. Necho saw in the feebleness of Assyria an opportunity to conquer its western provinces, and the force which he had was probably only such an one as he considered necessary for this purpose. Josiah was not, therefore, as rash as we might at first suppose (cf. Ewald III. 7623d ed. He seems to think, however, that Necho may have taken Carchemish at this time, cf. ss. 7823). However, the Jewish king was killed in the battle, and his second son Jehoahaz was made king. Necho pursued his course of conquest with success for three months. On his return, he regarded Judah also, by virtue of his victory at Megiddo, as a conquered province, although he had declared at the outset that he had no hostile design against that country (2Ch 35:21). He refused to ratify the election of Jehoahaz, but took him (probably sent a detachment to bring him) from Jerusalem to the camp at Riblah (2Ki 23:33), where he put him in chains, and carried him captive to Egypt. He made Judah tributary. Jeremiah (22:10) calls Jehoahaz more worthy of pity in his captivity than his father in his death, and Ewald, with good reason, interprets the parable (Ezekiel 19, especially 2Ki 23:2-4) of Jehoiakim. Necho put the elder brother Eliakim on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:34). This was in 609 or 608. Necho at this time took Gaza (Jer 47:1), and remained sovereign over the western provinces for two or three years.
We come now to the year 606 in which Nineveh was taken according to Oppert, Lenormant, Ewald, and others. The historical features of this event, aside from the question of its date, are as follows. The king of Assyria sent to Babylon, as satrap, a general named Nabopolassar (Nebo-protects-my-son), probably an Assyrian. It is certain that, when the final attack was made, it was twofold, both from Media and from the south. Nabopolassar and Cyaxares formed an alliance which was cemented by the marriage of Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, with Amyitis, daughter of Cyaxares. Rawlinsons idea is that Nabopolassar was charged with the defence against the attack from the south, but turned traitor. This supposition is necessary since he does not think that the Chaldeans participated in the first attack. Lenormant supposes that Nabopolassar was sent to Babylon as satrap, that he matured plans of revolt, that he joined in the first attack, and that he employed the interval of nineteen years in establishing his independence. He also thinks that Nabopolassar was, in 607, an old and broken man, that he associated his son Nebuchadnezzar with himself on the throne in that year, and that, therefore, the capture of Nineveh is really to be reckoned among the exploits of that prince. He supposes that certain chronological discrepancies are to be accounted for by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar became joint ruler in 607, so that two starting-points for his reign were confused. (See 2Ki 25:8, and Jer 52:28-30.) The attack of the confederated Medes and Chaldeans was successful, and Saracus perished with his court and treasures in the downfall of the city.
Nebuchadnezzar now becomes the chief figure in the drama. He was a prince of extraordinary talents and energy, and he consolidated, if we may not say that he actually established, the Babylonian monarchy. Having destroyed Nineveh, his next task was to recover that portion of his new conquest which the Egyptians had held in possession for two or three years. In 605, the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 46:2), he met Necho, who came out to defend his possessions, at Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and totally defeated him. He pursued the Egyptians to the border of Egypt (2Ki 24:7), and no doubt intended to push on into that country, when news came to him (604) that his father was dead. He hastened to Babylon with a small escort through the nearer, but more dangerous, way of the desert. He met with no opposition in ascending the throne, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim of Judah (Jer 25:1).
In the haste of these movements, Judah had remained secure in its mountains. Nebuchadnezzars army marched to Egypt in two columns, one through Philistia and one through Perea (Lenormant). But Nebuchadnezzar soon returned to Palestine and Phnicia to complete the work of conquest. In 602 or 601 he made Jehoiakim tributary (2Ki 24:1) and took away certain hostages or captives. In 599 or 598 Jehoiakim planned a revolt (2Ki 24:1), relying on help from Egypt. Rawlinson thinks that the embassy mentioned in Jer 26:22 had for its object to form this alliance, and that the matter of Urijah was only a pretext. Nebuchadnezzar first incited the neighboring nations against him (2Ki 24:2), and then himself marched into Judah. Jehoiakim died at this time, and Jehoiachin, his son, succeeded (2Ki 24:8). He was not able to resist the Chaldeans, and surrendered at discretion (2Ki 24:12). He was taken away prisoner, with 10,000 other captives (2Ki 24:13-14), the most energetic and independent portion of the people. The city and temple were plundered, and Mattaniah, the youngest son of Josiah, was put upon the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, under the name of Zedekiah (24:17).
Lenormant justly says of Zedekiah that he was only a Babylonian satrap. A strong party urged him continually to revolt, but Jeremiah counselled patience and submission. In 595 the princes of the neighboring countries met at Jerusalem (Jer 27:3) to plan a concerted revolt, but Zedekiah was persuaded by Jeremiah to renounce this plan (Jeremiah 27.). He went to Babylon (in his fourth year, 594) to counteract suspicions of his fidelity which had been aroused (Jer 51:59). However, he again cherished similar plans, and entered into negotiations with Uaprahet (Uaphris, Apries. Hophra) of Egypt. The Chaldeans again invaded Judah in 590. The siege of Jerusalem began early in January, 589 (Lenorm.). During this siege the serfs were manumitted, that they might help in the defence (Jeremiah 34.). The Egyptians advanced to the relief of Jerusalem, the Chaldeans turned to meet the attack, and the hopes of the Jews revived so far that the freedmen were once more enslaved. This diversion, however, produced no effect. It is uncertain whether a battle was really fought and lost by the Egyptians (Josephus, Antiq. X. vii. 3), or whether they retreated without fighting at all. In 588 a breach was made and the Chaldeans entered the city (Jer 25:3-4). Zedekiah fled (Jer 25:4), hoping to break through the investing lines, but he was captured and taken to Riblah (Jer 25:6), where Nebuchadnezzar was encamped. His sons were slain before his eyes. He was then blinded and taken captive to Babylon. One month later (Jer 25:8; cf. Jer 25:3) Nebuzaradan was deputed to carry out the systematic destruction of Jerusalem, and deportation of the most influential of its population. This he did thoroughly, though not without some slight leniency (Jer 25:12-22). However, the fanaticism of Ishmael and his party destroyed the last hope of maintaining the Jewish nationality, even in the pitiful form in which the Chaldeans had yet spared it (Jer 25:25). The history of Judah, from this time on, is merged in that of the great world-monarchies.W. G. S.]
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
6 1. The author treats very curtly the history of the last four kings of Judah. In Chronicles we find a still more abbreviated account. He passes hastily over this part of the history of Judah, just as he did over the similar part of the history of Israel (see p. 162 sq.), for it is the twenty-three years of the death-agony of the nation (Ewald). Josiah was the last genuine theocratic king. With his death begins the end of the kingdom; the history of his four successors, three of whom were his sons and one his grandson, is nothing more than the story of this end. The author tells no more in regard to them than appears to him from his theocratic and pragmatic standpoint to be absolutely necessary. So he tells first what the attitude of each was towards Jehovah, that is, toward the covenant or the Mosaic law, and then so much of their history as pertains to the downfall of the kingdom, which was approaching step by step. We therefore learn rather what happened to them according to the counsel of God than what they themselves did. Essential additions to the history are contributed by Jeremiah, especially by the historical portions, but also by the prophetical discourses, though it is not always easy to determine which reign these latter belong to, nor what events they refer to. It is very remarkable that this great prophet, who certainly was an important personage during these last four reigns, and who is one of the most remarkable individuals mentioned in the Old Testament, is not mentioned or referred to at all in the historical book, perhaps for the reason that the acquaintance of the readers with the book of the prophet is taken for granted. [This is one reason for thinking that Jeremiah himself wrote the Books of Kings. See Introd. 1.W. G. S.]
2. The reign of king Jehoahaz, although it only lasted for three months, had important influence on the course of the history, inasmuch as it broke with Josiahs theocratic rgime, and introduced another policy which hastened on the downfall of the kingdom. All that Josiah had built up with such anxious care and labor fell in ruins in a few months. Although the Jehovah-worship was not formally abrogated again, yet the door was opened for all manner of heathen falsehood and corruption to re-enter, and no one of the following kings abandoned the new policy which was thus inaugurated. This is the heavy guilt which rests upon Jehoahaz. How he came to adopt this course we can only guess, since we have no explanation of it offered in the Scriptures. The notion of some of the old expositors, that he was seduced by his mother, is entirely without foundation, and is especially improbable as she came from the ancient priest-city Libnah, and so cannot certainly have been bred to idolatry. It is much more probable that the heathen-party, to which many persons of rank and influence belonged, but which had been repressed under Josiah, arose once more after his death, and sought to regain its power. He either brought them over to his side or sought to win them by concessions. It does indeed seem probable, from the course which Necho adopted towards him, that he continued to be hostile to Egypt (Ewald), but the text nowhere states that he resisted unworthy proposals of the Egyptian king. Niemeyer (Character der Bibel V. s. 105) says of him: When compared with his elder brothers and successors, he seems to have been superior to them in many respects. One passage in Jeremiah would almost lead us to the opinion that the people longed for his return from Egypt. Umbreit also remarks on Jer 22:11 sq.: He seems, during his reign of three months, to have made himself very much beloved. But it by no means follows, because the people passed over his elder brothers to make him king, that he was in any way better than they, for he certainly did not fulfil any hopes which may have been formed in regard to him, and Josephus (Antiq. X. v. 2), who certainly would not contradict the general verdict in regard to him which had been crystallized in tradition, calls him . As for the text, Jer 22:10-12, in which he is called Shallum, it certainly cannot mean that Shallum deserved to be lamented more than the model king, Josiah, who walked in the way of his father David, and turned neither to the right hand nor to the left, whereas Jehoahaz followed in the ways of Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon (2Ki 22:2; 2Ki 23:32). The prophet there threatens the house of David (2Ki 25:1) with destruction, because it has abandoned the covenant of Jehovah (2Ki 25:5-9). He says that one king has already been carried away captive out of his land,the land of promise,that he will die and be buried in a foreign land (a great calamity and disgrace, according to Israelitish notions), and that another will be cast out before the city like a dead animal and find no burial at all. There is, therefore, no syllable here of desire and longing on the part of the people for the return of Jehoahaz as one who was better than the rest. Why should the people long for the return of a king who had disappointed all their hopes and expectations?
3. Josephus says (Antiq. X. v. 2) of king Jehoiakim: , , . The correctness of this criticism appears especially from the passages in Jeremiah which serve as supplements to the history before us, Jer 22:13-19; Jer 26:20-24; Jer 36:20-32. The idol-worship which Jehoahaz had tolerated once more grew and spread with great rapidity under Jehoiakim. All the abominations which had existed under Manasseh reappeared. Ewald and Vaihinger infer from Eze 8:7-13 that he added to the Asiatic forms of idolatry which had existed under Manasseh, by introducing also the Egyptian cultus, but the reference in that passage is to the worship of Thammuz (Adonis), a well-known deity of Western Asia, the chief seat of whose worship was the ancient Phnician city of Byblus, and to whose cultus belong the representations of worms and unclean animals on the walls (2Ki 25:10.See Hvernick on Ezek. s. 98 and 108). Moreover, the question may be raised whether this cultus was introduced under Jehoiakim, or not until the reign of Zedekiah. However that may be, there is no hint of any Egyptian cultus under Jehoiakim, although he was a vassal of Egypt, and in fact there is no hint at all of any Egyptian forms of idolatry among the Hebrews. Jehoiakim was the tool of the heathen party; he not only did not listen to the prophets, he hated and persecuted them. He caused the prophet Urijah, who had fled from him to Egypt, to be brought back from thence, to be put to death, and then his corpse to be shamefully handled (Jer 26:20-24). Jeremiah barely escaped death (Jer 36:26). 2Ki 24:3-4 also shows that Jehoiakim shed much innocent blood. He had also a passion for building, and he caused expensive structures to be erected unjustly, and without paying wages to the laborers. [Jer 22:13 sq.] He exacted the tribute which Necho had imposed upon him from the people instead of using the royal treasures for this purpose. Even after the resources of the country were exhausted he continued his exactions so that the courageous prophet rebuked him: Thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence to do it (Jer 22:17). Therefore the prophet warns him that he will not be lamented nor buried, but that, in spite of all his royal grandeur and glory, he will be dragged forth and cast upon the field like a dead ass. No doubt he early showed what sort of a disposition he had, and it is not strange that the people, after Josiahs death, passed him over and made his brother king. He was a tyrant who was forced upon the nation by a victorious enemy, through whom it was punished for its apostasy. His reign formed a part of the divine judgment which had already begun to fall.
4. King Jehoiachin is placed before us by both the historical narratives (2Ki 24:9; 2Ch 36:9) as just like the three other kings as regards his attitude towards Jehovah. It is simply said of him without restriction: He did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, like to all that his father had done. The only thing further which is related in regard to him is that, when the Babylonian army appeared before Jerusalem to besiege it, he went out and surrendered himself, begging for mercy. Josephus (Antiq. X. vii. 1) regards this as a praiseworthy action. He says: ; that the king had a solemn promise from the generals whom Nebuchadnezzar had sent that no harm should happen to him or to the city, but that this promise was broken, for Nebuchadnezzar had given orders that all who were in the city should be taken captive and brought into his presence. Niemeyer also says (Charact. d. B. V. s. 107): Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, was undeniably a better king than his father. He does that which wisdom and humanity require under the circumstances. He desists from the active prosecution of a revolt which could only result in greater cruelty from the enemy, and greater exhaustion of the land, which was already thoroughly worn out. He must have been regarded, even in his captivity, as a man who deserved great respect (Jer 52:31). Similarly Ewald (Gesch. III. s. 734) says: This prince was obliged to yield, in religious matters, to the prevailing depravity, but he did not lack good features of character which served to excite good hopes of him. There was a greater feeling of happiness under him than under his father, and there was great lamentation when he was obliged, at an early age, to go into captivity. Probably the touching Psalms 42, 43, , 84 are from his hand. Vai-hinger also (Herzog, Real-Encyc. VI. s. 787) agrees with this general opinion: Although he had not reigned in the spirit of the Jehovah-religion, yet there continued to be among the people a longing for his return. The false prophets especially nourished this hope (Jer 28:4). These favorable opinions, however, are not at all well founded. From his sudden surrender of the city we may rather infer that he was weak and cowardly than anything else. [It should be noticed, however, that this is just what Jeremiah urged Zedekiah to do afterwards, viz., to yield to the Babylonians and sue for mercy (Jer 37:17 sq., cf. also Jer 37:2). Jehoiachin, by surrendering, seems to have saved the city from sack and pillage and burning, which was its fate after Zedekiahs resistance. We cannot condemn Jehoiachin for pusillanimity in surrendering at discretion, and Zedekiah for obstinacy in resisting to the end. See next section. The surrender is as much a sign of wisdom as of weakness.W. G. S.] There is no support in this text nor in Jeremiah for what Josephus adds in regard to the promise which had been given him and was broken. The words of the prophet (Jer 22:24-30), where he pronounces the divine oracle, come in here with peculiar significance: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah [Jehoiachin], the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence! And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country where ye were not born, and there shall ye die, but to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. Is [then, do ye ask] this man Coniah a despised, broken, idol? Is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he, and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O! earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. This stern condemnation by Jehovah cannot rest upon any other foundation than the fact that Jehoiachin had done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, like to all that his father had done. It would have been a very unjust condemnation, if Jehoiachin had been a man deserving of the highest respect, and if, by virtue of his good traits, he had been superior to his brothers and his uncle, or had belonged to the better portion of the nation. The comparison to a signet ring, which has been so often interpreted to Jehoiachins advantage, does not mean, if he were as dear to me as such a ring, nevertheless I would cast him away. Only those are dear to Jehovah who walk in His ways, and such he does not cast away. The meaning rather is, as is shown by the tearing off from the hand, this: however firmly he supposes that, as a king [of the House of David], he is held by me, even like the signet on my hand, nevertheless I will cast him away on account of his own sins and the sins of the people. When the false prophet Hananiah (Jer 28:5 sq.) foretells that Jehovah will bring back all the vessels of the house of Jehovah, and king Jehoiachin, and all who are captive with him, and will break the yoke of the king of Babylon, this does not express any especial longing for the return of this king, but only a general desire for deliverance from the Babylonian yoke, and the restoration of the kingdom with its independent dynasty. On the other hand it is generally understood, and with far more apparent reason, that the young lion, Eze 19:5 sq., represents Jehoiachin but this also is impossible; because all that is there implied in regard to him cannot possibly have taken place within three months (Schmieder on that passage). In the abbreviated name Coniah (see the Exeg. notes on 2Ki 24:8), which is there used, many old expositors, such as Grotius and Lightfoot, and also Hengstenberg and Schmieder, have seen an intention to figure forth to the king his approaching doom: The future is put first in order by cutting off the to cut off Lope: a Schoniah with J. a God-will-confirm without the will (Hengstenberg). Not to speak of any other objection to this, it is enough that the abbreviated form Coniah is used instead of Jeconiah not only in prophetical but also in historical passages (Jer 37:1), where there is no possible intention to signify the cutting off of hope.
[Bhr seems to allow his judgment of Jehoiachin to be too much controlled by the standing formula that he did that which was evil, &c. This formula covered many grades of evil, and no violence is done to the general justice of this verdict upon him, if we recognize the fact that he was not one of the worst among the bad. Ewald is justified in saying; The king meant no harm, but he was negligent in his duties. He did not look forward to the future with good judgment. He was a tool of the nobles, and he was far too weak for the bitter crisis in which he was called to reign. Stanley also gives a fair estimate of the king and of the popular feeling in regard to him: With straining eyes the Jewish people and prophets still hung on the hope that their lost prince would be speedily restored to them. The gate through which he left the city was walled up like that by which the last Moorish king left Grenada, and was long known as the gate of Jeconiah. From his captivity as from a decisive era the subsequent years of the history were reckoned (Eze 1:2; Eze 8:1; Eze 24:1; Eze 26:1; Eze 29:1; Eze 31:1 [2Ki 25:27]. The tidings were treasured up with a mournful pleasure, that, in the distant Babylon, where, with his royal mother (Jer 22:26; 2Ki 24:15), he was to end his days, after many years of imprisonment, the curse of childlessness, pronounced upon him by the prophet (Jer 22:30), was removed; and that, as he grew to mans estate, a race of no less than eight sons were born to him, by whom the royal race of Judah was carried on (1Ch 3:17-18; cf. Susan. 14); and yet more, that he had been kindly treated by the successor of his captor (2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34); that he took precedence of all of the subject kings at the table of the Babylonian monarch; that his prison garments and his prison fare were changed to something like his former state. More than one sacred legendenshrined in the sacred books of many an ancient Christian Churchtells how he, with the other captives, sat on the banks of the Euphrates (Bar 1:3-4), and shed bitter tears as they heard the messages of their brethren in Palestine; or how he dwelt in a sumptuous house and fair gardens, with his beautiful wife, Susannah, more honorable than all others (Susannah i.iv.).W. G. S.]
5. The account of the eleven years reign of Zedekiah only states how that reign came to an end, for besides the standing formula that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, it contains only the remark that he revolted from the king of Babylon. We obtain a more complete picture of this reign from the descriptions and historical accounts which are preserved in the book of Jeremiah, and also to some extent in the book of Ezekiel. As concerns his attitude towards Jehovah and the law of Moses, he does not seem to have been himself devoted to idolatry, but he did not oppose it any more than his brother Jehoiakim had done. On the contrary, heathenism and immorality rather increased and spread during his reign. The stone was rolling; it could not be stayed any more. The class whose especial duty it was to oppose this tendency, namely, the priests and prophets, sank during this time lower and lower (see Jeremiah 23.). Then, too, the revolt of Zedekiah from Nebuchadnezzar was of a very different kind from that of Hezekiah from Sennacherib (see notes on Jer 18:7), nay, it was even worse than that of his brother Jehoiakim from Pharaoh-Necho, for he not only owed to Nebuchadnezzar his crown and his throne (as Jehoiakim had owed his to Pharaoh-Necho), but he had also sworn an oath of allegiance to him, as is expressly stated in the brief account, 2Ch 36:13. This oath he broke in a frivolous way without any sufficient reason. The prophet Ezekiel declares that this oath-breaking was a great sin, not only against him to whom it was sworn, but also against him by whom it was sworn, Jehovah, and he even gives this as the reason for the ruin of the king and of the nation (Eze 17:18-20): Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when lo! he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. And I will spread my net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his trespasses that he hath trespassed against me. He does not appear in a much better light according to some facts which Jeremiah mentions. During the siege of Jerusalem he entered into a solemn covenant with all the people that every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free, that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. The princes and the people agreed to this and manumitted the serfs or slaves. But when it was heard that the Egyptian army was coming to help them, and they thought that they would not need the freed people any more, they broke the covenant and reduced them once more to slavery. This led the prophet to declare: Therefore, thus saith the Lord; Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth And Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes will I give into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life, and into the hand of the king of Babylons army, which are gone up from you. Behold, I will command, saith the Lord, and cause them to return to this city; and they shall fight against it and take it and burn it with fire, and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without an inhabitant (Jer 34:8-22). What is narrated in Jeremiah 37-38 is still more significant. At that time of great anxiety and distress the king sent messengers with this request: Pray for us to Jehovah! then, however, he allowed the officers to seize Jeremiah, maltreat him, and cast him into prison, because they were angry at his threats. Not until some time afterwards did he send for Jeremiah, though secretly, and ask of him an oracle of the Lord. Even yet he did not set him free, but only granted him a somewhat less severe imprisonment. Then, when the prophet repeatedly foretold the victory of the Chaldeans, the officers and chiefs demanded his death, and the king replied: Behold he is in your hand; for the king is not he that can do anything against you. Then they lowered him into a dungeon in which there was no water, indeed, but slime, into which he sank, and where he would have perished wretchedly, if he had not been rescued through the efforts of an Ethiopian, Ebedmelech. Even yet, however, he was held as a prisoner. Still again the king sought a secret interview with him, but did not obey his counsel to give himself up, because he feared that he should be despised and maltreated by those Jews who had deserted to the Chaldeans. He commanded the prophet to keep the interview a secret, and especially not to let the princes know of it. When finally the Chaldeans penetrated into the lower city, he took flight by night with his immediate attendants from the opposite side of the city, but was soon caught by the Chaldeans, and brought before Nebuchadnezzar, who caused him to be blinded, and his sons to be put to death. From this entire story we see what was the chief feature in Zedekiahs character: Weakness, and weakness of the saddest kind (Niemeyer). Instead of ruling as king, he allows himself to be controlled by those who stand nearest to him; he cannot do anything against them. [Yet it would not be fair to overlook the fact that a powerful party of nobles, in a besieged city, where excitement and confusion and anxiety reigned, might make a strong king powerless to resist a policy on which they were determined. The party of the princes seems to have been possessed by that fanatical patriotism which not unfrequently takes possession of men under such circumstances, and drives them to heroic folly or foolish heroism. This passion appeared among the Jews in every crisis of their history. In this case it pushed the nation on to its fate, and though Zedekiah was a weak king, he might have been a strong one and not have been able to stem this tide.W. G. S.] He has good inclinations, but he never attains to what is good. He demands an oracle of God but in secret, and, when he receives it, he does not obey it. His weakness of character makes him vacillating, false to his word and oath, unjust and pitiless, cowardly and despondent, and finally leads him into misery. We have here another example which shows that weakness and want of character are the very gravest faults, nay, even a vice, in a ruler. Josephus (Antiq. X. vii. 2) justly says of Zedekiah: . , .
6. Zedekiahs end was the end of the royal house of David and of the Israelitish monarchy. This dynasty had remained on the throne for nearly 500 years, while, in the seceded kingdom of the ten tribes, within a period of 250 years, nine dynasties of nineteen kings reigned, of which each one dethroned and extirpated the preceding one. What a wonder it is to see one dynasty endure through almost five entire centuries, and that too in the ancient times when dynasties usually had but brief duration, and to see this dynasty, in the midst of perils and changes, form a centre around which the nation always formed, so that when it perished at last, it perished only in the downfall of the nation itself. Such a kingdom might fall into grievous error for a time, but in the long run it must be brought back by the example of its great hero and founder David, and by the wealth of experience which it had won in its undisturbed development, to the eternal fundamentals of all true religion, and all genuine life (Ewald, Gesch. III. s. 419). This wonder, however, of the uninterrupted existence of the dynasty of David does not rest upon human will or power, but upon the promise which was given to David (2Sa 7:8 sq.): And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever (2Sa 7:16). The premise on which this promise was based was the idea that the Old Testament theocratic monarchy was realized in David. This monarchy is, as it were, realized in him, and he is not only the physical ancestor of his family, but the model for all his successors, according to their fidelity to which their reigns are estimated and judged (1Ki 11:38; 1Ki 15:3; 1Ki 15:11; 2Ki 14:3; 2Ki 16:2; 2Ki 18:3; 2Ki 22:2). God sustains the monarchy in their hands for Davids sake, even when they do not deserve it, for their own (1Ki 11:12; 1Ki 13:32; 1Ki 15:4; 2Ki 8:19). When he went the way of all the earth he left as a bequest to his son the following words: Be strong and show thyself a man, and keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: That the Lord may continue his word, which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth, with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee, said he, a man on the throne of Israel (1Ki 2:2-4). When, however, after Josiahs death, four kings in succession abandoned the way of David, and apostasy became a fixed and permanent tradition, the monarchy ceased to be what it was its calling and purpose to be; it was necessarily doomed to perish. When the traditions of evil are maintained, or at least tolerated, then the monarchy suffers a transformation. Kings become incapable of executing the duties of their office, and a divine judgment becomes inevitable. So it was with the sons of Josiah, whose fate is a warning beacon on the horizon of history (Vilmar). But, in spite of the inevitable doom of the nation, the promise to David was fulfilled in its integrity. Although the external authority of the house of David ceased with Zedekiah, yet from the time of his fall the preparation went on, all the more surely, for the coming of that Son of David who was to be a king over the house of David forever, and whose kingdom should have no end (Luk 1:33). The place of the light of the house of David, which had been extinguished (1Ki 11:36; 2Ki 8:19), was taken, when the time was fulfilled, by the true light which illumines the whole world (Joh 1:9), and which will not be extinguished to all eternity. The last king who sat upon the throne of David, and who falsely called himself [The righteousness of God], served to point forward, in the Providence of God, and according to the words of the prophet, to the coming king and shepherd of his people, whose name should be called: , The Lord our Righteousness (Jer 23:6).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See the above paragraphs and compare the additional information afforded by the passages above quoted from Jeremiah.
2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:7. The Four Last Kings of Judah. (a) The way in which they all walked. (They all abandoned the living God and His law, though they had the best model and example in their ancestor. They did not listen to the warnings and exhortations of the prophets, but followed their own lusts. Instead of being good shepherds of their people, they led them into deeper and deeper corruption.) (b) The end to which they all came. (They all learned what misery comes of abandoning the Lord, Jer 2:19. Two of them reigned for only three months each; their glory was like the grass, which in the morning groweth up, but in the evening is cut down, dried up, and withered. One of them was forced to go to Egypt, where he died, and another to go to Babylon, where he remained a captive for thirty-seven years. Two of them died miserably: one was dragged to death and his corpse was thrown out like that of a dead animal; the other was forced to see his sons slain before his eyes, then he was blinded and ended his days in a prison. The godless, even though they be princes, perish utterly, Psa 73:19. The judgments of God are true and righteous, Rev 16:7; Psa 145:17.)Kyburz: We are surprised that Jehoiakim did not take warning by Jehoahaz, and that Jehoiachin and Zedekiah did not take warning by Jehoiakim, but that all made themselves abominable to God by the same sin; but how many great families and races have we seen since then come to a fearful end, without taking warning by their fate. On the contrary, we have made ourselves guilty in his sight with the same or greater sins.A dynasty in which apostasy has become hereditary and traditional has no blessing or happiness; it must sooner or later perish. The words of Psa 89:14 : Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne, apply also to an earthly throne. A throne or a government which lacks this habitation [more correctly, stronghold] has no sure foundation. It rocks and reels and finally falls. This is shown by the history of these four kings, all of whom departed from righteousness and the law of God, and were guided in their rule only by political considerations. They became the sport of ambitious conquerors.There can be no greater disgrace or humiliation for a country than that foreigners should set up or depose rulers for it according to their whim.
2Ki 23:31 sq. The sons want of loyalty to the law of God tore down in three months what the fathers zeal had built up by thirty-one years of anxious labor. How often a son squanders in a short time what a father has collected by years of careful toil.What a responsibility falls upon the ruler who opens the door again for the return of the evils which a former government has earnestly labored to shut out.
2Ki 23:34. Two brothers stand in hostile relations to each other. One deposes the other. They are both sons of the same pious father, but they resemble him in nothing.Jehoiakim and Zedekiah each receive a new name when they ascend the throne. What is the use, however, of changing the name when the character is not changed, or of taking on a name to which the life does not correspond?A throne which is bought with money won by exactions is an abomination in the sight of God. Jehoiakim does not contribute anything from his own treasures, but exacts all from his subjects. He builds great houses and lives in abundance and luxury, but does not give to the laborers the wages which they have so well earned. This is the way of tyrants, but they receive their reward from him who recompenses each according to his works (Jer 22:15-19). Avarice is the root of evil, even among the great and rich; it brings them into temptation, 1Ti 6:9.2Ki 24:1. To-day the mighty king of Egypt makes Jehoiakim his vassal, to-morrow the still more mighty king of Babylon; such is the fate of princes who put their trust in an arm of flesh, and turn away from the Lord instead of calling after him: He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in him will I trust (Psa 91:2).
2Ki 23:2. Wrt. Summ.: It is not a mere chance when an armed enemy invades a country; they are sent by God, without whom not one could set a foot therein. It is a punishment for sin. Therefore let no man take courage in sin because there is profound peace. Peace is never so firm that God cannot put an end to it and send war.He revolted. He who cannot bend under the mighty hand of God will not submit to the human powers in subjection to which he has been placed by God. Resistance, however, is vain, for God resisteth the proud.Kyburz: Hear, ye kings and judges of the earth! God demands that ye shall humble yourselves before His messengers. David did this before Nathan. Do not think that your majesty is thereby diminished; God can exalt again those who humble themselves before him. But, if ye do not do this, God will do to you as he did to Jehoiakim and Zedekiah.The word of the Lord, which He spake to Jehoiakim by His prophet, the king threw into the fire and thought that he had thus reduced it to naught (Jer 36:23), but he was brought to the bitter experience that the word of the Lord cannot be burned up, but is, and remains to all eternity, true and sure.
2Ki 23:3-4. The sin of Manasseh was not visited on his descendants in such a way that they could say: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge (Jer 31:29), for The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father (Eze 18:20), but the punishment fell upon Judah because it had made itself a participant in the crime of Manasseh, and, like him, had shed innocent blood (Jer 26:20-23; see also Eze 33:25 sq.).
2Ki 23:7. Easy won, easy lost. This has always been the fortune of conquerors. What one has won by robbery and force another mightier takes from him. The Lord in heaven makes the great small, and the rich poor (1Sa 2:7; Psa 75:7).
2Ki 23:8-16. Osiander: As long as the people of God does not truly repent it has little cause to rejoice that one or another tyrant is removed, for a worse one may follow.Wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together (Mat 24:28). A nation which is in decay attracts the conquerors, who do not quit it until it is torn to pieces.Starke: There is always misery and danger where there is war, therefore let us pray to be preserved from war and bloodshed.
2Ki 23:12. Instead of calling upon God, Jehoiachin surrenders himself at once and asks for mercy. He who does not trust in God soon falls into despondency. Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi.
2Ki 23:14-16. Notice Gods mercy and longsuffering even in his judgments. He still allows the kingdom to stand, and turns the heart of the enemy so that he does not yet make an utter end of it (Eze 18:23; Eze 18:32; see notes on 2Ki 25:21).
2Ki 24:17 to 2Ki 25:7. Zedekiah, the last king on Davids throne. See Historical 5. Roos: Zedekiah is an example of a man who, in spite of some good traits, finally perishes because he never can attain to victory over the world and over sin. He listened unmoved to Jer 27:12 sq. and 34:2 sq. He made an agreement with the people to keep a year of manumission (Jer 34:8). He desired that Jeremiah should pray to the Lord for him and for his people (Jer 37:3). He rescued Jeremiah from a fearful dungeon into which he had been cast without the kings authority, asked of him secretly a divine oracle, and caused him to be brought into an endurable prison (Jer 37:17 sq.). He saved him once more from a terrible prison and asked once more privately for the divine oracle (Jeremiah 38). Yet in the midst of all this he remained a slave of sin. He asked and listened, but did not obey. His purposes had no endurance or energy. He was a king whom his nobles had succeeded in overpowering. He feared them more than God. He had no courage to trust Gods word and he feared where there was no reason (Jer 38:19 sq.). On the other hand he allowed himself to be persuaded by his counsellors and nobles (Jer 38:22). He hoped for miracles such as had been performed in early times, particularly in the time of Hezekiah (Jer 21:2), although he had no promises of God to serve as a ground for such hope. He trusted in the strength of the fortification of Jerusalem (Jer 21:13), and did not believe what Jeremiah foretold in regard to the destruction of this city.
2Ki 24:20. Zedekiah broke his oath for the sake of earthly gain and honor. Be not deceived, God will not be mocked. He who calls upon God and then fails of his word mocks at Him who can ruin soul and body in hell. All the misery and woe which befell Zedekiah came from his perjury (Eze 17:18 sq.). Pfaff: We must keep faith even with unbelievers and enemies (Jos 9:19).A prince who breaks his own oath cannot complain when his subjects break their oath of allegiance to him.
2Ki 25:1 sq. Starke: When the rod does not avail, God sends the sword (Eze 21:13-14).
2Ki 25:3. Cramer: God often punishes loathing of His word by physical hunger (Lam 4:10).
2Ki 25:4-6. Wrt. Summ.: When God means to punish a sinner no wall or weapon avails to protect him (Jer 46:6).Starke: If we will not take that road to escape which God has given us we cannot escape at all (Hos. 13:19; Jer 2:17).
2Ki 25:7. Starke: Many parents, by their godless behavior, bring their children into temporal and eternal ruin. Such children will some day have just cause to cry out against their parents (Sir 41:10).A punishment which is deserved must be inflicted upon the just condemnation of the proper authority, but even the mightiest earthly power has no right to torture a convict. The civil authority is indeed an avenger to punish the guilty, and it does not carry the sword in vain, but it ceases to be Gods servant when it becomes bloodthirsty and delights in pain.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki 23:33. On the keri see remarks under Exegetical.
[2]2Ki 24:3. [ here has peculiar force. It means in or throughout all that he did, infecting all according to a certain measure. Whatever he did there was a certain measure of wickedness in it according to its character. The somewhat subtle force of the particle led to variants. One codes has , Sept. and Syr. . The reading in the text is correct (Thenius).W. G. S.]
[3]2Ki 24:10. The keri is to be preferred.Bhr. [The chetib is sing. The keri is a grammatical correction. The sing, may have been written with the mind fixed on Nebuchadnezzar. This point has importance for the question whether he accompanied the expedition from the outset. Cf2 Kings 24:11.
[4]2 Kings25:3. [The statement that it was the fourth month is here imported into the text by the translators from Jeremiah, who gives it in both places; Jeremiah 3 and Jeremiah 39.
[5]2 Kings25:4. [ is singular, and our version supplies the king as the subject. It is more likely that it is a case of the indefinite subject one (Fr. on; Germ. man). The army went, or, as we are obliged to translate, they went. The kings presence in the train is implied and assumed. In Jer 52:7 we find , and in Jer 39:4, the sing. , but there the king is mentioned in the context.W. G. S.]
[6] [Genealogical Table of the Last Kings of Judah.Sovereigns in small capitals. the numbers designate the order of succession on the throne.W.G.S]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The ruin of Judah is nearly arrived. Jehoiakim rebelling against the king of Babylon, to whom he had been tributary three years, is ruined. Jerusalem is taken. Some account of the evil reign of Zedekiah.
2Ki 24:1
If the Reader will be careful to connect the last of the history of the kings of Judah, with the first of the Babylonish captivity, he should begin the close of the one with the opening of the other at this chapter. For here we first meet with that character of whom Daniel speaks so much, Nebuchadnezzar. Alas! such a character would never have been noticed in the Church but for the Church’s backsliding. Satan would have never made the figure he doth had not our nature sinned.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 24
1. In his days [605 b.c.] Nebuchadnezzar king [at this time Crown Prince] of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. [Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, and second monarch of the Babylonian Empire, ascended the throne 604 b.c., and reigned forty-three years, dying 561 b.c. He is acknowledged to be the most celebrated of all the Babylonian sovereigns. No other heathen king occupies so much space in Scripture. It would be an interesting exercise for the young to bring together into one view all the passages in which the name of Nebuchadnezzar occurs.]
2. And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians [ Jer 35:11 ], and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord [the expression “according to the word of the Lord” should be compared with Lev 26:17-25 ; Deu 28:25 ; Jer 4:20-29 ; Jer 5:15-18 ; Hab 1:6-10 ], which he spake by his servants the prophets.
3. Surely at the commandment of the Lord [no human power could have done this] came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did;
4. And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon.
5. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? [The most eminent critics concur in regarding the latter part of Jehoiakim’s reign as a period of considerable obscurity. In 2 Chronicles we read: “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon” ( 2Ch 36:6 ). Jeremiah says: “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” ( Jer 22:19 ). In the text before us we are simply told that “Jehoiakim slept with his fathers.” The most circumstantial account of Jehoiakim’s later years is given in the book of Ezekiel: “Then the nations set against him on every side from the provinces, and spread their net over him: he was taken in their pit; And they put him in ward in chains, and brought him to the king of Babylon: they brought him into holds, that his voice should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel” ( Eze 19:8-9 ). In attempting to reconcile these various statements The Speaker’s Commentary says: “Nebuchadnezzar must in the fifth or sixth year of Jehoiakim’s revolt have determined to go in person to Syria, where matters were progressing ill, the revolt of Judaea in 602 b.c. having been followed by that of Tyre in 598 b.c. On his arrival he proceeded, probably from his headquarters at Riblah, to direct operations first against Tyre and then against Jerusalem. The troops which he employed against Jerusalem took Jehoiakim prisoner, and brought him in chains to Nebuchadnezzar’s presence, who at first designed to convey him to Babylon, but afterwards had him taken to Jerusalem, where he was executed, and his body ignominiously treated (Jer 22:19 , and Jer 36:30 ). Afterwards, when the Babylonians had withdrawn, the remains were collected and interred in the burying-place of Manasseh, so that the king ultimately “slept with his fathers.”]
6. So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
7. And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt [not the Nile, but the Wady-el-Arish] unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.
8. Jehoiachin [Jehovah will establish] was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months [by favour of Nebuchadnezzar]. And his mother’s name was Nehushta [brass], the daughter of El-nathan of Jerusalem.
9. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.
10. At that time [in the spring of the year] the servants [generals] of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.
11. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege [were besieging] it.
12. And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out [surrendered at discretion] to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother [this mother is almost always mentioned with her son a sign of her rank and dignity], and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him [as a prisoner] in the eighth year of his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] reign.
13. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said [to Hezekiah, ch. 2Ki 20:17 ].
14. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes [grandees of the court, and heads of the clans], and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths [literally “those who shut,” corresponding to what we call locksmiths]: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. [“He carried away all Jerusalem” is a phrase which must be limited by what follows. It has been estimated that the entire number of the captives did not exceed 11,000, and they consisted of the princes, the mighty men of valour, and the craftsmen or artisans, who numbered about a thousand. The population of modern Jerusalem, which seems to be nearly of the same size as the ancient city, is estimated by the most judicious of modern observers at from 10,000 to 17,000. The population of the ancient city has been calculated from its area at 15,000. It is supposed that when Jeremiah, in chap. Jer 52:28 , says that the number of captives carried off at this time was 3,023, his text has been corrupted.]
15. And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother [note, she is placed before the king’s wives], and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty [men of civil rank and dignity] of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.
16. And all the men of might [men of valour], even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong [rather, all of them strong] and apt for war [warriors and doers of battle], even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.
17. And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah. [It has been pointed out that the tributary kings to whom their suzerain gave a new name were probably allowed to suggest the name that they would prefer to take. Mattaniah in fixing upon his seems to have aimed at securing the blessings promised by Jeremiah to the reign of a king whose name should be Jehovah-Tsidkenu Jehovah our righteousness, Jer 23:5-8 .]
18. Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.
19. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that Jehoiakim had done.
20. For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence [there should be a full-stop after “presence”], that [And] Zedekiah rebelled [the date of the open revolt cannot be fixed] against the king of Babylon.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XIX
THE DOWNFALL OF JUDAH AND JERUSALEM
2Ki 23:30-25:30
We take up now the downfall of Judah and Jerusalem. The causes which led to this downfall are almost identical with the causes which led to the fall of Samaria and the Northern Kingdom: the idolatry and wickedness of the people, their departure from the worship of Jehovah, their apparent determination to pay no attention to the words of the prophets, the conspiracy of the last king, Hoshea, with Egypt and his revolt against the king of Assyria. These were the causes remote and near which led to the fall of Samaria. The same causes operated in bringing about the fall of Judah and Jerusalem: the wickedness, the perverseness, the determination and incorrigibility of the people their refusal to give heed to the voice of the prophets, especially Jeremiah, the conspiracy of the last king with Egypt to form an alliance, and his attempt to throw off the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. These are the remote and near causes which brought about the destruction of the Southern Kingdom.
Let us look at the situation at the death of Josiah. That sad event occurred in the year 608 B.C. It was a death blow to the hopes of the prophets and the prophetic party and all the righteous ones of Judah. It was a death blow to the hopes of the nation, and the sadness and mourning that resulted from the death of Josiah is suggested to us by Zec 12:11 . Judah never forgot the death of this good king. Zechariah, prophesying of the times of the restoration and messianic age, when all Israel would repent and mourn for their sins, says, “In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.” The mourning of all Israel in the future when it shall repent of its sins and be restored is compared to the mourning of Judah at the death of Josiah.
Now let us glance at the political horizon as well. The great empire of Assyria had reached the climax of its conquests, and its oppressions, and was not hastening to its end. The Babylonian Empire had risen; they had formed a league with the Median Empire, and the two combined, with the help of many other small nations, had at last concentrated their energies upon old Nineveh, and it was soon to be destroyed.
Zep 2:13-14 gives a distinct prophecy of the destruction of Nineveh, the capital of the great Assyrian Empire. Zephaniah lived probably in the time of Josiah, possibly earlier. Let us read what he says in his prophecy: “And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness. And herds shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations: both the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the capitals thereof; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the cedar work.”
The entire prophecy of Nahum is on this one subject the downfall of Nineveh. Nahum is a poet, who gives a vivid description of the siege and fall of Nineveh. The world rejoiced when old Nineveh was destroyed. That occurred about 607 or 606 B.C.
Now looking more closely at Judah and Jerusalem, our first point is the Egyptian supremacy in Judah. I have called attention to the successes of Pharaohnecho, king of Egypt, and noted that it was to hinder his advance north that Josiah came out against him and was slain. Pharaohnecho pursued his victorious career north as far as the land of Hamath and conquered that country, and extended his kingdom as far north as the Euphrates River, thus subjecting all Syria to his sway and establishing his headquarters at Riblah in the valley of Hamath.
Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, was put on the throne by the people, doubtless because of his popularity. He had a reign of only three months. During these three months he was under tribute to Pharaohnecoh who had conquered all this country, and he made him prisoner and carried him away to Egypt. His older brother, Jehoiakim, was put upon the throne by Pharaoh. Jehoahaz had a brief reign and a very wicked one. His end is unspeakably sad. Jer 22:10-12 gives an account of him.
Jeremiah at this time was a prophet of Judah and Jerusalem, and he was very active. Here is what he says about the end of Jehoahaz: “Weep not for the dead [that means Josiah], neither bemoan him; but weep sore for him that goeth away [Jehoahaz] ; for he shall return no more, nor see his native country. For thus saith Jehovah touching Shallum [another name for Jehoahaz] the son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of Josiah his father, and who went forth out of this place: He shall not return thither any more; but in the place whither they have led him captive there he shall die, and he shall see this land no more.”
In Eze 19:3-8 we have a striking statement also. Ezekiel was in Babylon prophesying to the exiles. He says, “And she brought up one of her whelps [Judah and Jerusalem represented as a lioness]: he became a young lion, and he learned to catch the prey; he devoured men, . . .” It is Ezekiel’s description of the capture of Jehoahaz, a young lion that Pharaoh caught and took away to Egypt.
Jehoiakim, two or three years his senior, was placed upon the throne by Pharaoh-necho, paid him tribute doubtless, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. He was just the opposite of his father, King Josiah, in almost every particular. It seems remarkable that such good kings as Hezekiah and Josiah should have such bad sons, utterly reprobate sons, &a Manasseh and Jehoiakim, but we see that even today.
Nebuchadnezzar, the great Babylonian, rose up in the year 608 B.C. Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and the Medes destroyed Nineveh and left her such an utter ruin that the very place of her existence was soon forgotten. It was completely overwhelmed and devastated by the Babylonians and the Medes, who for centuries had been looking for a chance to get a blow at the ferocious Assyrians.
Nabopolassar was in the East undertaking that great work, and his son Nebuchadnezzar was sent to the West to check the advance of the Egyptian king. We have already stated that Pharaohnecho had extended his empire to the Euphrates River, and now he was ready to go farther. Nebuchadnezzar was sent with a large army to check him. They met near Carchemish, 605 B.C., and here one of the great decisive battles of the world was fought. We find an account of this in Jer 46 , beginning with the second verse. It was the greatest event of that time: “Against Egypt, came the army of Pharaohnecho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah.”
Our next point is the supremacy of Babylon. The result, of course, was that the army of Nebuchadnezzar swept down in hot pursuit of the fleeing Egyptians and all the country was transferred into the hands of the Babylonians again. At once Jehoiakim began to pay tribute. Every nation in this region was compelled to pay heavy tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, the invincible head of the Babylonian army. Thus the allegiance of Judah and Jerusalem was transferred, at it where, in a moment from Egypt to Babylon. Now at that time there occurred a raid of the Babylonians upon Judah and Jerusalem and evidently many of the nobles and princes of the people were taken away. Dan 1:1 shows that in this raid upon Judah and Jerusalem Daniel with others was among those that were taken to Babylon: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.” Then it goes on with the story of Daniel and his three friends. This is one of the first deportations leading up to the final downfall. Jer 52:28 is a reference probably to the same deportation by Nebuchadnezzar: “This is the people whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty.” That may refer to the first one or it may possibly refer to a later one, we cannot be positive as to the chronology.
The next thing we note about Jehoiakim is that he rebels against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps he felt that he could make an alliance with Egypt, that old shame which Isaiah denounced, and which was one of the main things that caused the downfall of Samaria. Jehoiakim was evidently conspiring with Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar was in the far east engaged in his conquests; Jehoiakim, led on by his nobles and princes, thought he could free himself again from the galling yoke of Babylon and in spite of all Jeremiah’s entreaties he was determined to do so. In Jer 36 there is a little story of the prophecies which Jeremiah wrote and which were read in the presence of Jehoiakim as he was sitting in his winter palace before an open fire. When the roll was read to him, he took his penknife and cut it in pieces and threw it into the fire. Nearly all of those present with him seemed to approve of his action; only two or three are said to have begged him not to do it. This is the character of Jehoiakim and his attitude toward Jeremiah. In Jer 22:13-19 we have Jeremiah’s own description of Jehoiakim; also a reference to Jehoiakim in Jer 26:20-23 .
All this indicates Jehoiakim’s character, bold and incorrigibly defiant of God’s word and of every principle of right and truth. The result we find in 2Ki 24:2-4 : “And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by the hand of his servants the prophets.” They did not destroy it utterly, but they carried away a good many captives and much spoil. Jehoiakim died in the year 598 B.C., and the manner of his death is a mystery. There is some difficulty in reconciling the Bible accounts. In 2Ch 36:6 we find: “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon.” Jeremiah said that he should be cast out, drawn forth out of the city and buried as a beast. In Jer 36:30 we also have a statement similar: “Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.” The explanation possibly is that Nebuchadnezzar found him to be such a traitor and such a wretch and villain that he would not take him to Babylon, but had him slain and his body cast forth as refuse out of the city of Jerusalem.
In the next place we have the brief reign of Jehoiachin. Judah and Jerusalem are still under the yoke of Babylon, but the people rise up and put Jehoiachin on the throne, a boy only eighteen years old, and he reigns but three months. Evidently Nebuchadnezzar found something false or treacherous about him; so he comes to the city and besieges it. Jehoiachin surrenders the city, with all his family, and is taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar and carried in chains to Babylon; there lodged in the palace prison spending the rest of his life in captivity. At last the king of Babylon brings him out from his dungeon, lifts up his head, speaks kindly to him, and gives him a place among the other kings, tributary to Babylon.
Now comes the reign of Zedekiah, last of the kings of Judah. He is made king by Nebuchadnezzar and at the same time there is a great deportation of treasures and of nobles and of artisans from Jerusalem. This is the second deportation, and the most important one of this period. Treasures all the treasures of the house of the Lord and the king’s house at Jerusalem all the princes and mighty men, craftsmen and smiths, all the artisans, the best and most skillful minds of Jerusalem, were taken and there was left only the poor and laboring classes. Nebuchadnezzar took away all these because he had a great deal of building to do in his own land, completing the walls of Babylon, and other general work, irrigating the lands of the country, etc. But there is another object in it also, viz: With all the best blood gone, Jerusalem could not offer much resistance.
Afterward Zedekiah rebels, doubtless because he had some hope of a league with Egypt and that he might throw off the yoke of Babylon. Jer 27:12 ; Jer 27:17 gives Jeremiah’s advice to Zedekiah and all the other small nations telling them in substance: “You keep on yourselves the yoke of Babylon, for that is the only thing that will save your kingdom from destruction.” But Zedekiah did not heed Jeremiah any more than Jehoiakim did.
The result is just what we might expect. Nebuchadnezzar sets his army in motion, and in a few years the armies of Nebuchadnezzar are again surrounding the city and this time he means business. Jeremiah pleads with Zedekiah to surrender and take upon himself the yoke of Babylon but the influence of the princes that surround the weak Zedekiah counteracts all the influence of Jeremiah and he goes out on his final rebellion. We find that discussed in Jeremiah 36-37.
But now a ray of hope dawns upon the people of Jerusalem; the siege has been on some time. They hear that the king of Egypt, at last, is coming up to help them. The siege is raised, Nebuchadnezzar moves his army away from Jerusalem in order to meet the Egyptians, but he very soon defeats the Egyptian army and again the walls of Jerusalem are encompassed with his hosts, and Jeremiah (Jer 37:5-11 ) gives what the prophet says about it at the time. The siege was raised, but he warns them against false hopes: “For though ye had smitten the whole army of the Chaldeans that fight against you, and there remained but wounded men among them, yet should they rise up every man in his tent, and burn this city with fire.” “The doom is inevitable, if you carry out your principle of rebellion.” Zedekiah refuses the advice absolutely and for eighteen months Jerusalem endures the horrors of a siege. The fourth chapter of the book of Lamentations describes this. It speaks about the pitiful mother boiling her own children, and those who have been brought up in scarlet as embracing the dunghills to find something to eat, the nobleman’s skin is blackened, going about like a walking skeleton, the babes crying after the mothers’ breasts, and the people perishing.
After eighteen months they try to escape by breaking through, and Zedekiah and his army flee down into the valley of the Jordan and are overtaken by the Chaldeans; he is captured and his army scattered. He is brought before Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah’s last vision is his sons slaughtered before his eyes, and then (according to the Assyrians) he is laid upon his back, a short spear driven through each eye, and Zedekiah’s day becomes night, and he sees no more in this world. He is taken to Babylon and there held a prisoner.
Nebuchadnezzar makes a thorough work of the destruction of Jerusalem. He sends his captain, Nebuzaradan, and destroys the entire city, burning up everything that would burn, throwing down everything that can be thrown down, and the best of the people: the priests, the scribes, old and young, young men and maidens, are slain. All these nobles who had been. Zedekiah’s advisers in his intrigues with Egypt are slain. They deserved it. Had it not been for them, Jeremiah might have influenced Zedekiah to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar, and thus saved the city and the people. All the treasurers were taken — everything that was worth anything and what could not be taken was broken to pieces. The description given in 2Ki 25:13-21 .
In connection with that event a large number of the best people of Jerusalem are again deported to Babylon and only the poor are left in the land that they may keep and dress the vineyards. This is the third deportation to Babylon; so the exile from Judah and Jerusalem was a process extending over about twenty years, altogether.
In the meantime, what happens to Jeremiah? Jer 40:1-6 , we have an account of the captain of the Babylonians, who took Jeremiah in chains, but he remembered the good services rendered Babylon by Jeremiah in trying to persuade Zedekiah to surrender to Babylon. So he gave Jeremiah the choice of going with him as a prisoner to Babylon where he would be well treated, or remaining at Jerusalem with the remnant of poor people left there. He remained with God’s people in his own land.
Next we have the governorship of Gedaliah. Jeremiah had prophesied that the captivity would last only seventy years, and he wrote the captives at Babylon a letter telling them what to do during that period, advising them to remain there and settle down and make the very best of it because seventy years was the appointed time for remaining in captivity. Gedaliah was made governor of the almost completely depopulated land. In a few months he was murdered by one of the Jewish princes that had survived, and others were murdered with him who were loyal to Babylon, and Ishmael and his friends gathered together to take advice. Jeremiah advises them to remain in the land and if they were faithful and true even yet, they would be blessed, but they paid no attention to Jeremiah, fled to Egypt taking Jeremiah with them.
That forty or more years of preaching by Jeremiah was without apparent success, but he stayed with it to the end. Down in Egypt they still worshiped idols and burnt incense to the queen of heaven in spite of all that Jeremiah could do, as is found in Jeremiah 43-44 and at last, according to tradition, the people became so incensed against him that they rose up and stoned him to death. Tradition says that such was the end of Jeremiah and it is quite probable. A picture of Jerusalem is found in Lamentations 1-3. What a picture of the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem! There is nothing superior to it in all literature.
How many deportations of Israel to the Far East were there altogether? The first great deportation was that of Tiglathpileser when he removed all the inhabitants east of the Jordan. The next one was that of Tiglathpileser when he carried away the inhabitants of the northern part of the Northern Kingdom, and the next was the deportation of Sargon after he had captured Samaria; the next one was that of Sennacherib when he came down in the reign of Hezekiah and swept all Judah and carried away two hundred thousand or more inhabitants. Then one was in the time when Daniel was taken away. The next one was in the time of Jehoiachin, and the last one recorded in Kings and Chronicles was at the end of the reign of Zedekiah. So we may reckon that there were several deportations of the Jewish people to the Far East; to Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc. Thus more than a quarter of a million of Jews were deported to various places in central Asia, and some of their descendants, perhaps, are there yet.
The Exile, as we have said, was a process rather than an event. The people were brought into Babylon and there put to use in serving. They helped Nebuchadnezzar build his cities, his great treasuries, they helped to dig canals, as mentioned in Psa 137 : “By the rivers [or canals] of Babylon, we sat down and wept.” They helped to irrigate that vast plain between the two rivers.
This captivity did several things for Israel:
1. It permanently cured the nation of its idolatries. I mean that part of the nation that returned after the captivity and built up the Jewish nation at the period of the restoration. The vast multitude that remained in the East adhered to their idolatries.
2. It spiritualized religion. No Temple, no altar, no priesthood, no sacrifices, no holy of holies, no atonement! They were thrown upon their own individual responsibility and individual relation to God, and in this period we have the rise of what we call individualism in religion. We find that discussed at length by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is a period when mankind found that it could do without the externals of religion and made it an affair of the heart only, something new in the history of the world.
3. It made the problem of suffering an acute and real one; they were suffering because of their father’s sins, and complained about it: “In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own sin, every man that eateth sour grapes, his own teeth shall be set on edge.” “The soul that sinneth it shall surely die.”
4. It enlarged their conception of God. We find the noblest and highest and loftiest conception of God in Isaiah 40-66. These were written to meet the needs of the people in this trying period. God is pictured as the God of the world, the God of history, and the God of nations; God is pictured as raising up Cyrus as his own servant in order that he might conquer and subdue Babylon and let Israel go free.
5. It gave a truer conception of the mission of Israel to the world. Here we have the rise of the idea of the Suffering Servant of God, as the Servant suffering for the sins of Israel. Here we have the conception of Israel as being the means of bringing all the world to a knowledge of God.
The seventy years close. In the closing verses of 2 Chronicles it refers to Cyrus releasing the captives at Babylon, enabling them to return to rebuild their Temple and to restore their nation.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the religious conditions of Judah at the death of Josiah?
2. What was the political situation?
3. Who succeeded Josiah and how was he made king?
4. What was his character?
5. How was he deposed, what became of him, who succeeded him, how was he made king and what was his character?
6. What was Pharaohnecoh’s relation to Judah and who severed this relation?
7. Give an account of Jehoiakim’s rebellion and death.
8. Who succeeded Jehoiakim, what was his character and end?
9. Who was the last king of Judah and how was he made king?
10. Describe the first great deportation, stating who, what, and where carried.
11. What was Zedekiah’s character, what were his efforts to free himself and what results?
12. What reason here assigned for the ruin of Judah and Jerusalem?
13. Describe the siege of Jerusalem and Zedekiah’s captivity.
14. Describe the final overthrow of Jerusalem.
15. What disposition did they make of the nobles?
16. Give a list of the treasures taken by the Chaldeans.
17. What disposition did they make of the residue of the people?
18. Is this the last deportation? If not, what?
19. What was the length of the captivity and what determined it?
20. Did they carry all the people into captivity? If not, what provision was made for them?
21. What became of Gedaliah and what was the result?
22. What became of Jehoiachin?
23. How did these people get back to their land and when?
24. What prophet foretold this event and where do we find his prophecies?
25. What was the significance of the Exile, and what the several things it did for Israel?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 24:1 In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him.
Ver. 1. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. ] Son of Nabopolassar who founded the Babylonian monarchy.
Came up,
Then he turned and rebelled against him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Nebuchadnezzar. Or, Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 21:2, Jer 21:7; Jer 22:25), or Nebuchadonosor in Josephus and Berosus, Septuagint, and Vulgate. This is the first occurrence of his name in Scripture.
came up. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25:1; Jer 46:2). Daniel says in third year (2Ki 1:1); but he writes from Babylon, whence Nebuchadnezzar set out, and here (compare Jer 46:2), it refers to the actual coming. The Babylonian Servitude begins here (496 to 426 BC).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 24
And the LORD sent the bands of the Babylonians, and of the Syrians, and of the Moabites ( 2Ki 24:2 ),
And again now, the same kind of thing that happened to Israel; when the weakness of the nation was displayed, then all of the nations began to attack. It’s dangerous for a nation to display weakness, because it gives courage to all of the other nations to attack. So Jehoiakim died and his son Jehoiachin… and of course, this is difficult: you have Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and it gets a little difficult to follow.
Jehoiachin reigned in his stead, and during his reign, Nebuchadnezzar came, conquered Jerusalem, and took ten thousand captives back to Babylon. And this is where you might read the book of Daniel. For Daniel was one of the ten thousand that was taken in this first captivity back to Babylon, and Daniel was one of the princes. He was actually related to David. He was of the family of David, the royal family of David. He was taken as a captive to Babylon and was groomed in the Babylonian schools in order that he might serve in the court of Nebuchadnezzar. He became a great statesman in the Babylonian kingdom. He became a great statesman and leader in the subsequent Medo-Persian Empire.
And so, this brings us now into Daniel. So we’re beginning to work the prophets into this particular period of history. The Babylonians made Zedekiah the king, and he was twenty-one years old when he began to reign. He reigned for eleven years. And he rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar. And so Nebuchadnezzar made his second invasion in which he besieged Jerusalem, and he then broke down the walls of the city. He broke down and set on fire the temple of God and all of the houses within Jerusalem, the king’s palace.
The king, of course, himself just before the Babylonians had encircled Jerusalem, and the king and a company of men sought to escape during the night. And they went out one of the gates, and they fled towards the wilderness, but the Babylonians pursued after them, caught them near Jericho, and there Zedekiah’s sons were killed before him. And as soon as they, he watched them kill his sons, then they poked out his eyes and they carried him captive to Babylon. And Zedekiah died in Babylon. And it was, there was an interesting prophecy in Jeremiah, chapter thirty-two concerning Zedekiah, how that he would be led, indicating blindness, unto. It said he would see his sons die and he would be led captive to Babylon. And so that prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled.
Now, they left only the very poorest people in the land to keep the vineyards and so forth. The rest were all taken captive or killed. They put a fellow Gedaliah in charge, sort of the governor over the land, but some of the people after a while conspired against Gedaliah. They assassinated them. They assassinated Gedaliah, and so then they became frightened. They realized that when Nebuchadnezzar hears about this, he’s going to send and wipe all of us out. And so the remnant of the people that were left fled on down into Egypt, and thus, you have the death of Judah.
Another nation that have been a mighty nation. Another nation that had known the power of God. Another nation that was created by God. And as long as God was at the center of the nation, they were strong and victorious. But when they failed and turned from God, they became destroyed by their enemies and the nations ceased to exist as such. Now for seventy years Jeremiah prophesied they would be in Babylon in captivity. And again, you really need Jeremiah as a background to this particular period of history. Also, of course, now as you get into Babylonian captivity, you need the prophecies of Ezekiel and Daniel and so forth. And so these all are good background for this particular point of history.
As we start into the books of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah, you remember that all the way through from First Samuel till now, we have been reading, “And the rest of the acts are they not recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Judah.” So you’re going to get further details on a lot of the kings of Judah. Not in the kings of Israel. We do not have the chronicles of the kings of Israel. But these are more or less the official court records, the court documents that record the reigns of the kings, their accomplishments and all, as we get into Chronicles. So in a sense, it is going to be going over the same period of history from Saul to Zedekiah as we deal with the kings of Judah. But yet, we will get further insight and details on many of the kings. Much of the insight in detail is very valuable and very interesting. And I think you’ll enjoy the books of First and Second Chronicles as we deal now with the Chronicles of the kings of Judah.
And so your assignment, of course, is to go ahead and start reading First Chronicles, along with Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Jeremiah. Might as well be smart, no premium on being dumb.
May the Lord give you an especially good week this week. Oh, may God deliver you from the power, the strong power of your own fleshly desires that would drag you down and cause you to live like other men in the world around you. And may you live a life that is pleasing unto the Lord. May you stand with Josiah before the law of the Lord and make a covenant to obey God and to follow after God and to serve Him with your whole heart and soul. May God anoint you and give you that strength that you need to fulfill the commitment that you made. In Jesus’ name. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 24:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Jehoiakim became tributary to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar. The continuity of evil made impossible any respite, and it is solemnly written, “The Lord would not pardon.”
In this connection the sins of Jehoiakim are attributed to Manasseh, that is to say that it was during the fifty-five years of Manasseh’s reign that the fate of the nation was sealed. His successors continued in his evil way, and that with no trace of repentance or reformation.
Finally, Jehoiachin, who had succeeded to Jehoiakim, was carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, with all the men of war, and rulers who were likely to rebel. In place of Jehoiachin, Nebuchadnezzar made Zedekiah his representative and vassal. Zedekiah held this position eleven years, during which he continued his evil conduct. In process of time he rebelled against the king of Babylon.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
the Price of Innocent Blood
2Ki 24:1-9
Note the entail of Manassehs sin. He had lived, had been forgiven, and had died years before, but Judah was irretrievably implicated in his sins. The poison had eaten into the national heart, and for the innocent blood which had been shed like water there had been no amends. Notice the emphatic statement that Nebuchadnezzar and the other enemies who came against the land were deliberately carrying out the divine chastenings. They were, as Isaiah puts it, the rod of Gods anger and the staff of His indignation, Isa 10:5. How often does God still use evil men as His instruments to chasten us! The best way of escaping them is to commit ourselves to God.
Jehoiakim was blatant in his blasphemy, Jer 36:23. He was a very contemptible prince, and was carried in chains to Babylon, Dan 1:1-4. Apparently he was temporarily restored to his throne, but in the end he perished ignominiously, Jer 36:30.
What sorrows befell the Holy City! Though God would have gathered her under the wings of his protecting care, she would not, and therefore the times of the Gentiles began, which would now seem to be hastening to their end, Luk 21:24.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Jehoiakim
(Whom Jehovah will raise)
(2Ki 23:34-37; 2Ki 24:1-6; 2Ch 36:5-8)
Contemporary Prophets: Jeremiah; Zephaniah; Ezekiel.
His confidence shall be rooted out of his tabernacle, and it shall bring him to the king of terrors.-Job 18:14
Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old I when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God. Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried [some] of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.
Jehoiakim was of most unlovely character-treacherous, revengeful, and bloodthirsty. He was several years Jehoahaz senior, and was not born of the same mother. And his mothers name was Zebudah (gainfulness), the daughter of Pedaiah of Ramah. The mothers name boded no good for her son; and so it came to be. He taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give unto Pharaoh-Necho. Having been slighted by the peo- ple in their choice of his younger half-brother, he would make no effort to ease the peoples burdens, but rather increase them. He was in no way under obligations to them; and having behind him the power of Egypt, he had little to fear from them. (See 2Ki 23:34, 35.) His wickedness is depicted figuratively in Eze 19:5-7. He too, like his deposed predecessor, became a young lion, and learned to catch the prey, and devoured men. And he knew their desolate palaces, and he laid waste their cities; and the land was desolate, and the fulness thereof, by the noise of his roaring. His violence and rapacity are graphically represented here.
In the fifth year of his reign a fast was proclaimed among his subjects (the king seems to have had no part in it), and Baruch, Jeremiahs assistant, read in the ears of all the people the message of God to them from a book. Ready tools informed the king of what was being done, and he ordered the book brought and read before him. Now the king sat in the winter house in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife [Heb., scribes knife], and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth. Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words. It was an act of daring impiety, especially for a Jew, who was taught to look upon all sacred writing with greatest reverence. But Jehoiakim was fast hardening himself past all feeling, and no qualms of conscience are perceptible over his sacrilegious act. Jeremiah sent him a personal and verbal message, than which king never heard more awful. And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the Lord, Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast? Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah, He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity. See Jer. 36.
He also attempted to put Urijah the prophet to death because he prophesied against Jerusalem and the land. The prophet fled to Egypt, whence Jehoiakim sent and fetched him, and slew him with the sword, and cast his dead body into the graves of the common people-his bitter hatred of God and His truth venting itself even on the body of His slaughtered servant, denying it the right of burial among the sepulchres of the prophets. See Jer 26:20-24. In just retribution God repaid him in kind for his murder and insult. Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah: They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah my sister! (as in family mourning): they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! (public mourning.) He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem (Jer 22:18, 19). And so it happened unto him: Nebuchadnezzar defeated and drove out of Asia Jehoiakims master, Necho. (See 2Ki 24:7.) In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. And though Nebuchadnezzar could not immediately punish him, his punishment came from another quarter. The Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Amnion, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord which He spake by His servants the prophets. Now as to his end: Scripture (historically) is silent. 2Ch 36:6 states that Nebuchadnezzar bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. It does not say he was taken there. He may have been released after promising subjection to his conqueror. But even if it could be proven that he was actually carried to Babylon, it would in no wise contradict what is recorded in 2Ki 24:6 (So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers); for he might easily have returned to Jerusalem, as other Jewish captives at a later date did. And though there is no historical record in Scripture concerning his death, this is nothing to show that the prophecies of Jeremiah concerning his end were not fulfilled to the letter. We do not really need the history of it, for prophecy in Scripture is only pre-written history-its advance sheets, we might say. It is enough to know what God had foretold concerning it; the fulfilment is certain. Josephus states that Nebuchadnezzar finally came and slew Jehoiakim, whom he commanded to be thrown before the walls, without any burial(Ant. x. 6, 4). So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers simply expresses his death; it is a distinct expression in Scripture from buried with his fathers, as a comparison of 2Ki 15:38 and 16:20 will readily show. So the king who denied the prophets body honorable burial was himself buried with the burial of an ass. He mutilated and burnt Gods book; and his body was in turn drawn (torn) and burnt unburied in the scorching sun.
His wicked life was a sad contrast to that of his righteous father. Did not thy father eat and drink (lived plainly), and do justice and judgment, and then it was well with him? asked Jeremiah; He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know Me? saith the Lord (Jer 22:15, 16). Necho changed his name, but could not change his nature.
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim12 and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiakin his son reigned in his stead.
His name, like that of his brother, is omitted from the royal genealogy of Matt. 1. His uncleanness and iniquity are mentioned in the Apocrypha (1 Esdras 1:42). During his reign (when Nebuchadnezzar took the kingdom) the times of the Gentiles began. And until they be fulfilled, Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot, even as it is this day.
12 Heb. saw-khob’, translated tear in Jer 15:3.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
2. Jehoiachin and Zedekiah: The Beginning of Judahs Captivity
CHAPTER 24
1. Jehoiakim, Servant of Nebuchadnezzar, and His Death (2Ki 24:1-5; 2Ch 36:6-7)
2. Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:6-10; 2Ch 36:8-9)
3. The first deportation to Babylon (2Ki 24:11-16)
4. Zedekiah, the last king, and his rebellion (2Ki 24:17-20)
The foe of Judah, the chosen instrument of the Lord to execute His wrath upon the people and the city, now comes to the front. Jeremiah had predicted the coming judgment; Isaiah and the other prophets did the same. Then Jehoiakim proclaimed a fast (Jer 36:9). It was nothing but hypocrisy. Immediately after, he cut the scroll to pieces and cast it into the fire. Jeremiah and his secretary Baruch hardly escaped with their lives. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, bound Jehoiakim in fetters to carry him to Babylon (2Ch 36:6). This was not done because Nebuchadnezzar was suddenly called to Babylon. The book of Daniel introduces us more fully to this great monarch, the head of the times of the Gentiles; we give in the annotations on that book more information about his character and history.
Nabopalassar, founded the new Babylonian empire, which began the period of the Chaldees–as they are chiefly known to us in Scripture. Here we may at once indicate that he was succeeded by his son, Nebuchadrezzar (or Nebuchadnezzar), and he in turn by his son, Evil-merodach, who, after two years reign, was dethroned by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar. After four years (559-556 B.C.) Neriglissar was succeeded by his youthful son, Laborosoarchod. After his murder, Nabonidos (Nabunit, Nabunaid) acceded to the government, but after seventeen years reign (555-539 B.C.) was dethroned by Cyrus. The eldest son of Nabonidos, and heir to the throne, was Belshazzar whom we know from the book of Daniel, where, in a not unusual manner, he is designated as the son, that is, the descendant of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan 5:2; Dan 5:11; Dan 5:18). We infer that, while his father, Nabonidos, went to meet Cyrus, to whom he surrendered, thereby preserving his life, Belshazzar had been left as king in Babylon at the taking of which he perished in the night of his feast, described in Holy Scripture. (See The Prophet Daniel, by A.C. Gaebelein.)
Jehoiakim became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar. Three years later he rebelled. Punishment followed swiftly. It was at the commandment of the LORD.
After the death of Jehoiakim, buried with the burial of an ass (Jer 22:1-19), his son Jehoiachin reigned in his stead. He was eighteen years old when he ascended the throne and reigned only three months and ten days (2Ch 36:9). (2Ch 36:9 gives his age as eight years, evidently the error of a scribe.) He is also known by the names of Joiachin (Eze 1:2) and Coniah (Jer 22:24; Jer 22:28; Jer 37:1). Then Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. The city surrendered and the long predicted punishment was executed. At the first invasion under the reign of Jehoiakim, when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, a part of the vessels of the house of God were transported to Babylon, as well as the noble children, among whom were Daniel and his companions (Dan 1:1-6). With the second siege and conquest of Jerusalem all was taken and the people were taken away captives, among them was the prophet Ezekiel (Jer 52:28; Eze 1:1-2; Jer 29:1).
A remnant, however, was left behind; Jehoiachin was carried into captivity. The last chapter of this book gives his fate. He never returned. Important is to note the curse which was pronounced upon him. Jeremiah pronounced it upon Coniah Jehoiachin). Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper sitting upon the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah (Jer 22:28-30). He had children; no offspring of the line of Solomon was ever to occupy the throne of David. But there were the descendants of David through another line, that is, Nathans; no curse rested upon that line. The virgin Mary, the mother of our Lord, was of David through Nathan (Luk 3:31). Joseph, to whom Mary the virgin was espoused was a son of David through Solomons line.
Nebuchadnezzar made Mattaniah, the youngest son of Josiah, King over Judah (compare verse 18 with chapter 23:31). His name means the gift of Jehovah and he changed it into Zedekiah, the righteousness of Jehovah. Here is no doubt a prophetic hint. When Judah and Jerusalem went down in judgment, in unspeakable ruin and shame, God indicated in thievery names of the last king that there would yet come from Davids line He, who is His own precious gift and in whom righteousness will be given and established. Zedekiah filled full the measure of wickedness and finally rebelled against the king of Babylon.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
his days: 2Ki 17:5, 2Ch 36:6-21, Jer 25:1, Jer 25:9, Jer 46:2, Dan 1:1
Nebuchadnezzar: This prince, so famous in the writings of the prophets, was the son of Nabopollasar king of Babylon.
Reciprocal: 2Ki 17:4 – found conspiracy 2Ki 25:1 – Nebuchadnezzar Ezr 4:12 – rebellious Ezr 9:7 – into the hand Psa 80:13 – The boar Ecc 4:14 – also Isa 36:5 – that Jer 1:3 – It came also Jer 4:7 – lion Jer 25:12 – when Jer 35:1 – in the Jer 36:1 – General Jer 50:17 – this Eze 19:6 – he went Eze 19:8 – the nations Eze 21:14 – let the Eze 23:16 – as soon as she saw them with her eyes Hab 3:16 – he will Zec 1:18 – four Zec 9:8 – because of him that passeth by Mat 1:11 – Jechonias
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY
THE LAST OF THE KINGS (2 Kings 24)
In the previous lesson we left Judah tributary to Egypt, which had been victorious at Megiddo. This lasted five years, when Babylon, now master of her old-time enemy Assyria, and eager to cross swords with Egypt for world-supremacy, came up against her, and compelled allegiance.
After three years Jehoiakim revolted (2Ki 24:1), and for the remainder of his reign was harassed by bands of enemies (2Ki 24:2) perhaps incited by the king of Babylon, himself too occupied in other directions to attack Judah in person.
After he has defeated Egypt, however (2Ki 24:7), he turns his attention to Judah. Jehoiakim is dead, and his son, Jehoiachin, is on the throne (2Ki 24:8). The latter is taken captive, and with him many of the best people of the land (2Ki 24:12-16), among them Ezekiel, as we learn from the book bearing
his name. (The prophet Daniel, with others, had been carried away by the same king on an earlier advance against Jehoiakim.) Nebuchadnezzar shows the same consideration as the king of Egypt in placing another of the royal family instead of a stranger on the throne (2Ki 24:17), but his confidence is misplaced and the end comes. The whole situation is of God, and the execution of His judgment upon the unholy people (2Ki 24:20).
THE DEATH AGONY (2Ki 25:1-21)
For a comment on this chapter, read Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Jeremiah 21, 27, 32, 34, 37, 40, 41 cover this period pretty thoroughly and also the first twenty-four chapters of Ezekiel.
THE REMNANT LEFT IN THE LAND (2Ki 25:22-26)
Gedaliah, whom the king of Babylon made governor over the few people remaining, was, like his father, a friend of Jeremiah and joined with him in advising Zedekiah to surrender. Had this counsel prevailed, Judah would not have been plucked up out of her land. All this will be seen when Jeremiah is reached. This was known to Nebuchadnezzar, however, and explains his choice of Gedaliah, as well as the treachery of the people towards him, notwithstanding his oath (2Ki 25:24-25). Read Jeremiah 40-44.
THE FAVORED CAPTIVE (2Ki 25:27-30)
This closing incident carries its explanation on its face. The Babylonian king was the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. The grace bestowed on Jehoiachin is difficult to account for, except on some personal ground, especially as he is preferred before the other captive kings, who were retained at the court to enhance its triumph and glory.
In conclusion let it again be emphasized that the fall of Judah was Gods judgment upon her faithlessness as a witness to Him. All the prophets testify to this. But, let it also be noted that it was His purpose that Judah should be restored after a period (seventy years, Jer 25:12). Her land was not populated by other peoples, a striking fulfillment of prophecy in itself. She must needs give birth to the Messiah there as the prophets had foretold, and so, when her captivity brought her in her senses she repented, and returned to Jehovah with a sincerity she had not before.
QUESTIONS
1. In whose reign was Judah tributary, first to Egypt and then to Babylon?
2. What two later kings of Judah reigned but three months each?
3. In whose reigns were Ezekiel and Daniel taken captive?
4. What additional light on the period have you gathered from Jeremiah?
5. In what respect does Judahs captivity differ from that of Israel?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
2Ki 24:1. In his days That is, in Jehoiakims reign; and, according to Dan 1:1, compared with Jer 25:1, in the end of the third, or the beginning of the fourth year of it; came up Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon Son of Nebopolassar, who, having subdued Assyria, soon made himself absolute monarch of all that part of the world. He probably left Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim, and reduced him in his fourth year. According to Jer 46:2, he smote the army of Pharaoh- nechoh near the river Euphrates. He then attacked Jehoiakim, as the friend and ally of Pharaoh, and having taken him prisoner, put him in chains to carry him to Babylon. But as Jehoiakim submitted, and agreed to become tributary to him, Nebuchadnezzar released him. He carried away, however, some of the gold and silver vessels of the temple, and some of the most considerable persons of the kingdom, among whom were Daniel and his companions, Dan 1:1-7. And Jehoiakim became his servant three years That is, was subject to him, and paid him tribute. Then he turned and rebelled against him Being instigated so to do by the king of Egypt, who promised him his utmost assistance if he would shake off the yoke of the king of Babylon, and threatened he would declare him an enemy, and make war upon him, if he would not.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 23:36 to 2Ki 24:7. Jehoiakim.A fuller account of the reign is given by Jeremiah, who consistently opposed the king (see Jeremiah 25-27, 35 f., and especially 2Ki 22:13-19).
The external events of the time are as follows (p. 60). The Assyrian empire came to an end with the fall of Nineveh, about 606 B.C. In 605 B.C. the Egyptians were utterly defeated and driven out of Syria after the battle of Carchemish (Jer 46:2; see 2Ki 24:7). Nebuchadrezzar succeeded his father in that year, when Jehoiakim transferred his allegiance from Egypt to Babylon (2Ki 24:1). After three years he rebelled, and was harried by raids (2Ki 24:2). His end is obscure; Jeremiah (Jer 22:19) foretold a disgraceful burial. 2Ch 36:6 says that he was taken captive to Babylon. Here (2Ki 24:6) it is simply said that he slept with his fathers.
2Ki 24:4. The innocent blood (Jer 27:16-22). The king tried to kill Jeremiah, but the elders remonstrated. He actually put to death a prophet named Urijah.
2Ki 24:7. The king of Egypt had been at first the suzerain of Jehoiakim. The Jews to the last, as they had done in the time of Isaiah (Isaiah 31), hoped for help from Egypt (Jer 37:7).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Pharaoh was not able to maintain his dominance over Judah, however, not that Judah was able to break it, but because Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon displaced Pharaoh and took his place in making Jehoiakim his servant (v.24). For three years Jehoiakim remained subject to Nebuchadnezzar, then rebelled (v.1), not because of faith in the living God, but because he would not bow to the governmental results of his sin.
Since Jehoiakim decided that he would not bow to the governmental results of his evil ways, the Lord sent against him bands of marauders from four different nations (v.2). This concentration of troubles for Jehoiakim should certainly have humbled his heart before God, but we read of no change in the character of the man.
Judah was gradually being reduced to nothing in the days of Jehoiakim. In 2Ch 36:5-6 we read that he was taken in fetters to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. Evidently he died there after his 11 year reign (v.6). Yet Judah remained for a time still having its own government, for Jehoiachin, son of Jehoiakim, reigned for a brief three months (vv.6-8). But the king of Egypt did not come back to Judah, for Nebuchadnezzar had proven himself superior to Egypt’s power, having taken control of the land Egypt had formerly subdued.
JEHOIACHIN’S REIGN AND CAPTIVITY
(vv.8-12)
Jehoiachin (also called Coniah) was only 18 years of age when he reigned for three months, but this was time enough to prove his evil character, following the course of his father, evidently in idol worship (vv.8-9). Jehoiachin took the wise course of surrendering to Babylon and, with his servants, was taken prisoner (v.12).
As well as taking Jehoiachin, his family and officials captive, Nebuchadnezzar took away all the treasures of the house of God and the treasures of the king’s house, cutting in pieces the articles of gold that Solomon had made in the house of the Lord, evidently to more easily transport them to Babylon (v.13). This fulfilled the word of the Lord to Hezekiah by Isaiah in chapter 20:16-18.
More than this, Nebuchadnezzar carried away captive all the captains and mighty men of valour, numbering 10,000 (v.14) and all the craftsmen and smiths, one thousand (v.16). Only the poorest of the people remained, for Nebuchadnezzar wanted to make sure that Jerusalem would become incapable of ever rising to prominence again.
Jer 22:24-30 speaks most solemnly about the judgment of God upon Jehoiachin, who is also called Jeconiah or Coniah. “Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol, a vessel wherein is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord: Write this man childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days, for none of his descendants shall prosper sitting oil the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”
Though Jeconiah is included in the genealogy of the Lord Jesus in Mat 1:11-12, yet none of his actual descendants ever ruled in Judah. and the Lord Jesus was not the actual descendant of Jeconiah, for He was born of the virgin Mary. Mat 1:1-25 is confined to the official line, coming down to Joseph, rather than having any connection with the actual tine which is given in Luk 3:23-38. There, Joseph is called “the son of Heli” (v.23) where it manifestly means “son-in-law,” for Mat 2:18 says that “Jacob begot Joseph,” Therefore Luke records the genealogy of Mary.
ZEDEKIAH MADE KING IN JUDAH
(vv.17-20)
However, Jerusalem’s destruction was not yet complete. Nebuchadnezzar appointed Zedekiah , the uncle of Jehoiachin, as king in Judah (v.17). His name was Mattaniah, but changed to Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar, who thus emphasised his authority over him. Zedekiah was 21 years old and reigned 11 years in Jerusalem, but practised the same evil that Jehoiachin had, dishonouring God by idol worship (v.19). Jer 37:1-21; Jer 38:1-28; Jer 39:1-18 records the history of Zedekiah’s reign, showing the utter weakness of the man, yet his stubborn persistence in evil. He foolishly rebelled against the king of Babylon in spite of Jeremiah’s warnings to him.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
24:1 In his {a} days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him.
(a) In the end of the third year of his reign and in the beginning of the fourth, Dan 1:1.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
37
JEHOIAKIM
B.C. 608-597
2Ki 23:36-37; 2Ki 24:1-7
“But those things that are recorded of him, and of his uncleanness and impiety, are written in the Chronicles of the Kings,”
– RAPC 1Es 1:42
“When Jehoiakim succeeded to the throne, he said,”
“My predecessors knew not how to provoke God.”
– Sanhedrin, f. 103, 2
“There is no strange handwriting on the wall, Through all the midnight hum no threatening call, Nor on the marble floor the stealthy fall Of fatal footsteps. All is safe.-Thou fool, The avenging deities are shod with wool!”
– W. ALLEN BUTLER
ELIAKIM succeeded to the throne at the age of twenty-five under very unenviable circumstances-as a nominal king, a helpless nominee and tributary of the Pharaoh. He seems to have been thoroughly distasteful to the people; and if we may judge from the fact that Ezekiel frankly ignores him and passes from Jehoabaz to Jehoachin, he was regarded as a tax-gathering usurper nominated by an alien tyrant. For after speaking of Jehoahaz, Ezekiel says, –
“Now when she [Judah] saw that she had waited [for the restoration of Jehoahaz], and her hope was lost, Then she took another of her whelps; A young lion she made him. He went up and down among the lions; He became a young lion.”
The historian says that Necho turned the name of Eliakim (“God will establish”) to Jehoiakim (“Jehovah will establish”); but by this can hardly be meant more than that he sanctioned the change of El into Jehovah on Eliakims installation upon the throne.
Jehoiakim is condemned in the same terms as all the other sons of Josiah. His misdoings are far more definitely recorded in the Prophets, who furnish us with details which are passed over by the historians. Some of his sins may have been due to the influence of his wife Nehushta, who was a daughter of Elnathan of Achbor, one of the princes of the heathen party. It was this Elnathan whom the king chose as a fitting ambassador to demand the extradition of the prophet Urijah from Egypt. One of the crimes with which Jehoiakim is charged is the building for himself of a sumptuous palace, and thus vainly trying to emulate the splendors of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian kings. In itself the act would not have been more wicked than it was in Solomon, whose architectural parade is dwelt upon with enthusiasm. But the circumstances were now wholly different. Solomon was at that time in all his glory, the possessor of boundless wealth, the ruler of an immense and united territory, the head of a powerful and prosperous people, the successor of an unconquered hero who had gone to his grave in peace; Jehoiakim, on the other hand, had succeeded a father who had died in defeat on the field of battle, and a brother who was hopelessly pining in an Egyptian prison. The Tribes had been carried into captivity by Assyria; the nation was beaten, oppressed, and poor; the king himself possessed but a shadow of royalty. In such a condition of things it would have been his glory to maintain a watchful and strenuous activity, and to devote himself in simplicity and self-denial to the good of his people. It showed a perverted and sensuous mind to insult the misery of his subjects at such a time by feeble attempts to rival heathen potentates in costly aestheticism. But this was not all; he carried out his ignoble selfishness at the cost of oppression and wrong.
It is possible that the prophet Habakkuk alludes to him in the words:
“Woe to him that getteth an evil gain for his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the hand of evil! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many peoples, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it.” {Hab 2:9-11}
The thought of the Jewish kings selfish expensiveness may have crossed the mind of Habakkuk, though the taunt is addressed directly to the Chaldaeans. and especially to Nebuchadrezzar, who was at that time reveling in the beautifying of Babylon, and especially of his own royal palace. On the other hand, the rebuke, or rather the denunciation, uttered by Jeremiah against the king for this line of conduct, and for the forced labor which it required, is terribly direct.
“Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness,
And his chambers by wrong;
That useth his neighbors service without wages,
And giveth him not his hire;
That saith, “I will build me a wide house and spacious chambers,”
And cutteth out windows;
And it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion.
Shalt thou reign because thou viest with the cedar?
Did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice?
Then it was well with him! Was not this to know Me? saith the Lord.
But thine heart is not but for thy dishonest gain,
And for to shed innocent blood,
And for oppression and for violence to do it.” {Jer 22:13-17}
Then follows the stern message of doom which we shall quote hereafter. The kings bad example stimulated or perhaps emulated similar folly and want of patriotism on the part of his nobles. They were shepherds who destroyed and scattered the sheep of Jehovahs pastures. But vain was their imagined security, and their ostentation. The judgment was imminent. {Jer 23:1}
“O inhabitress of Lebanon, that makest thy nest in the cedars,” exclaims the prophet in bitter mockery, “how greatly wilt thou groan when pangs come upon thee, the pain as of a woman in travail!” {Jer 22:23}
But Jehoiakims offences were deadlier than this. The Chronicler speaks of “the abominations which he did”; and some have therefore supposed that the evil state of things described by Jeremiah (Jer 19:1-15) refers to this reign. If so, he plunged into the idolatry which caused Judah to be shivered like a potters vessel. Certainly he sinned grievously against God in the person of His prophets.
Jeremiah was not the only prophet who disdained the easy and traitorous popularity which was to be won by prophesying “peace, peace,” when there was no peace. He had for his contemporary another messenger of God, no less boldly explicit than himself-Urijah, the son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-Jearim. Jeremiah had as yet only prophesied in his humble native village of Anathoth; he had not been called upon to face “the swellings” or “the pride of Jordan.” {Jer 12:5} Urijah had been in the fuller glare of publicity in the capital, and his bold declaration that Jerusalem should fall before Nebuchadrezzar and the Chaldaeans had excited such a fury of indignation that he escaped into Egypt for his life. Surely this should have appeased the rulers, even if they chose to pay no attention to the Divine menace. For the prophets were recognized deliverers of the messages of Jehovah; and with scarcely an exception, even in the most wicked reigns, their persons had been regarded as sacrosanct. But Jehoiakim would not let Urijah escape. He sent an embassy to Necho, headed by his father-in-law Elnathan, son of Achbor, requesting his extradition. Urijah had been dragged back from Egypt, and, to the horror of the people, the king had slain him with the sword, and flung his body into the graves of the common people. What made this conduct more monstrous was the precedent of Micah the Morasthite. He, in the days of Hezekiah, had prophesied, –
“Zion shall be ploughed as a field,
And Jerusalem shall become heaps,
And the Mountain of the House as the wooded heights.” {Jer 26:18}
Yet so far from putting him to death, or even stirring a finger against him, the pious king had only been moved to repentance by the Divine threatenings. Thus the blood of the first martyr-prophet, if we except the case of Zechariah, had been shed by the son of Judahs most pious king. Jeremiah himself only narrowly escaped martyrdom. The precedent of Micah helped to save him, though it had not saved Urijah. He was far more powerfully protected by the patronage of the princes and the people. Standing in the Temple court, he had declared that, unless the nation repented, that house should be like Shiloh, and the city a curse to all the nations of the earth. Maddened by such words of bold rebuke, the priests and the prophets and the people had threatened him with death. But the princes took his part, and some of the people came over to them. His most powerful protector was Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, a member of a family of the utmost distinction.
Meanwhile, we must follow for a time the outward fortunes of the king and of the world.
Necho, after his successful advance, had retired to Egypt, and Jehoiakim continued to be for three years his obsequious servant. An event of tremendous importance for the world changed the entire fortunes of Egypt and of Judah. Nineveh fell with a crash which terrified the nations. We might apply to her the language which Isaiah applies to her successor, Babylon.
“Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the shades for thee, even the Rephaim of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall answer and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast forth away from thy sepulcher like an abominable branch, as the raiment of those that are slain, that are thrust through with the sword, that go down to the stones of the pit.. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee and say, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble? that did shake kingdoms? that made the world as a wilderness, and overthrew the cities thereof? that let not loose his prisoners to their home?”
Yes, Assyria had fallen like some mighty cedar in Libanus, and the nations gazed without pity and with exultation on his torn and scattered branches.
And coincident with the fate of Nineveh had been the rise of the Chaldaean power.
Nabupalussur had been a general of one of the last Assyrian kings, and had been sent by him with an army to quell a Babylonian revolt. Instead of this, he seized the city and made himself king. When the final overthrow and obliteration of Nineveh had secured his power, he sent his brave and brilliant son Nebuchadrezzar (B.C. 605) to secure the provinces which he had wrested from Assyria, and especially to regain possession of Carchemish, which commanded the river.
Necho marched to protect his conquests, and at Carchemish the hostile forces encountered each other in a tremendous battle, -immemorial Egypt under the representative of its age-long Pharaohs; Babylon, with her independence of yesterday, under a prince hitherto unknown, whose name was to become one of the most famous in the world. The result is described by Jeremiah. {Jer 46:1-12} Egypt was hopelessly defeated. Her splendidly arrayed warriors were panic-stricken and routed; her chief heroes were dashed to pieces by the heavy maces of the Babylonians, or fled without so much as looking back. The scene was one of “Magor-missabib”-terror on every side (Jer 46:5 ). Pharoahs host came up like the Nile in flood with its Ethiopian hoplites and Asiatic archers; but they were driven back. The daughter of Egypt received a wound which no balm of Gilead could cure. The nations heard of her shame, and the prophet pronounced her further chastisement by the hands of Nebuchadrezzar.
Then, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the young Babylonian conqueror swept down upon Syria and Palestine like a bounding leopard, like an avenging eagle. {Hab 1:7-8} Jehoiakim had no choice but to change his vassalhood to Necho for a vassalage to Nebuchadrezzar. He might have suffered severe consequences, but tidings came to the young Chaldaean that his father had ended his reign of twenty-one years and was dead. For fear lest disturbances might arise in his capital, he at once dashed home across the desert with some light troops by way of Tadmor, while he told his general to follow him home through Syria by the longer route. He seems, however, to have carried away with him some captives, among whom were Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, {Dan 1:6} destined hereafter for such memorable fortunes. Jehoiakim himself was thrown into fetters to be carried into Babylon: but the conqueror changed his mind, and probably thought that it would be safer for the present to accept his pledges and assurances, and leave him as his viceroy. “He took an oath of him,” says Ezekiel; {Eze 17:13} “he took also the Mighty of the land.”
For three years this frivolous egotist who occupied the throne of Judah remained faithful to his covenant with the King of Babylon, but at the end of that time he rebelled. In this rebellion he was again deluded by the glamour of Egypt, and reliance on the empty promise of “horses and much people.” Ezekiel openly disapproved of this policy, {Eze 17:15} and reproached the king for his faithlessness to his oath. Jeremiah went further, and declared in the plainest language that “Nebuchadrezzar would certainly come up and destroy this land, and cause to cease from thence both man and beast.” {Jer 36:29; Jer 25:9; Jer 26:6}
Nearer and nearer the danger came. At first the King of Babylon was too busy to do more than send against the Jewish rebel marauding bands of Chaldaeans, who acted in concert with the hereditary depredators of Judah-Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites. But the prophet knew that the danger would not end there, believing that God would yet “remove Judah out of His sight” for the unforgiven sins of Manasseh and the innocent blood with which he had filled Jerusalem. {2Ki 24:2-4} At last Nebuchadrezzar had time to turn closer attention to the affairs of Judah, and this became necessary because of the revolt of Tyre under its King Ithobalus. In the stress of the peril Jehoiakim proclaimed a fast and a day of humiliation in the Temple. Jeremiah was at this time “shut up”-either in hiding, or in some sort of custody. As he could not go and preach in person, he dictated his prophecy to Barnch, who wrote it on a scroll, and went in the prophets place to read it in the Lords House to the people there assembled from Jerusalem and all Judah in the chamber of Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, in the inner court, by the new gate. Gemariah was the brother of Ahikam, the protector of the prophet.
No one was more painfully alarmed by Jeremiahs prophecy than Micaiah, the son of Gemariah, and he thought it his duty to go and tell his father and the other princes what he had heard. They were assembled in the scribes chamber, and sent a courtier of Ethiopian race-Jehudi, the son of Cushi – bidding him to bring the scroll with him, and to come to them.
Baruch was a person of distinction. He was the brother of Seraiah, who is called in our A.V “a quiet prince,” and in the margin “prince of Menucha” or “chief chamberlain,” literally “master of the resting-place”; and he was the grandson of Maaseiah, “the governor” of the city. The office imposed on him by Jeremiah was so perilous and painful that it nearly broke his heart. He exclaimed to Jeremiah, “Woe is me now! the Lord hath added grief to my sorrow. I am weary with my sighing, and I find no rest.” The answer which the prophet was commissioned to give him was very remarkable. It confirmed the terrible doom on his native land, but added, “And seekest thou great things for thyself? Seek them not. For, behold, I will bring evil upon all flesh, saith the Lord: but thy life will I give unto thee for a prey in all places whither thou goest.” {Jer 45:1-5}
Baruch obeyed the summons of the princes, and at their request sat down with them and read the scroll in their ears. When they had heard the portentous prophecy, they turned shuddering to one another, and said, “We must tell the king of all these words.” They asked Baruch how he had written them, and he said he had taken them down at the prophets dictation. Then, knowing the storm which would burst over the bold offenders, they said, “Go, hide thee, thou and Jeremiah, and let no man know where ye be.”
Not daring to imperil the awful document, they laid it up in the chamber of Elishama, the scribe, but went to the king and told him its contents. He sent Jehudi to fetch it, and to read it in their hearing. Jehoiakim and the illustrious company were seated in the winter chamber; for it was October, and a fire was burning in the brazier, where Jehoiakim sat warming himself in the chilly weather.
As he listened, he was filled not only with fury, but with contempt. Such a message might well have caused him and his worst counselors to rend their clothes; but instead of this they adopted a tone of defiance. By the time that Jehudi had read three or four columns, Jehoiakim snatched the scribes knife which hung at his girdle, and began to cut up the scroll, with the intention of burning it. Seeing his purpose, Gemariah, Elnathan, and Seraiah entreated him not to destroy it. But he would not listen. He flung the fragments into the brazier, and they were consumed. He ordered his son Jerahmeel, with Seraiah and Shelemiah, to seize both Baruch and Jeremiah, and bring them before him for punishment. Doubtless they would have suffered the fate of Urijah, but “the Lord hid them.” There were enough persons of power on their side to render their hiding-place secure.
But the kings impious indifference, so far from making any difference in the things that were, only brought down upon his guilt a fearful doom. Truth cannot be cut to pieces, or burnt, or mechanically suppressed.
“Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again.
The eternal years of God are hers:
But error vanquished, writhes in pain,
And dies amid her worshippers.”
All the former denunciations, and new ones added to them, were rewritten by Jeremiah and his faithful friend in their hiding-place, and among them these words:-
“Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim, King of Judah, He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.” A frightful drought added to the misery of this reign, but failed to bring the wretched king to his senses. Jeremiah describes it:-
“Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they bow down mourning unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. And the nobles send their menials to the waters: they come to the pits, and find no water; they return with their vessels empty; they are ashamed and confounded, and cover their heads because of the ground which is chapped, for that no rain hath been in the land. Yea, the hind also in the field calveth, and forsaketh her young, because there is no grass. And the wild asses stand on the bare heights, they pant for air like jackals; their eyes fail, because there is no herbage.”
Even this affliction, so vividly and pathetically described, failed to waken any repentance. And then the doom fell. Nebuchadrezzar advanced in person against Jerusalem. Even the hardy nomad Rechabites had to fly before the Chaldaeans, and to take refuge in the cities which they hated. The sacred historian tells us nothing as to the manner of the death of Jehoiakim, only saying that he “slept with his fathers”: his narrative of this period is exceedingly meager. Josephus says that Nebuchadrezzar slew him and the flower of the citizens, and sent three thousand captives to Babylon. Some imagine that he was killed by the Babylonians in a raid outside the walls of Jerusalem, or “murdered by his own people, and his body thrown for a time outside the walls.” If so, the Babylonians did not war with the dead. His remains, after this “burial of an ass,” {Jer 36:30; Jer 22:19} may have been finally suffered to rest in a tomb. The Septuagint says {2Ch 36:8} that he was buried “in Ganosan,” by which may be meant the sepulcher of Manasseh in the garden of Uzza. Not for him was the wailing cry “Hoi, adon! Hoi, hodo!” (“Ah, Lord! Ah, his glory!”).
“The memory of the wicked shall rot.” Certainly this was the ease with Jehoiakim. The Chronicler mysteriously alludes to “his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him.” {2Ch 36:8} The Rabbis, interpreting this after their manner, say that “the thing found” was the name of the demon Codonazor, to whom he had sold himself, which after his death was discovered legibly written in Hebrew letters on his skin. “Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi Eleazar debated what was meant by that which was found on him.” One said that “he tattooed the name of an idol upon his body (wtma), and the other said that he had tattooed the name of the god Recreon.”