Into Captivity Commentary on 2Ki 25:8-21 AND 2Ch 36:17-21

The end had come for the kingdom of Judah. The longsuffering of God was at an end (De 28:63-64); Josiah had foreseen the curse and striven diligently to circumvent it, but Judah had not responded favorably. The king of Babylon began his occupation of the land, sending his officer of the guard, Nebuzar-adan to finalize the conquest. It was a bitter end, for Nebuchadnezzar’s men dealt ruthlessly and cruelly with the people. They even went into the temple killing, sparing not for sex or age any they judged worthy of death. All the treasures of temple, palace, and great houses of the princes were pillaged and their riches carted away to Babylon.

The temple, the palace, the great mansions were burned, and the walls of the city were broken down. The people who had escaped the sword, along with those who had deserted to the Chaldean army during the siege were taken away to Babylon to serve their new master. Nebuzar-adan left only the most abjectly poor of the people in Judah, that they might tend the vineyards and plant the fields to produce a yield for the king’s profit. The great brazen columns, with their capitols, which had stood before the temple, twenty-seven feet high in their beauty, the captain of the guard cut up. He took the brazen sea which was the reservoir for the lavers, the pots, firepans, bowls, shovels of bronze, gold, and silver from the altar and the temple sanctuary he did confiscate for the enrichment of Babylon. So these beautiful things, on which Hiram the artisan, at the command of Solomon, had so cunningly labored, were destroyed and carried into heathen lands.

Seraiah the high priest, Zephaniah the second priest, three doorkeepers who had stayed at the .temple to the end were put- in chains. Along with these were one of the military officers found hiding in the city, and five men of the king’s counsel, also ferreted out by Nebuzaradan There were found sixty men of the common people hiding out in the city who were taken. All of these Nebuzaradan brought to Nebuchadnezzar at his camp at Riblah. The king had them all put to death, “So Judah was carried away out of their land.” (Cf. Php_3:17-19).

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

VI. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE DEPORTATION OF THE JEWS 25:817

TRANSLATION

(8) And in the fifth month, the seventh day of the month, it being the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard the servant of the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem. (9) And he burned the house of the LORD and the house of the king and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house he burned with fire. (10) And all the army of the Chaldeans which was with the captain of the guard broke down the wall of Jerusalem round about. (11) And the rest of the people who remained in the city, both the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon and the rest of the multitude, Nebuzaradan carried away. (12) But the captain of the guard left some of the poor of the land to cultivate vineyards and till the soil. (13) And the bronze pillars which were in the house of the LORD and the bases and the bronze sea which was in the house of the LORD the Chaldeans smashed, and they carried the bronze of them to Babylon. (14) And the ash pans and the shovels and the knives and the incense cups and all the vessels of bronze with which they ministered they took. (15) And the small dishes and the bowls, those which were of gold in gold, and those which were of silver in silver, the captain of the guard took. (16) The two pillars, the one sea, the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the LORD, the bronze of all these vessels was without weight. (17) Eighteen cubits high was the one pillar and the capital upon it was bronze; and the height of the capital was three cubits, and the wreathen work and pomegranates upon the captial round about all of bronze; and like unto this was the second pillar with wreathen work.

COMMENTS

Following the capitulation of Jerusalem, the Babylonian soldiers awaited further instructions concerning the fate of the city. A month after the successful breaching of the walls, Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, arrived from Riblah with the orders of Nebuchadnezzar. The text of Kings and Jeremiah seem to be at variance as to the date that Nebuzaradan arrived at Jerusalem. According to the former account he arrived on the seventh day of the month, while in the latter it is said to have been the tenth day of the month (Jer. 52:12). The simplest solution is that Nebuzaradan arrived at Jerusalem on the seventh day and for some unexplained reason did not enter Jerusalem until the tenth day of the month.[689] The author adds the important chronological note that Jerusalem fell in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar.[690]

[689] In the Hebrew the word Jerusalem has no preposition attached to it in 2Ki. 25:8 but has the preposition Beth in Jer. 52:12.

[690] Cf. Jer. 52:12. The nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, counting by the non-accession year method, would have begun in the spring of 587 B.C.

Nebuzaradans orders were to destroy Jerusalem and prepare its inhabitants for deportation to Babylon. The entire city was burned, including the palace of the king, houses of the nobles, and the Temple itself (2Ki. 25:9). The Babylonians had no regard for the sacred precincts of conquered peoples. To prevent the city from ever again becoming a haven for rebels, the massive walls of Jerusalem were broken down (2Ki. 25:10).[691]

[691] Some commentators think that several massive portions of the wall may have been destroyed but not the entirety. However, the text gives the impression that the entire wall was destroyed.

The people who remained behind in Jerusalem when Zedekiah and the soldiers fled, and those who had deserted to the Babylonians during the course of the siege were ordered to prepare for deportation (2Ki. 25:11). Only the very poorest of the citizens were allowed to remain in the land (2Ki. 25:12). The Babylonians did not wish the area to lie waste, since it could then have paid no tribute.

Before setting fire to the Temple, the Babylonians had plundered that edifice of all its treasures. The giant pillars of bronzeJachin and Boazcast by Hiram under the directions of Solomon (1Ki. 7:15-22) were broken up to facilitate transportation to Babylon. The same applies to the ornate bases which Solomon had constructed for the portable lavers (cf. 1Ki. 7:27-37) as well as the mammoth laver called the sea of bronze (2Ki. 25:13). Bronze was of great value in this period, being used for vessels, arms and other implements. All of the smaller items of bronze which were used in the sacrificial ritual were also carried off by the Babylonians (2Ki. 25:14), along with what few vessels of gold and silver that still remained from the previous spoliations of the Temple in 605 and 597 B.C. (2Ki. 25:15).

Babylonian scribes usually noted the weight of all captured precious metals very carefully. But so much bronze was carried away by the conquerors that it was thought to be an impossible task to weigh it all (2Ki. 25:16). An enormous amount of bronze came from the two massive pillars, each of which was eighteen cubits (twenty-seven feet) tall and surmounted by a capital three cubits (4 1/2 feet)[692] tall, which was in turn decorated with a bronze wreathen work or network (2Ki. 25:17). An even more elaborate description of these pillars is given in Jer. 52:21.

[692] According to 1Ki. 7:16 and Jer. 52:22 the capitals were five cubits high. Perhaps the smaller figure represents the actual height of the capital above the pillar while the larger figure represents the total height of the capital including the part thereof that lapped over the top of the pillar.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(8) On the seventh day . . .An error for the tenth day (Jer. 52:12), one numeral letter having been mistaken for another. The Syriac and Arabic read ninth (perhaps, because, as Thenius suggests, the memorial fasts began on the evening of the ninth day).

According to Josephus the second Temple also was burnt on the tenth of the fifth month (Bell. Jud. vi. 4.8).

The nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar.This agrees with Jer. 32:1, according to which the tenth of Zedekiah was the eighteenth of Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuzaradan.A Hebrew transcript of the Babylonian name Nab-zir-iddina, Nebo gave seed.

Captain of the guard.Strictly, chief of executioners. (See Gen. 37:36.) This means commander of the Royal Bodyguard, the Praetorians of the time; a corps of picked warriors, answering to the Cherethites and Pelethites, and the Carians and Runners among the Hebrews (2Ki. 11:4). Nebuzaradan is not mentioned among the other generals in Jer. 39:3. On this ground, and because his coming is expressly-mentioned here, and because a month elapsed between the taking of the city (2Ki. 25:4) and its destruction (2Ki. 25:9-10), Thenius infers that the city of David and the Temple did not at once fall into the hands of the Chaldeans; but were so well defended under the lead of some soldier like Ishmael (2Ki. 25:23), that Nebuchadnezzar was compelled to despatch a specially distinguished commander to bring the matter to a conclusion. 2Ki. 25:18-21 certainly appear to favour this view.

A servant.In Jeremiah 52, who stood before the king; probably the original phrase. (Comp. 2Ki. 3:14; 2Ki. 5:16).

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE AND OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH, 2Ki 25:8-21.

8. On the seventh day In Jeremiah, (Jer 52:12,) which seems to be the preferable text, the reading is, the tenth day. Some, however, suppose that he came to the city, or commenced the burning of it, on the seventh day, and ended it on the tenth. Josephus states that the later Herodian temple was destroyed by Titus on the same day of the same month. Wars of the Jews, 2Ki 6:4 ; 2Ki 6:8.

Nebuzaradan According to Rawlinson, the name means “Nebo has given offspring.”

Captain of the guard The word rendered guard, means slayers or executioners, ( ,) and the captain or chief of these is usually understood to be the royal officer who had especially in charge the execution of the death sentence. The margin here reads, chief marshal, and in Jer 52:12, chief of the executioners, or slaughter men, who stood before the king of Babylon. He seems to have been the king’s principal military officer.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

3). The Final Destruction Of Jerusalem And The Death Of Its Leaders ( 2Ki 25:8-22 ).

Kings began with a description of the building of the house of YHWH and of the king’s house (1Ki 5:1 to 1Ki 7:12), and of the making of the pillars of bronze and the brazen sea (1Ki 5:13 onwards), and it now ends with a description of their destruction, along with all the larger houses in Jerusalem. And it all occurred because they had incurred the wrath of YHWH. The continual downward slide to this point, in spite of the constant efforts of the prophets, is one of the themes of the book.

At the same time the leading men of Jerusalem were brought to Riblah and there executed, while the remainder of the inhabitants of the city were transported (we are not told where but it may well have been to Babylon where they would join up with the previous exiles being ministered to by Ezekiel). Only the very poorest were left in the land to tend its vineyards and fields under the control of the newly appointed governor Gedaliah who took up his residence in Mizpah. (Jerusalem was uninhabitable although a kind of worship would continue to be conducted at the site of the ruined Temple).

Analysis.

a Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, to Jerusalem, and he burnt the house of YHWH, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great house, he burned with fire, and all the army of the Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down the walls of Jerusalem round about (2Ki 25:8-10).

b And the residue of the people who were left in the city, and those who fell away, who fell to the king of Babylon, and the residue of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carry away captive (2Ki 25:11).

c But the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen (2Ki 25:12).

d And the pillars of bronze which were in the house of YHWH, and the bases and the brazen sea that were in the house of YHWH, did the Chaldeans break in pieces, and carried the bronze of them to Babylon (2Ki 25:13).

e And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of bronze with which they ministered, they took away, and the firepans, and the basins, that which was of gold, in gold, and that which was of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away (2Ki 25:14-15).

d The two pillars, the one sea, and the bases, which Solomon had made for the house of YHWH, the bronze of all these vessels was without weight. The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and a capital of bronze was on it, and the height of the capital was three cubits, with network and pomegranates on the capital round about, all of bronze, and like to these had the second pillar with network (2Ki 25:16-17).

c And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the threshold, and out of the city he took an officer who was set over the men of war, and five men of those who saw the king’s face, who were found in the city, and the scribe, the captain of the host, who mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land, who were found in the city. And Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took them, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah. And the king of Babylon smote them, and put them to death at Riblah in the land of Hamath (2Ki 25:18-21 a).

b So Judah was carried away captive out of his land (2Ki 25:21 b).

a And as for the people who were left in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, governor (2Ki 25:22).

Note that in ‘a’ all the recognised places of authority were destroyed, including Jerusalem itself, and in the parallel Gedaliah was made the authority of all who remained in the land. In ‘b’ the residue of the people in the city were carried away captive out of the land, and in the parallel Judah was carried away captive out of his land. In ‘c’ the poorest people of the land were left to live in the land, and in the parallel the most important people were executed. In ‘e’ the pillars of bronze and the brazen sea were broken up, and in the parallel the pillars and the sea are described. Centrally in ‘ f’ all the instruments of worship in the Temple were taken away. There would be no further worship in the Temple which Judah had defiled.

2Ki 25:8

‘Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, to Jerusalem.’

One month later Nebuzaradan the captain of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard arrived in Jerusalem, no doubt with strict instructions as to what he was to do. The city had rebelled once too often, and both YHWH and Nebuchadnezzar were sick of it. (Jer 52:29 says it was in the eighteenth year demonstrating that he ignored the year of accession from his calculation).

2Ki 25:9-10

‘And he burnt the house of YHWH, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great house, he burned with fire, and all the army of the Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down the walls of Jerusalem round about.’

The book of Kings began with a description of the building of the house of YHWH and the king’s house, in all their splendour (1Ki 5:1 to 1Ki 7:12). Now those same houses were burned with fire, along with all the other large houses in Jerusalem (no one would bother about the hovels). The walls also of the city were broken down all round the city. Jerusalem was to be left a ruin, almost uninhabited and totally defenceless.

2Ki 25:11

‘And the residue of the people who were left in the city, and those who fell away, who fell to the king of Babylon, and the residue of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carry away captive.’

The whole of what remained of the repopulated Jerusalem (it had had to be repopulated following what happened in 597 BC) was transported, even those who had surrendered to the Babylonians during the siege (those who ‘fell away to the king of Babylon’). ‘The residue of the multitude’ probably refers to those who had taken refuge in the city before the siege began. All were carried away captive because of their connection with Jerusalem.

2Ki 25:12

‘But the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen.’

The land was not, however, to be left totally deserted and the common and unimportant folk (and there would be many of them) were left in the land to maintain its agriculture. Thus while Jerusalem itself was now almost deserted and in ruins, the land around remained populated and was tended, although hardly initially in good condition. What was left of Judah still survived in the land, and they would no doubt be supplemented by those who came out of hiding in the mountains once the Babylonian forces had withdrawn. Thus it is wrong to think of Judah as totally deserted. Babylon’s purpose had been to draw Judah’s teeth, not to commit genocide. Furthermore as far as we know Lachish, and possibly other cities, had not been taken, and if so their inhabitants may have been treated more leniently. Gedaliah the new governor would come from Lachish.

2Ki 25:13

‘And the pillars of bronze which were in the house of YHWH, and the bases and the brazen sea that were in the house of YHWH, did the Chaldeans break in pieces, and carried the bronze of them to Babylon.’

Reference back to the first part of Kings continues (see 1Ki 7:13 onwards). The pillars of bronze and the brazen sea which Solomon had made were broken in pieces and their bronze carried back to Babylon. The last remnants of their former glory were being removed. All that Judah had built up was being broken down. Such was the consequence of their disobedience.

2Ki 25:14

‘And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of bronze with which they ministered, they took away.’

Furthermore all the means of worship were ‘taken away’ for the sake of their valuable metallic content. They were possibly taken away as spoils by the soldiers in contrast to the gold and silver which was taken away by the ‘captain of the guard’. Theoretically at least all worship in Jerusalem had ceased.

2Ki 25:15

‘And the firepans, and the basins, that which was of gold, in gold, and that which was of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away.’

The silver and gold items that remained were especially taken charge of by Nebuzaradan himself, no doubt in the king’s name.

2Ki 25:16-17

‘The two pillars, the one sea, and the bases, which Solomon had made for the house of YHWH, the bronze of all these vessels was without weight. The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and a capital of bronze was on it, and the height of the capital was three cubits, with network and pomegranates on the capital round about, all of bronze, and like to these had the second pillar with network.’

Also torn down, and presumably broken up, were the two pillars of Solomon, together with the moulten sea and what remained of the bases. The weight of the whole was such that it was not calculable. They had lasted throughout all Judah’s tribulations without being called on for tribute purposes. But now even this reminder of Solomon’s glory would be no more. Judah was being left with nothing.

‘The height of the capital was three cubits.’ The loss of two cubits compared with 1 Kings 716 was probably due to the necessity for repair work on at least one of the pillars.

2Ki 25:18

‘And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the threshold.’

The prominent people in Jerusalem were now to be called to account, and the first were the five ‘chief priests’. They would be seen as important supporters of the revolt.

2Ki 25:19

‘And out of the city he took an officer who was set over the men of war, and five men of those who saw the king’s face, who were found in the city, and the scribe, the captain of the host, who mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land, who were found in the city.’

Together with the chief priests, Zedekiah’s captain of the standing army was taken, and five of his chief officials who had had access into the king’s presence, who were found to be still in the city, and the scribe, and the commander who was set over the general host (the muster of the men of Judah), and another sixty important people of the land who were also in the city. (Alternately we may read ‘the scribe of the captain of the host’).

2Ki 25:20

‘And Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took them, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah.’

Nebuzaradan took all these leading people and brought them to the king of Babylon, who was stationed at Riblah.

2Ki 25:21

‘And the king of Babylon smote them, and put them to death at Riblah in the land of Hamath.’

And there at Riblah Nebuchadnezzar smote them and put them to death as rebels and traitors.

2Ki 25:21

‘So Judah was carried away captive out of his land.’

Meanwhile the remainder of Judah as previously described were carried away captive out of the land. It was by no means the first exile. Every invasion of Israel and Judah by Assyria and Babylon had resulted in exiles, thus ‘Jews’ were scattered around the known world.

2Ki 25:22

‘And as for the people who were left in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, governor.’

A good number of poorer people were allowed to remain in the land and over them Nebuchadnezzar set a governor. Judah was now a Babylonian province. The governor’s name was Gedaliah. He was the son of the Ahikam who had served Josiah (2Ki 22:12) and had sought to protect Jeremiah (Jer 26:24), and thus in good standing in the Jewish community.

The Murder Of Gedaliah The Governor.

A more detailed version of this incident and the history that accompanied it can be found in Jer 39:11 to Jer 43:7. Here, as so often in Kings, we are given only the bare bones. It tells us of the captains of roving bands of commandos who had avoided the Babylonian invaders, and who on hearing that Gedaliah had been appointed governor came to see him in Mizpah. And there Gedaliah swore to them that if they would now faithfully serve the king of Babylon it would be well with them, and they would suffer no reprisals.

On the whole they were willing and responsive, but unfortunately Ishmael the son of Nethaniah (who was of the house of a David and was secretly in alliance with the Ammonites) wanted Gedaliah removed, and the result was that he came with ten men and murdered Gedaliah, along with certain Jews and Chaldeans who were with him. The Chaldeans would have been maintaining a watching brief. This terrified the remaining commandos, and the common people, who all feared that Nebuchadnezzar would seek revenge for the death of his governor, with the result that, in spite of Jeremiah’s protests, they fled to Egypt for refuge, leaving Judah even barer of inhabitants than before. (Another group of exiles. Later history would reveal large groups of Jews in Egypt).

Analysis.

a Now when all the captains of the forces, they and their men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor, they came to Gedaliah to Mizpah (2Ki 2:25 /23a).

b Even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of the Maacathite, they and their men (2Ki 25:23 b).

c And Gedaliah swore to them and to their men, and said to them, “Do not be afraid because of the servants of the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon, and it will be well with you.” (2Ki 25:24).

b But it came about in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, so that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah (2Ki 25:25).

a And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the forces, arose, and came to Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chaldeans (2Ki 25:26).

Note that in ‘a’ the captains of the commandos came to Gedaliah and in the parallel they went to Egypt. In ‘b’ the list of captains includes Ishmael, and in the parallel Ishmael murders Gedaliah. Centrally in ‘c’ Gedaliah swore that those who faithfully served the king of Babylon would prosper and suffer no reprisals.

2Ki 25:23

‘Now when all the captains of the forces, they and their men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor, they came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of the Maacathite, they and their men.’

The ‘captains of the forces’ were commando leaders, either of bands who had hidden in the mountains when Nebuchadnezzar first invaded, or of remnants of the army who had escaped from Jerusalem at the same time as Zedekiah had tried to make his escape, and had taken to the mountains. When they heard that Gedaliah had been appointed governor they came to him in Mizpah, probably hoping for a new beginning. With Jerusalem in ruins and their kings exiled in Babylon there was little left to fight for.

2Ki 25:24

‘And Gedaliah swore to them and to their men, and said to them, “Do not be afraid because of the servants of the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon, and it will be well with you.’

Gedaliah then took an oath that if from now on they would faithfully serve the king of Babylon there would be no reprisals, and they would be able to dwell in the land and live safely and well.

2Ki 25:25

‘But it came about in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, so that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah.’

Unfortunately Ishmael, one of the captains, who was of the house of David, (with the kings indulging in multiple marriages the house of David would have many descendants), collaborated with the king of Ammon and arrived with ten men and slew Gedaliah, and with him a number of prominent Jews and Chaldeans. The main aim of the author was to bring home to us the fact that by this means YHWH was fulfilling His promise that the whole of Judah would be driven from the land.

2Ki 25:26

‘And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the forces, arose, and came to Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chaldeans.’

The result of the assassinations was that the people no longer felt safe in Judah because of the repercussions that might follow the slaying of Gedaliah, Nebuchadnezzar’s appointed governor, and a number of Chaldeans. Consequently they fled to Egypt for refuge. The land had truly ‘spewed out’ its inhabitants.

It may well have been in response to this that Nebuchadnezzar again invaded Judah, taking even more people into exile (Jer 52:30).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

B.Fall of the Kingdom of Judah; Jehoiachin set at Liberty

2Ki 25:8-30. (Jer 52:12-34.)

8And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzar-adan,captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: 9And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the kings house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great mans [omit mans7] house burnt he with fire. 10And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with8 the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. 11Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carry away. 12But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be [read to be] vinedressers and husbandmen.9 13And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon. 14And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered [the service was performed], took they away. 15And the firepans, and the bowls [sprinklers], and such things as were of gold, in gold, and of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away. 16The two pillars, one sea, and the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the Lord; the brass of all these vessels was without weight. 17The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and the chapiter [capital] upon it was brass; and the height of the chapiter three cubits; and the wreathen work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass: and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work.

18And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the door: 19And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the kings presence, which were found in the city, and the principal [omit principal] scribe of the [captain of the] host, which mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the 20city: And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah: 21And the king of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their 22land. And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, ruler. 23And when all the captains of the armies, they and their [the] men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor, there came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan the son of Careah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of a Maachathite, they and their men. 24And Gedaliah sware to them, and to their men, and said unto them, Fear not to be [omit to be] the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be well with you. 25But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died [and put him to death], and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah. 26And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees.

27And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; 28And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were 29with him in Babylon; [.] And [he] changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him [in his presence, i.e., at his table] all the days of his life. 30And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life.

Chronology Of The Period From The Fall Of The Kingdom Of Israel To The Fall Of The Kingdom Of Judah

Although the chronology of this period presents far fewer difficulties than that of the two former ones (pp. 86 and 180), yet a certain transmutation of its data into dates of the Christian era is hardly possible, for this reason, that the number of years stated as the duration of each reign does not always represent so many complete twelvemonths, and, of course, the years intended are not years of the Christian era, so that one year of a reign may fall in two different years before Christ, and two years of these reigns may fall in one year b.c. We cannot, therefore, avoid some uncertainties in the transfer from one to the other of these two modes of reckoning, and a difference of a single year cannot demand an explanation, or vitiate the calculation.

(a) Let us start from the fixed date which we have reached above (p. 181), 721 b.c., the year of the fall of Samaria. As this was the sixth year of Hezekiah, who reigned twenty-nine years (2Ki 18:10), there remain twenty-three years of his reign to be reckoned into this period. This gives us the following results:

Reigned for

Hezekiah

23

years

longer,

i.e.,

until

698.

Manasseh

55

years

(2Ki 21:1)

643.

Amon

2

years

(2Ki 21:19)

641.

Josiah

31

years

(2Ki 22:1)

610.

Jehoahaz

3

mos.

(2Ki 23:31)

Jehoiakim

11

yrs.

(2Ki 23:36)

599.

Jehoiachin

3

mos.

(2Ki 24:8).

Zedekiah

11

yrs.

(2Ki 24:18)

588.

The Book of Chronicles agrees exactly in all these dates. There is no variant in regard to a single one of them; the old versions have them exactly as they are given in the Hebrew text, and Josephus also gives the same. We are, therefore, as sure of these numbers as of any. Some modern scholars have taken scruples at the long reign of fifty-five years which is ascribed to Manasseh, and have shortened it arbitrarily either to thirty-five years (Movers, Von Gumpach), or to forty-five years (Bunsen, Wolff). This change, however, is inadmissible, for it necessitates other changes and throws the whole chronology into confusion. [This change is made in the interest of what is known as the shorter period for the space of history which is here included. The grounds for it are found in the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian chronologies. The problem is very complex, and the solution of it is hampered at many points by the uncertainty of many of the data. The majority of scholars have not, therefore, thought it wise to make any changes in the Hebrew chronology, to bring it into accord with that of contemporary nations, until the latter shall be more satisfactorily determined. Those who desire to attempt, even now, to bring about an accord, find it necessary to shorten the time which is required by the sum of the reigns for this period, and they see in the long reign ascribed to Manasseh the point where the error is most likely to lie.W. G. S.] The time for which the kingdom of Judah outlasted the kingdom of Israel amounts to 133 years. The six months for which Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin reigned are here left out of the account, and with justice, for it can hardly be that the years ascribed to the other reigns were all full twelvemonths. It is immaterial whether each three months reign is reckoned into the preceding or the following reign. It is possible that Zedekiah did not ascend the throne until 598, so that he reigned until 587, but in no case can his dethronement be placed later than 587. Instead of the year 588, in which, according to our reckoning, the fall of Jerusalem took place, many have lately adopted 586 as the date of that event. Bunsen, starting from the very uncertain Assyrio-Egyptian chronology, puts the fall of Samaria in 709 instead of in 721. He would be obliged, if he admitted 133 years for the subsequent duration of the kingdom of Judah, to put the fall of Jerusalem in 576, but, as he sees that this is inadmissible, he arbitrarily cuts off ten years from the reign of Manasseh and thus reaches the date 586. Ewald also adopts the date 586, but he reaches it by putting the fall of Samaria in 719 instead of in 721. This obliges him to set the date of accession of each of the following kings two years later than our dates, and thus he arrives at 586 instead of 588. We saw above (p. 181) that the date 719 is incorrect; with the incorrectness of this date, the date 586 falls to the ground. If, as we have seen, the date 721 is certainly established, then 588 is the only date which can be correct for the fall of Jerusalem, for, even if we suppose that all the years of all the reigns were full years, they only amount to 133 years.

(b) Besides the statements as to the duration of these reigns, we have the following chronological data in regard to them: (1) The thirteenth year of Josiah is given as the year in which Jeremiah first appeared as a prophet (Jer 1:1). This was the year 628, for Josiah began to reign in 641. Also the eighteenth year of Josiah is mentioned as the year of his reformation and celebration of the passoverthat is, 623 (2Ki 22:3; 2Ki 23:23). As Josiah was slain in his battle with Necho, the invasion of Asia by the latter took place in Josiahs thirty-first year, that is, in 610. The invasion of Judah by the Scyths, which is not mentioned at all in the historical books, must have taken place during the reign of Josiah, not before the public appearance of Jeremiah (628), and not after the great reformation (623). Duncker sets it in the fourteenth year of Josiahs reign, that is, 627. [See the Supp. Note, p. 285.](2) King Jehoiakim ascended the throne either at the very end of 610, or perhaps in 609, for Jehoahaz reigned for three months after Josiahs death. According to Jer 46:2, the great battle at Carchemish, in consequence of which Nebuchadnezzar advanced into Palestine, took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, that is, in 605 or 604 (see notes on 2Ki 23:36). In this same fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah caused to be written down his prophecies, which were solemnly read in public in the following year, on a great holiday (Jer 36:1; Jer 36:9). Up to this time, therefore, Jehoiakim was not yet subject to Nebuchadnezzar; he cannot have become so until the end of 605 or the beginning of 604. He revolted after three years (2Ki 24:1), that is, in 602 or 601. Chaldean and other forces harassed him from that time until his death in 599 (2Ki 24:2 sq.).(3) As Jehoiachin only reigned three months, it may well be that Zedekiah ascended the throne before the end of the year (599) in which Jehoiakim died. His fourth year, in which, according to Jer 51:59, he made a journey to Babylon, was, therefore, 595; certainly it was not 593, as Duncker and Ewald state, for, if he had not become king until the beginning of 598, this journey would fall, at the latest, in 594. In his ninth year, 590, the Chaldeans appeared before Jerusalem (2Ki 25:1). In his tenth year (589), while the city was being besieged, he ordered Jeremiah to be imprisoned (Jer 32:1). In his eleventh year (588), Jerusalem was taken, and Zedekiah was blinded and taken away captive to Babylon. In this same year occurred the destruction of the temple and of the city (2Ki 25:4; 2Ki 25:8).

(c) Several synchronisms are given between the reigns of the Jewish kings and that of Nebuchadnezzar. According to Jer 25:1, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar was the fourth of Jehoiakim (606), that is (see above), the year of the battle of Carchemish (Jer 46:2). This first year of Nebuchadnezzar and fourth of Jehoiakim was also, according to Jer 25:1-3, the twenty-third year of Jeremiahs work as prophet, which began (Jer 1:2) in the thirteenth year of Josiah (628). According to 2Ki 24:12, Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin prisoner in his own eighth year, that is, in 599, in which year, as we have seen above, the three months reign of Jehoiachin fell. Nebuchadnezzars eighteenth year corresponds, according to Jer 32:1, to the tenth year of Zedekiah, that is, since Zedekiah became king in 599, 589, and his nineteenth year, in which he took Jerusalem (2Ki 25:8; Jer 52:2), corresponds to the eleventh year of Zedekiah (2Ki 25:2). This is the year 588. In Jer 52:28 sq., the seventh year is given instead of the eighth, and the eighteenth instead of the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, but we shall see below, in the appendix to the Exegetical notes, that this difference, which only amounts at best to one year, is only apparent and not real. It cannot invalidate the calculation. The last chronological statement which occurs in the book is that, in the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachins captivity, Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadnezzars successor, released Jehoiachin from his prison in Babylon (2Ki 25:27; Jer 52:31). As the exile took place in the year 599 (see above under a), the liberation must have occurred in 562. According to Josephus (Antiq. x. 11, 1) Nebuchadnezzar reigned for forty-three years. We have seen above that he became king in 606; his death, therefore, took place in 562. In this year Evil-Merodach followed him, and, on his accession, he showed grace to Jehoiachin.

Thus the chronological statements in reference to this period which are presented by the Bible stand in the fullest accord with each other, and we have the more reason to hold to them, inasmuch as they are consistent with those of the former period. It is not our duty to inquire whether they agree with the results of the Assyrian and Egyptian investigations. We need only remark that these results are based, partly upon later unbiblical authors, and partly on attempts to decipher old Asiatic inscriptions, which have as yet produced no certain results, so that, as Rsch says: They are not yet by any means so firmly established that they could force us to surrender the data of the Old Testament. [See the Appendix on the Chronology.]

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Ki 25:8. And in the fifth month, on the seventh day. Instead of the seventh day, Jer 52:12 gives the tenth day. As the tenth day was the day on which Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem, according to that passage, it is impossible to assume, with the Rabbis, that the seventh day was the day that the burning commenced, and the tenth the day on which it ended. Also in 2Ki 25:17 Jeremiah has five cubits instead of three, and in 2Ki 25:19 seven men instead of five. The difference in these numbers is to be explained by a mistake in the numeral-letters. In 2Ki 25:17 the number five is unquestionably correct (cf. 1Ki 7:16; 2Ch 3:15), and in this verse the number ten () no doubt is to be preferred to seven (). In fact, the text of Jeremiah is in many respects to be preferred. Josephus (Bella Judges 6, 4, 8) states that Herods temple was burned on the tenth of the fifth month, and adds that it was a marvellous coincidence that the first temple was burned on the same day by the Babylonians.The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar. See the Chronological section above.Nebuzar-adan. On the etymology and signification of this name see Gesenius, Thesaurus II., p. 839, and Frst, H.- W.-B. II., s. 6. [The former interprets it by Mercurii dux dominus, i. e., dux cui Mercurius favet], the latter considers it equivalent to the Hebrew expression which immediately follows: (, i.e., literally: The captain of the executioners, the one who commands those who are commissioned to execute the kings commands, especially his death-sentences, and so, in general, the captain of the [royal] guard (Gen 37:36). [It is probably a Hebrew corruption of Nebu-zir-iddin, which means Nebo-has-given-offspring (Rawlinson). This is the only explanation which has any value, since it alone rests on an etymological study of Chaldee names.W. G. S.] The supplementary description in Jer 52:12 : Who stood before the king of Babylon, designates him as the first and highest officer who stood nearest to the king. He therefore remained in the camp at Riblah with the king, and only went to Jerusalem for the execution, and not, as Thenius thinks, in order to bring the siege to a conclusion. [It is laying too much stress on the primary signification of the word, which, moreover, is incorrect, to suppose that he did not go up to the city until it had been taken, and that then his business was to execute upon it the vengeance or punishment ordained by the king. He went up as the chief officer of the king to bring the siege to a conclusion, to take possession of the city in the kings name, and to carry out the kings determinations in regard to it.W. G. S.]

2Ki 25:9. And he burnt the house of the Lord, &c. We see what is meant by , all the houses, from 2Ch 36:19, where we read: , all the palaces. He left the small houses standing for the poor and humble people who were left behind.In Jer 52:14 we find before in 2Ki 25:10. It has been omitted here by some accident, or because it was regarded as a matter of course; it is by no means an arbitrary exaggeration (Thenius). On the other hand we must supply before on the authority of the passage in Jeremiah. Many old MSS. contain it, and all the versions supply it. Nebuzar-adan directed the work of destruction; the entire army fulfilled his commands.The exiles were composed, as the repetition of shows, of remnants () of two classes; first, of those whom famine, pestilence, and sword had yet spared, and those who had deserted to the Chaldeans; and, secondly, of , or, as we read in Jer 52:15 , which Hitzig declares to be the original reading, and to mean master-workman in a collective sense, comprising both the classes which are mentioned in Jer 24:1. The parallel passage, however, in Jer 39:9 does not admit of this interpretation, for there we read: . is not a synonym of (master-workman), but of (multitude). This latter word is used for the mass of the people, and especially for the multitude of persons capable of bearing arms (Isa 13:4; Isa 33:3; Jdg 4:7; Dan 11:11). We must understand this class of exiles to be the remainder of the able-bodied male population who were capable of bearing arms (Thenius). In , is an error for . The one class were inhabitants of the city; the other were persons who had belonged to the army without being inhabitants of the city. , 2Ki 25:12, is used as in 2Ki 24:14. The words do not mean that he left vinedressers and husbandmen, but, as is stated in Jer 39:10, that he left of the poor of the people, which had nothing, in the land of Judah, and gave them vineyards and fields at the same time. The Chaldee version has it, that they might cultivate vineyards and fields. The land was not to remain desert and uncultivated.

2Ki 25:13. And the pillars of brass, &c. In regard to these pillars, and the bases, and the sea, see notes on 1Ki 7:15-39. The (sprinklers), mentioned in Jer 52:18, are not named among the utensils enumerated in 2Ki 25:14 (for description of which see notes on 1Ki 7:40; 1Ki 7:50); they are mentioned in 2Ki 25:15. In 2Ki 25:15 we have the utensils of the forecourt, and in 2Ki 25:15 those of the sanctuary. It is expressly stated in Jer 27:19; Jer 27:21 that there remained after the first spoliation, 2Ki 24:13, a portion of these utensils which may have been hidden away at that time. The parallel passage, Jer 52:19, adds four more to the utensils which are mentioned in 2Ki 25:15. In general the account here is brief, and all articles not mentioned are summarily disposed of by the words: such things as were of gold, in gold, and such things as were of silver, in silver, i.e., so much as there was to be found of either kind (Thenius). is not to be supplied in 2Ki 25:16 from 2Ki 25:15, and , &c., are not the objects of this verb. The verse means to show that there was such a mass of the brass which was carried away that it could not be weighed. is a nominative absolute. As for the pillars, &c., the mass of the brass was so great, &c. with stands in contrast to with . There were two of the pillars but only one sea.In 2Ki 25:17 the author recurs to the pillars in order to say that they were very valuable, not only on account of the mass of the brass which was on them (2Ki 25:16), but also on account of the artistic labor which had been spent upon them . , as has been said above, is an error, the consequence of mistaking the numeral character, for the height of the capital of the column, according to the consistent statements in 1Ki 7:16; 2Ch 3:15; and Jer 52:22 was five cubits. , at the end of the verse, is difficult, for the second column was in all respects, and not simply in respect to the wreathen work, like to the first. Moreover, the wreathen work was not the most remarkable feature in these columns, so as to deserve to be especially mentioned. Thenius sees in the clause the residuum of a sentence which is given in full in Jeremiah [Jer 52:23], and which closes with the words . We must admit either that the original account [which was used by the author of Kings] was here too much abbreviated by him, or else that the text at this point is defective. The account in Jeremiah is, at this point, fuller and more satisfactory. As this author had already given a full description of these things in 1Ki 7:15-22, he did not think it necessary to go into detail here.

2Ki 25:18. And the captain of the guard took Seraiah. The persons who are mentioned here and in 2Ki 25:19 are not the same ones who are called, in Jer 39:6, , and who were put to death with the sons of Zedekiah, for these were first captured by Nebuzar-adan after the taking of the city. Seraiah is not the person of that name who is mentioned in Jer 51:59, but the grandfather or great-grandfather of Ezra (see Ezr 7:1; 1 Chron. 5:40). Zephaniah was no doubt the son of the priest Maaseiah, who, although a priest of the second rank (see notes on 2Ki 23:4), appears to have been a person of importance (Jer 21:2; Jer 29:25; Jer 29:29; Jer 37:3). The three keepers of the door were the chiefs of the body of levites who guarded the temple; one was stationed at each of the three main entrances to the temple (Jer 38:14); according to Josephus: . The chief royal officers were also taken, together with these chief men in the personnel of the temple (2Ki 25:19). stands in contrast with the temple; whether it has the narrower meaning of the City of David (Thenius), is uncertain. cannot mean a eunuch here, any more than in 2Ki 20:18; 2Ki 24:12. The command of soldiers would never be intrusted to such a person. Jer 52:25 has instead of , evidently more correctly, for he was so no longer. We cannot tell whether five men of those who belonged to the kings immediate circle were carried away, as is here stated, or seven, as is stated in Jer 52:25. The diverse statements are the result of some error in reading or copying the numerals. Hitzig: Seven persons are mentioned as having been chosen to be a sacrifice on account of the mystical significance of that number, but the number five, half of ten, which was the number for a complete whole incorporated of parts, may also have had mystical significance. The reason why just this number, whether five or seven, were taken appears to be given in the relative clause which follows, and that is that there were just so many left in the city. is a genitive after [the scribe of the captain of the host], and is not to be joined with but with [the scribe who was put on the staff of the commander-in-chief, and whose duty it was to enroll the persons liable to military service, &c.] The article with (it is wanting in Jer 52:25) shows that that is not a proper name in apposition with Captain of the host, as the Vulg. and Luther understand it: Sopher, the commander of the army. It means the generals clerk, the officer who had charge of the writing which might be required. Perhaps the commander himself had fled with the king (Thenius). [Of course any one who filled this office at a time when writing was a special accomplishment would be a person of far more importance than a military clerk now is. The Babylonian king thought him an officer whom it was worth while to put to death among the high officials of the kingdom.] The threescore men of the people of the land, who were put to death with the chief officers, were either the chiefs of the rebellion with their immediate followers (Von Gerlach), or Such as had in some way distinguished themselves above others in the defence of the city (Keil). It is very doubtful whether they were, as Thenius thinks, the handful that were left of the garrison of the city of David, and the opinion of Hitzig and Bertheau that they were the country people who had fled into the citadel is very improbable.

2Ki 25:21. So Judah was carried out of their land. Nebuzar-adan took up his march toward Riblah, not only with these who were destined to death, but also with all the people of Judah (Hitzig). This sentence evidently closes the history, like Jer 52:27, and 2Ki 17:23. At the same time it forms the introduction to what follows. Thus was Judah (that is, the mass and strength of the nation) led away into captivity. As for those who were left behind (the comparatively small, and poor, and weak portion), Nebuchadnezzar set Gedaliah over them.

2Ki 25:22. And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah. What is here narrated in 2Ki 25:22-26 is omitted in Jeremiah 52 because it is narrated, in that book, in Jeremiah 40 and Jeremiah 41, and in much fuller detail. The verses before us form only an extract from that account, which is here inserted in its proper historical connection.Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed governor, was the son of Ahikam, who is mentioned in 2Ki 22:12 as a man of importance under Josiah, and who, according to Jer 26:24, saved the life of the prophet when, during Jehoiakims reign, he was in danger of falling a victim of popular rage. Gedaliah, like his father, was a friend of the prophet. He shared the prophets judgment in regard to the wise policy to be pursued, and joined with him in advising Zedekiah to surrender to the Babylonians (Jer 38:17). Hence Nebuchadnezzar, after he had taken the city, intrusted the prophet, who until then had lain in captivity, to the care and protection of Gedaliah (Jer 39:14; Jer 40:6).The captains of the armies, they and the men, &c. Instead of we find in Jer 40:7 : , their men. These are they who were scattered when the king was captured, so that Jer 40:7 describes them as those which were in the fields (Thenius). Mizpah was a city in the territory of Benjamin (Jos 13:26), some hours journey north-west of Jerusalem. Here, in this city, which was situated in a high position and strongly fortified (1Ki 15:22), the governor established himself, as he could not live in the destroyed city of Jerusalem. Ishmael, according to 2Ki 25:25, was the grandson of Elishama, the of king Jehoiakim (Jer 36:12; Jer 36:20). For further particulars in regard to Johanan see Jer 40:13 sq.; Jer 41:11 sq. Jonathan is mentioned with him, Jer 40:8, as another son of Careah. Possibly the similarity of the names caused the latter to be omitted in this place. Seraiah came from Netopha, which appears to have lain between Bethlehem and Anathoth (Ezr 2:22; Neh 7:26). Jaazaniah came from Maacha, which is mentioned in 2Sa 10:6; 2Sa 10:8; 1Ch 19:6, and Jos 12:5, together with Syrian districts, and, in Deu 3:14, is mentioned as lying on the boundary of the country east of the Jordan. He was, therefore, a naturalized alien.By the servants of the Chaldees (2Ki 25:24) we have to understand the officers whom Nebuchadnezzar had left to govern the country, and whom he had perhaps put under Gedaliahs command. The latter, therefore, makes promises on their behalf, provided that the Jewish captains would acquiesce in the new order of things.

2Ki 25:25. In the seventh month, that is, only two months after the destruction of Jerusalem (2Ki 25:8). Of the seed royal; this is expressly stated in order to show what incited him to this action. He believed that he, as a descendant of the royal house, had a claim to the position of governor. According to Jer 40:14 he was also incited to this action by Baalis, king of the Ammonites, who no doubt would have been very glad to throw off the Chaldean yoke.The author breaks off abruptly with 2Ki 25:26, and simply states the result of this act. The people, fearing the return and vengeance of the Chaldeans, fled into Egypt. For further details see Jeremiah 40-42.

2Ki 25:27. In the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity. See the Chronological Remarks above. In Jer 52:31 the twenty-fifth day is given instead of the twenty-seventh, in the Hebrew text, and in the Sept. the twenty-fourth, evidently in consequence of a mistake in the numerals. We see from this accuracy in the date what significance was attached to the event. Evilmerodach was the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. He only reigned two years and was put to death by his brother-in-law, Neriglassar (Berosus, cited in Josephus c. Apion. i. 20). The signification of Evil is uncertain. Merodach, or Berodach, was the name of the Babylonian Mars. We find it in the composition of other proper names also (see notes on 2Ki 20:12). In the year that he became king. For we find in Jer 52:31 : , i.e., of his reign, equivalent to: When he came to be king. This is evidently more correct. Sept.: . , as in Gen 40:13; Gen 40:20, means, To lift up the head (for some one), i.e., inasmuch as captives moved about in despondency, with bowed heads, to lift up their heads is to release them from captivity, despair, and misery (Job 10:15, cf. Jdg 8:28). Here again the text before us is abbreviated. It omits , which is found in Jer 52:31, before . This deliverance from captivity was an act of grace performed by him at his accession, but there seems to have been a special ground for it in the case of Jehoiachin, as he was preferred before the other captive kings. [The rabbis say that Evilmerodach had formed a friendship with Jehoiachin in prison, into which Nebuchadnezzar had cast the former because he had been guilty of excesses in carrying on the government during an illness of the king, and had expressed pleasure at the same; evidently a fiction based on this passage and Daniel 4. (Thenius).]And set his throne above, &c., 2Ki 25:28. This certainly means that he gave him the preference and the higher rank. Whether he merely held him in higher estimation (Rosenmller, Keil), or allowed him actually to occupy a more elevated seat (Hitzig, Thenius), is not a matter of importance. The kings that were with him in Babylon, are those who, having been deprived, like Jehoiachin, of their kingdoms, were forced to enhance the triumph and glory of the court at Babylon, cf. Jdg 1:7 (Hitzig).

2Ki 25:29. And changed his prison-garments. Instead of the late Aramaic form we find in Jer 52:33 . The subject is not Evilmerodach (Hitzig), but Jehoiachin, who is the subject of the following verb . In the suffix can only refer to Jehoiachin and not to Evilmerodach. It would be a false inference, therefore, that Jehoiachins period of grace only lasted through Evilmerodachs short reign. Jehoiachin ate in person at the royal table, but he probably also received an allowance for the support of his little court, consisting of his servants and attendants (Hitzig). Here again this text is abbreviated. In Jeremiah there follow after v the words: until his death. Here those words are omitted as unnecessary after: all the days of his life. The Sept. also have these words in this place. The fact that they omit them in Jer 52:34 does not justify the assumption of Thenius that they were borrowed from 2Ki 25:29, and are not original in that place. Hitzig very properly declares that they are evidently genuine, and adds: In 2Ki 25:11 all the days of his life might well be omitted. Here, however, where he narrates something joyful, the author looks back once more, after fixing the term or limit, over the entire period of good fortune. Cf. 1Ki 5:1; 1Ki 15:5. He wants to tell once more what good fortune Jehoiachin enjoyed until the end of his life, and how Evilmerodach at least had the intention of providing for him. This good fortune lasted until Jehoiachins death, whether he died before or after Evilmerodach.

_____

Appendix.After the words: So Judah was carried away out of their land, there follows, in Jer 52:28-30, the following statement, which is omitted in the book of Kings: This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive; in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty. In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons. In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzar-adan, the captain of the guard, carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons. All the persons were four thousand and six hundred. 2Ki 25:22-26 is wanting in Jeremiah 52. because its statements had been given in detail in chaps, 40 and 41; the statements above quoted are inserted in Jeremiah 52. because they had not been given before, as they are in 2 Kings, in 2Ki 24:14-16. The numbers given in Jeremiah vary very much from those in Kings. The former, however, are recommended, as Hitzig says, by their detail; they cannot have been invented. They are evidently derived from a different source, and the only question is, what relation does that source bear to the statements in the book of Kings? Of the three separate deportations mentioned, one took place in the seventh, and one in the eighteenth, year of Nebuchadnezzar. These can be no other than the one which took place according to 2Ki 24:12, in the eighth, and the one which took place according to 2Ki 25:8 and Jer 52:12, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar would be, as is expressly stated in Jer 32:1, the tenth of Zedekiah, that is, the year in which Jerusalem was first besieged. There cannot have been any deportation in this year. Again, the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar would not be the year in which Jehoiachin reigned for three months, and in which it is said that he and ten thousand others were led into exile, but the last year of Jehoiakim. In this year there was no deportation. We are therefore compelled to assume, if we will not alter all the other chronological data in the book of Jeremiah itself, that the original document from which Jer 52:28-30 is derived, reckons the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from another starting-point from that which is adopted in the book of Kings and elsewhere in Jeremiah. This may well be, inasmuch as the years of Nebuchadnezzars reign do not coincide exactly with those of the Jewish kings. The difference, however, only amounts to one year. The third deportation in the twenty-third year must, therefore, have taken place in the twenty-fourth year. It is not mentioned in Kings at all, but no doubt took place. In view of the continual disposition to revolt, it is very likely that he carried off more of the people in his twenty-third or twenty-fourth year, especially as he was at that time busy besieging Tyre. He intrusted this duty to the same officer who had had charge of the previous deportation. There is a much more serious difficulty in regard to the number of the exiles. According to Jer 52:28 there were only 3,023 in the first deportation; according to 2Ki 24:14 there were 10,000. Josephus says there were 10,832. Evidently he has joined the 10,000 in Kings, for the first deportation, with the 832 in Jeremiah for the second (Antiq. x. 7, 1). Thenius suggests that the sign for ten (yod) may have resembled the sign for three (gimel) in the original document from which these statements are derived, and so 3,023 took the place of 10,023. This last would then be the accurate number for which 10,000 is the round number. But the sum given at the end, 4,600, supports 3,023 in this place, and this testimony cannot be put aside by the critical decree that: The summation at the end was interpolated by the redactor. According to Ewald, has fallen out after in 2Ki 25:28 just as certainly as it has fallen out after in the statement of Jehoiachins life in 2Ch 36:9. According to this we should have to take it as referring, not to the deportation mentioned in 2Ki 24:14, but to the later one under Zedekiah. The seventeenth of Nebuchadnezzar was the 9th of Zedekiah, and in that year Nebuchadnezzar advanced against Jerusalem (2Ki 25:1). He took the city in Zedekiahs eleventh year (2Ki 25:2), and before that no deportation can have taken place. The discrepancy between 10,000 and 3,023 can hardly be accounted for otherwise than by the explanation of Estius. In 2Ki 25:28 the 3,023 are expressly mentioned as Jews, that is, persons who belonged to the tribe of Judah. The 10,000 included persons not of that tribe, Benjamites and others who had joined themselves to Judah, since it alone represented the Israelitish nationality, and who made common cause with it against the Chaldeans. There may well have been 7,000 of these, and the entire number in the first captivity, including the 3,023 Jews, was thus 10,000. It is evident that the statements in Jer 52:28-30 are meant to apply only to the persons of the tribe of Judah (see 2Ki 25:27), and not to all who were carried away captive. This opinion is also favored by the number 4,600 as the sum of the exiles, for this number would be far too small for the sum of all the persons carried into captivity. [There can be no doubt that Jer 52:28-30 refers to the Jews who were taken captive. What reason have we for supposing that 2Ki 24:14 refers to or includes any others than Jews? There is none. It is only an invention for the sake of harmonizing the two passages. Then the probabilities are against it. The persons carried away were chosen on account of their rank, position, and influence. We have an instance in Jaazaniah of Maacha (2Ki 25:25 see Exeget. notes on that verse) that others than men of Judah held power and rank. Shebna the scribe (Isa 22:15) is another instance to prove that in the time before the captivity pure Israelitish, much more pure Jewish blood, was not necessary to hold high office in Jerusalem. The persons of the highest rank were the ones taken awayas suchwhether Jews or not. Non-Jews were, of course, rare exceptions. Of the common people large numbers were spared. Naturally people of Judah, who were most deeply interested in the fate of Jerusalem, would be taken first, together with such of other tribes or nationalities as were dangerous from their rank and influence and ability. It is, therefore, improbable that many non-Jews of the common people were carried away. It amounts to a certainty that the exiles were not composed of non-Jews in the ratio of 7,000 to 3,000. This explanation must, therefore, be abandoned. It is the only true policy, in this and in similar cases, to take note of the discrepancy as a fact, and to abandon the attempt at forced and strained explanations. Between the two accounts, that in Jeremiah deserves the preference as the more specific, and also as the more moderate statement. The larger number and the round number is suspicious.W. G. S.] Only 832 were taken away in the second deportation, because there were only so many left of the more influential people. The 745 who were taken away at the third deportation were not inhabitants of Jerusalem but (2Ki 25:30). The smallness of this number is due to the fact that most of the Jews, properly speaking, had been taken away before.

[The numbers certainly are astonishingly small in one point of view, though in another we are not surprised that they are no larger. Taking the number of Israelites who entered Palestine at the lowest estimate, and noticing the numbers which formed the armies, or were engaged in battle at various times, as well as the pictures of society which are given, especially by Isaiah and the other older prophets, we get the impression that there was a very large population in Palestine before the Assyrian Empire began to press upon the North. On the other hand, when we consider the great difficulty of leading a large mass of people, with the aged, the women, and the children, on a long journey through a rough country, we can hardly conceive it possible that the conquerors should have taken away an entire population. The Assyrians, however, blotted out the kingdom of the ten tribes. The whole picture which is presented to us gives the impression that the land was depopulated and left desert. The wild beasts took possession of it. Not enough remained to continue the ancient traditions and worship there. It was found necessary to begin almost de novo in the population and cultivation of the country. So too in Judah. The pictures presented by the prophets and in the Psalms, as well as by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, are those of a depopulated and desert country. Such numbers were taken away that some had to be left on purpose to cultivate the land. When the exiles came back they had to re-found the nation. Now we hear that there were only 4,600 exiles in all, or, at most, 10,000. This seems reasonable in view of the difficulty of transportation, but it is difficult to see how it accounts for the destruction of the nation. Two suggestions present themselves: in the first place, the last 150 years, with their internal dissensions, their reformations and revolutions, their counter-reformations and counter-revolutions, as well as their foreign wars, may have greatly reduced the population. In the second place, in a nation such as Judah was, the centre of gravity of the nationality was, no doubt, in the upper and better classes. The poor and uneducated and humble were probably very dependent upon the more fortunate classes. One proof of it is the fact that the prophets and psalmists were continually rebuking the arrogance of the latter towards the former. The Babylonian kings policy of carrying off the chief men may, therefore, have been radical and all sufficient for rooting out the nationality.W. G. S.]

Those who were carried away last were probably those who had formerly been considered harmless, but whom it was found, upon experience, inexpedient to trust. However the numbers may be explained, it is certain from Jer 52:28-30 that there were only three deportations, and not six, as Usher and the Calw. Bib. assume, viz., the first in the seventh of Jehoiakim (Dan 1:1; Dan 1:3 (?)), the second in the seventh of Nebuchadnezzar, the third under Jehoiachin, the fourth in the eighteenth, the fifth in the nineteenth, and the sixth in the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Later scholars have reduced these to four: the first under Jehoiakim, the second under Jehoiachin, the third under Zedekiah, and the fourth some years after the destruction of Jerusalem. But this is not correct, for there is no hint of any deportation under Jehoiakim either in Kings or Chronicles or Jeremiah. So much only may be accepted, that Daniel was sent to Babylon as a hostage when Jehoiakim became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:1). Perhaps, also, at that time Jehoiakim gave some of the temple utensils to the enemy to pacify him (2Ch 36:6-7).

HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL

1. The destruction of Jerusalem did not take place immediately after the fall of the city, but one month later. It is clearly designated in the record as a later and independent event. Nebuzar-adan who stood before the king of Babylon (Jer 52:12), who, that is, attended his orders, came to Jerusalem, by the express command of the king, not to take the city, which had not yet been captured (as Thenius thinks), but, as 2Ki 25:9 distinctly shows, in order to destroy the captured city. The destruction of the city was intended and distinctly commanded by Nebuchadnezzar. It was the punishment which the king had decreed and which Nebuzar-adan was to execute. He went methodically to work. First of all he caused the temple to be burned, then the royal palace, then the houses of the great men, then he tore down the walls, and finally he took the inhabitants away. In 2Ki 25:13-17 the account returns to the temple and enumerates its decorations and furniture, which were destroyed or carried off. The utter destruction of the temple cannot have been insisted on, on account of the value of the objects it contained, for these were not of gold, like the ones which had formerly been carried away (2Ki 24:13). The only ground for it was that the temple had especial significance, as the dwelling of the one God in the midst of His chosen people. Both politically and religiously it was the centre of the State, the basis and the bond of the national unity. It was the building of chief importance, and was, therefore, to be destroyed first and utterly. The temple worship had become, under the four last kings, a mere external ceremonial. Even the priests made of it a mere hypocritical show, so that Jeremiah cried out: Trust ye not in lying words, saying. The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these (Jer 7:4). Then he commanded them to repent and amend. They did not, however, and so the externals in which they trusted were taken from them. The destruction of the temple was the seal of Gods truth impressed upon the words of the prophets, in which the people had not believed (Jer 27:19-22). The two brazen columns are mentioned first and chiefly in the description of the glories of the temple. (They are described with more detail in Jeremiah than in Kings.) The cause of this is, as we saw in the Exeg. note on 1Ki 7:21 and Hist. 5 on 1Ki 7:1-51, that these columns represented the foundation and the strength of the temple, and were, therefore, in a certain measure, representatives of Jehovah. The destruction and removal of these showed, more than any other event, that the house of Jehovah, as the physical centre of the theocracy, had come to an end. The ark of the covenant is not mentioned in either account. It seems to have been removed from the temple before its destruction. It had been removed under Manasseh or Amon, for Josiah commanded the levites to bring it back into the temple (2Ch 35:3). We may suppose that it was removed again under one of the following kings, perhaps under Jehoiakim. What became of it we cannot tell. The inference from Jer 3:16 that it was no longer in existence in the time of Jeremiah (Hitzig) is not justified. Some suppose, as Carpzov does (Apparat. Crit. p. 298), that it was among the articles which Nebuchadnezzar caused to be either destroyed or carried off in the time of Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:13; 2Ch 36:10). The story of the rabbis that Josiah had caused it to be hidden in a subterranean chamber, and that Jeremiah commanded those who fled to Egypt (2Ki 25:26) to take it with them, and that they hid it in a cleft of the mountain on which Moses had once been (2Ma 2:5. Cf. Buxtorf, De arc fd., cap. 22. Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 203), sounds very wild.

2. The fall of the kingdom of Judah was, according to the distinct statement of the Scriptures, the divine judgment which had long been threatened by the prophets (Isa 39:6-7; 2Ki 21:10-15; Jer 19:3-13). It fell when all Jehovahs attempts to recall the chosen people to their allegiance had failed, and the apostasy from Him and from His law had reached the utmost limit. Sun and Moon, Baal and the Queen of Heaven, Adonis and Astarte, all the host of heaven were worshipped, and children were sacrificed to Moloch in the valley of Hinnom. Idols stood even in the House of Jehovah; idol-altars stood in the streets. On the hills, on the roofs, in the groves, incense was offered to idols. There was no abomination of idolatry which was not practised. All that remained of the Jehovah worship was external ceremonial, and priests and prophets uttered lies (Jer 7:17-18; Jer 7:30-32; Jer 8:2; Jer 11:12-13; Jer 17:2; Jer 19:4-5; Jer 19:13; Jer 32:29; Jer 32:34-35; Eze 8:3; Eze 8:9-10; Eze 8:14; Eze 23:38-39, &c.). Moral corruption kept pace with this religious apostasy: Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say: We are delivered to do all these abominations? [Lit. we are concealed to do, &c., i.e., we have impunity] (Jer 7:9-10). Avarice, love of gain, and cheating (Jer 6:13), licentiousness and whoredom (Jer 5:8-9), injustice and violence (Jer 6:6), shedding innocent blood (Jer 2:34; Jer 7:6), overriding justice and right (Jer 7:6), falsehood and hypocrisy (Jer 8:9-10), bigotry and obstinacy (Jer 7:24-26), infidelity and perjury (Jer 9:2-3; Jer 9:7), in short, all sins and vices were prevalent, especially among the rich and great. Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, and that seeketh the truth, and I will pardon it (Jer 5:1; cf. 2Ch 36:14-16). So the measure had become full. Judah had fallen lower than Israel, therefore the Lord cast it away from before His face as He had cast away Israel (2Ki 17:20; 2Ki 24:20). As there the king of Assyria, so here the king of Babylon was the instrument of the divine judgment, the rod of his anger, which, after it had served His purpose, He broke and cast into the fire (Jer 1:17-18; cf. Isa 10:5). This punishment, however, was not the annihilation of the chosen people, but the sole radical cure for it. The Lord keeps His promises even while He chastises and punishes. The only means by which the chosen people could preserve and fulfil its destiny in human history, to bring the knowledge of God and salvation to all nations, was by the downfall of the visible kingdom, the earthly theocracy. The downfall of the visible kingdom was a step in the divine economy of salvation, and it marked progress towards the true kingdom of God. The people needed to be convinced of the nothingness of the visible kingdom, and to have its attention directed to the new, spiritual, true, and eternal kingdom. This was the aim of the divine judgment, to awaken an appreciation of this kingdom and a longing for it, and this aim was reached in the end. The idea of the messianic kingdom which the prophets had brought forward long before the downfall of the visible kingdom, but which had fallen uncomprehended, now took firm root. Hasse well says (Gesch. des A. B. s. 136): It belonged to the consummation of the history of Israel that Judah also should perish. It had long ago made this necessary by its backsliding after every momentary reformation, and by its obstinate resistance to every call of grace; but the power of the Davidic element to recover from corruption had thus far saved it. This power exhausted its last energies in Josiah, and, after his death, the kingdom sank rapidly into ruins. As the old passed away, the prophets were obliged to turn and give expression to what they perceived as something new and future. A sharp division separated this new from the old. On the one hand, the judgment and penalty were recognized as a penalty of death. On the other hand arose the figure of the new life, and it was transfigured into a lofty ideal. Lisco (Das A. T. I. s. 538) gives a similar conception: The breach which was made by the separation of the kingdom was never healed. On the contrary, its evil effects lasted on until the downfall, first of Ephraim and then of Judah. In the measure in which the political confusion and decay increased, and the impending calamity approached, in the same measure the prophetic word grew loud and clear, and, when the blow fell which destroyed the Jewish nation, Jeremiah arose upon the ruins of Jerusalem, Daniel appeared as a prophet to speak in the name of his people before the king of Babylon, and Ezekiel watched over the scattered remnants of the nation who were in exile on the Chaboras. The civil power was dead; the prophetical power survived its death. The fall of Jerusalem forms the most important crisis in the history of the ancient people of God. It was not an event between two nations; it was an event in the history of the world. Many a great nation fell both before and after, but the fall of none of them had anything like the significance for the history of the world which that of Judah had. It is an event which is as unique in history as the Jewish people was unique among nations, for Salvation cometh of the Jews (Joh 4:22). By its fall Judah became the keeper and bearer of salvation for all the world (cf. Jeremiah 30-33).

3. The deportation of conquered peoples from their country was the ordinary policy of the ancient Asiatic conquerors, in order that the nationality might thus be obliterated (see Exeg. on 1Ki 8:46 sq.). In this case, however, the effect was, on the contrary, in the providence of God, to preserve the conquered people in all their peculiarity of character and calling and destiny. Herein consists the great difference between the downfall of Samaria and that of Judah, as we saw above (2 Kings 17 Hist. 3); whereas the exile of the people of the ten tribes in Assyria served to annihilate their nationality, and they sank lower and lower until they disappeared from history, the exile of the people of Judah in Babylon served only to strengthen and purify them, so that they far out-lived the world-monarchy which had conquered them. Nothing could show more clearly the indestructibility of the chosen people than this fact, that the event which should have destroyed them only served to purify and strengthen them. The distress of the captivity brought them to their senses, and made them see their own sinfulness. They repented, and turned to Jehovah and to His Law with a sincerity which they had never before felt. The exile awakened in them a deep longing for the promised land, for the city in which Jehovah had placed His name (2Ki 21:7), for the temple which was the pledge of the selection of Israel to be the chosen people, and the centre of its nationality. This is expressed in Psalms 137, 126. It was a dispensation of Divine Providence that the king of Babylon did not do as the king of Assyria had done in Samariabring heathen colonists to settle in the land of Judah after its population was taken away. If he had done so a mixed population would have grown up there and the land would have become the home of many diverse religions and forms of worship (2Ki 17:24-33; cf. 2 Kings 17. Hist. 4 and 5). Judah maintained its purity of religion and nationality both in captivity and in the home country. The exiles retained their national constitution (Eze 14:1; Eze 20:1; Sus. 5:28). According to the Talmud (Gem. Makkoth i. 1; Sanhedr. i. 12, 21) they were put under a [Governor of the captivity, i.e., of the captives] of their own nation. The practice of their religion was also allowed them, but they could not offer sacrifices, because they lacked the one central sanctuary at which alone sacrifice might be offered. This only increased their longing to erect the sanctuary once more, and this longing endured until the time of chastisement was at an end (Jer 25:12; Jer 29:10). When they returned their first care was to rebuild the sanctuary (Eze 1:3; Eze 6:3).

4. The two brief narratives by which the author closes his work are not mere appendages to the history, but the proper epilogue to the words: So Judah was carried away out of their land. They are parallel, in a certain manner, to the review which the author gives in 2Ki 17:7 sq. of the history of Israel. The first of these incidents shows us how deep was the corruption which had pervaded the kingdom, and how hopelessly depraved the monarchical constitution had become. It was not possible any longer to have even a deputy-king under Babylonian sovereignty. Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had left as governor, was put to death after a few months in spite of his oath (2Ki 25:24), and the murderer, Ishmael, who desired to make himself king, was obliged to flee with his followers into the territory of the Ammonites. Others fled, for fear of the vengeance of the Chaldeans, into Egypt. Every attempt to unite the scattered remnants, and to set up at least the shadow of a monarchy, failed. Judah could not any longer stand any kind of a monarchy. It was incapable of sustaining an independent existence under an independent dynasty. The inauguration of such a government only served to produce greater confusion and disorder. The events which followed the destruction of Jerusalem only showed how necessary the divine chastisement had become. This is what the author desires to show by the first incident which he relates. However, he could not and would not close his work, which was written primarily for those who, like himself, were living in exile, with such a sad and hopeless incident. He therefore adds the story of the deliverance of Jehoiachin from his prison after thirty seven years of captivity. He thereby offers to the people who sat weeping by the waters of Babylon, and thinking of Jerusalem, a prospect into a more hopeful future. The release of Jehoiachin was the first ray of light in the long night of the captivity and was a guarantee to the people that the Lord would keep His promise, and would not withdraw his grace from the house of David forever (Keil). It gave the captive people hope that the hour of their deliverance also would come. The author could not have given a more appropriate close to his work, in which he had shown Gods plan of grace and redemption in the history of the chosen people.

5. In conclusion, we must notice the manner in which the latest modern historians conceive of, and represent, the fall of Judah. There had been, says Duncker (Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 542), no increase in power since the time of Hezekiah. There was no better guarantee for the existence of a small State than there had been at that time. If Egypt went on, as it had begun under Psammetichus, making conquests in Asia, and if a new great power arose to inherit and increase the might which Assyria had once possessed, the existence of Judah would once more be threatened as seriously as it was in the time of Hezekiah (s. 552): The effort of the nation to regain its independent existence, the stiffnecked resistance with which the Jews were ready to fight for their fatherland, and to break the yoke of the foreigner, were as well justified as was the abstract religious policy of Jeremiah. Who can blame those who hold the duty of sacrificing ones life for ones country, even under the most hopeless circumstances, higher than the counsel to submit at discretion? Who can blame those who regarded Jeremiahs conduct and policy as ruinous, who demanded that Jeremiah should stand on the side of his own nation against the foreign foe, and who stigmatized his discourses as treason? (s. 553): He (Jeremiah) is bitter and violent enough to call down bloody destruction upon his [personal] enemies (Jer 15:5). (s. 556): However much Jeremiahs assertions were calculated to discourage the king and people, they did not have that effect. It was natural that Jeremiah should seem to the people to be a cowardly traitor. (s. 557): Jeremiahs persistence in advising submission, under the circumstances, finally so far outraged the chief men that they demanded his life of the king (s. 544): The prophet went so far in his opposition to Jehoiakim that he finally brought his own life into danger. At the same time he irritated the people against himself by his persistent prophecies of the coming fall of Jerusalem. He was no less severe against the people for the wickedness of their conduct, and for their practice of some remains of foreign usages which had not been eradicated by the (new) Law-book. It is hardly necessary to say that this view is diametrically opposed to that of the Bible, and yet the biblical documents are the only authority for the history. In the text the grounds of the national downfall are stated to be the apostasy of the nation in religion, its corruption in morals, and the unfaithfulness, tyranny, and depravity of its king. The downfall is represented as a divine judgment upon the nation in punishment for all this. Duncker, however, ignores this view. In his view all is explained by the physical weakness of the kingdom of Judah in face of the great world-empires, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon. It was all due to external and natural causes, such as have often produced similar catastrophes in human history. It was an undeserved misfortune, in which the king and people appear battling with desperate courage for the highest national interests. They appear great and admirable, while the truly great one, the prophet, who was persecuted while laboring for the true welfare of the people, who held firm and impregnable as a rock in the midst of the storm, is represented as a factious oppositionist, nay, even as a traitor. This is not writing history, but turning it upside down.

[The facts of history are one thing; their philosophy is another. The theocratic philosophy of history is one thing, and the purely human philosophy of it is another. To pass behind history and trace the moral causes which were at work, and observe their effects, is the great task of the historian, but he limits himself to the second causes, and contents himself with seeing Gods plan only in the grand results of centuries, and in the movements of epochs. The attempt to pursue this latter investigation into details never succeeds when men try it. Gods Providence is in every event of history, and in the character of every historical personage, but its presence and its operation there are matters of faith. Try to seize it, to specify it, and to examine it, and you are baffled and disappointed. God is in every blade of grass. His presence there is clear to our reason, our conscience, and our faith. If we hastily infer that, if God is in the blade of grass which we hold in our hands, then we can seize Him and see Him, and if we betake ourselves to the microscope and the dissecting apparatus, we find that we fail. Just so it is here in history. This biblical history is the only one we have in which the history is written from the theocratic standpoint, and in which the presence of God in history is traced step by step and man by man. If we attempt to take up this stand-point and follow it and apply it rigorously we involve ourselves in hopeless contradictions. The standpoint is not rational, it is prophetic; that is, its norm and standard of consistency is that of the divine plan, not of the human reason. The reason, however, is the only instrument at our disposal, and it falls short of its task if it undertakes to adopt the prophetical method. It took a prophet to give us this view of the Jewish history, and it would require a prophet to apply the same method elsewhere, or to follow it here into greater detail. Duncker lays aside the theocratic and prophetical conception, and approaches the facts of the history, as here recorded, in exactly the same spirit, and with exactly the same method, by which he treats the history of Egypt, Assyria, and Greece. His work is a universal history. The history of Israel as an earthly monarchy enters into the scope of his work as regards its earthly and external fortunes. Its theological and religious significance are aside from his plan. He is an historian, not a prophet, and he can only treat history as ordinary historians treat it. His view, therefore, naturally appears low and worldly and commonplace, when quoted in a book of this kind, which is avowedly biblical and theocratic, and only follows and explains the biblical presentation. His undertaking is a legitimate one for an historian. We cannot say that it is wrong for him to treat history as he does, and to include Jewish history in his plan, but he is engaged in a work whose stand-point and aim are so different from that in which we are engaged, that we are not called to consider it here. His readers must add to his representation of the history the explanation and philosophy of it which is furnished by their Bibles. The distinction which is brought out here is one which it is most important to bear in mind in commenting on the historical books.As for Jeremiahs attitude at the siege of Jerusalem, the question is the one which always arises in such cases between prudence and valor. The rle which was filled by Jeremiah, to give wise and prudent counsel to men who are heated with the strongest passions, and to stem alone a tide of feeling which animates a body of men of which he is a member, and with which he is expected to sympathize without reserve or question, is the most thankless one which can possibly devolve upon any man. He cannot succeed in persuading his companions; he can only draw down persecution on himself. His only consolation is his fidelity to his convictions, and our judgment of him, as of any other man who has the courage to undertake the prophets task, must be regulated by the issue. He stakes all upon the wisdom of his counsel. If in a calm view of the situation and its results we see that he was wise and right, we must blame those who persecuted him and denied the wisdom of his counsel. Humanly speaking, Jeremiah was the only wise counsellor in Jerusalem, for his counsel would have saved the city and the national existence, if not the national independence. If, however, we turn to the theocratic standard, we see how utterly impossible it is for us to apply it. As we have seen above ( 2), the fall of Jerusalem was no step backwards, but a great one forwards, in the development of the redemptive plan. When a church or a nation reaches the point of saying The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these, that is, when it puts its trust in externals, in ceremonies, and sacred houses, and sacred things, while the spirit of truth and righteousness is lost, and treats Gods promises as if He had bound His own hands against punishing their sins, their fate is sealed. The downfall of Jerusalem might have been delayed, it could not have been averted, or, if it had been averted, as far as we can judge, all the religious truth of which Israel was the keeper and witness would have been lost. Here, however, is just the difficulty. History only takes one course of two or more which are conceivable. This one only is open to our study and observation, and we are forced to assume that that was Gods plan. The consequences of the other policy, supposing it to have been adopted, are a pure matter of speculation. Now Jeremiah counselled submission. That might have saved the city and the temple and the nationality, but, if we can rely upon our judgment expressed in 2, it would have sacrificed the kingdom of God. He also preached amendment and righteousness as the only condition of permanent safety, but we cannot see, as far as we judge, that such amendment was possible until after severe chastisement, and it remains for us, what it was for Jeremiah, a subject of faith, that God would have preserved the national independence if the people had repented.W. G. S.]

Ewalds presentation of the fall of Jerusalem (Gesch. III. s. 712717) is very different from Dunckers superficial and perverted view of it. As he sees in the whole course of the history, from the time of Solomon on, a continual conflict between two independent authorities, the monarchy and the prophetical institution, and explains this conflict by the violence which was characteristic of either (see Pt. II. pp. 103 and 4), so he finds the causes of the ruin of the kingdom in this conflict. It remained to be shown, by the fate of Judah also, that violence destroys its own cause, even when that cause seems to be the most permanent and enduring. The second of these independent powers, the prophetical institution, was now also irrevocably broken. The reason why the prophetical office no longer possessed its ancient power was that it had rid itself of the last relics of the violence which marked it even in Isaiah, and had risen to a purely spiritual activity and influence. It was long since violence had been able to accomplish any sound results even in the prophetical office. Thus the highest prophetical activity lost its power when it lost its fierce and violent forms of action, and the second of the two forces on which the nationality rested was radically ruined. When the two forces which could alone carry and preserve the nation were thus worn out, when the nation could no longer find either the right king or the right prophet, it sank rapidly towards its catastrophe. Then first did the evils which had long threatened it, or which had made themselves temporarily felt, become fatal to it. In this view also the idea which is made uppermost in the biblical narrative, that the fall was a divine judgment justly and deservedly inflicted as a punishment for persistence in sin, is obscured and neglected, and the fall is represented as a catastrophe which was the legitimate result of a regular development. [There is no real disagreement here. The one is a pragmatic and the other is a philosophical statement of the same idea. The ancient Hebrew writer states it as a balance between so much sin and so much punishment. We cannot expect a critical and philosophical statement from him. In his view God stands over the sinful nation patiently and with long-suffering, and finally His hand falls in punishment. The modern German critic sees, in persistence in sin, the adoption of certain depraved doctrines, principles, and modes of thought, which form a creed or sum of convictions tacit or expressed. These produce a reiteration of unchaste, immoral, and irreligious actssins. This finally becomes a national habit, a characteristic of the nationality. It rises into a moral cause, and according to the laws of Gods moral government, this cause will in time produce inevitably certain moral and physical resultsnational decay (which will show itself first in the most vital organs of the State, its throne, its altar, and its pulpit), and finally national ruin. The two forms of statement are identical.W. G. S.] As for the theory that there were two independent authorities in the State, and that the great characteristic of each was violenceemployment of force in word or deedin fulfilling its functions, it has been sufficiently noticed on p. 104. We need only remark here, that if violence was a characteristic of Isaiah, then Jeremiahs discourses are far more forcible, vigorous, and violent than his, so that Duncker (quoted above) charges him with passion, severity, and sternness. No prophet ever rebuked the sin and apostasy of king and people with more plain and severe

language than Jeremiah. It cannot be said of him that he had thrown off the violent manner of the ancient prophets, and that one and the same ruin enveloped the last great prophet and the nation, with all of its better interests which still remained at this stormy time. His forcible words of rebuke and reproof, his endurance, pertinacity, and inflexibility, in the hardest conflicts and sufferings, down to the very end, bear testimony, not to the weakness and decay of the prophetical office, but to the fact that it was as grand, as great, and as vigorous as ever before. The monarchy sank and ceased at the fall of the kingdom, but the prophetical institution, so far from ceasing, arose again to new glory and strength. Those have the less ground for denying this who ascribe the second part of Isaiah to a great unknown prophet, who lived near the end of the captivity.

[The decay of the prophetical office is undeniable, in spite of the fact that one or two last great ones yet appeared. There had been false prophets, in greater or less number, at all times, but see the 23d chap. of Jeremiah, from the 9th verse on (Jer 23:9), for a sweeping denunciaton of the contemporary prophets. No distinction between false and true is specified. Depraved priests and prophets are together branded with one terrible denunciation. In Jer 23:38-40 the degeneracy of the prophets seems to be given as the cause why Jehovah had abandoned the city. Prophecy ceased at some timewhen did it cease? It did not cease abruptly, but shared the fate of all similar institutions among mankind. It degenerated into formalism and superstition (see Jer 23:33-37). In its rise and bloom and decay we can trace undeniable steps of change, development, progress, and decline. After the exile we have a few prophets, but not like the ancient ones. The spoken word gave way to the written word; the original oracle gave way to the commentary; the prophet gave way to the scribe. Following the stream upwards we come to the Great Unknown (?), and to Jeremiah. We find in Jeremiah descriptions of the contemporary prophets, and we see that the institution was dying, and that the one or two great ones who yet arose were great and grand as exceptions to the prevalent degeneracy. Jeremiah was the last prophet who was a statesman also, as the old prophets had been (Stanley).W. G. S.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

2Ki 25:8-21. Gods Judgment upon Judah. (a) It was well deserved (Rom 2:5-11); (b) it was terrible (Heb 10:30-31; Deu 4:24); (c) it was a warning (1Co 10:11; 2Th 1:8-10; Isa 2:10-17). Comparison of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans with its destruction by the Romans. (a) Wherein they were alike; (b) wherein they differed.Keil: The saying that the worlds history is the worlds condemnation, finds its full justification in the history of Judah, and nowhere else.

2Ki 25:9-17. Kyburz: No place is so strong, no building so grand, no wall so firm, that sin cannot undermine and overthrow it. Let no man trust in ceremonies, or sacred houses, or sacred traditions, so long as his heart is far from God, and his life is not in accord with his righteous creed. The destruction of the temple was a testimony that God will spare no house in which any other name than His is worshipped, or in which He is worshipped only with the lips while the hearts are far from Him. If the temple of Solomon was not spared, no physical temple can save us.Starke: If temples are not used for the true worship of God, He allows them to fall into the hands of unbelievers. Matt. 32:37 (as at the time of the extension of Mohammedanism).Pfaff. Bib.: The highest pitch of the divine condemnation is reached when God removes the light of His Word from its place, and takes away from us the ordinances of true worship (Rev 2:4-5; 1Pe 4:17).

2Ki 25:18-21. God often executes His judgments by means of wicked and godless men. This does not excuse or justify them in their cruelty or wickedness. They are only the rod of his anger, which he breaks after it has unconsciously served His purpose (Isa 10:5; Isa 14:3-6; Jerem. 50:51)

2Ki 25:21. Pfaff. Bib.: When the measure of sin is full, and the judgment of God has begun to fall, nothing can any longer arrest its flood.Cramer: He who will not serve God in peace and prosperity must learn to do so in misery and adversity.Osiander: Those who will not serve God in their own father land, must serve their enemies in harsh subjection.The Curse and the Blessing of the Exile, Deu 30:19. (a) The curse consisted in this, that the Lord removed the people from before His face (2Ki 23:27; 2Ki 24:3; 2Ki 24:20), that is, He removed them from the land of promise, in which He gave them His gracious blessings, and placed them in a distant country, where nothing was known of the true and living God. This curse, which had long been threatened (Lev 26:33; Deu 4:27; Deu 28:26; Dan 9:11) is a proof of the truth of the words: Be not deceived; God is not mocked, &c. (Gal 6:7). God still does spiritually to individuals and to nations what He did to JudahHe removes them from before His face; He removes from them His word and His means of grace, if they do not repent, and leaves them to live in darkness, without Him. (b) The curse became a blessing for this people. It humiliated itself and repented. It experienced that there was no greater curse than to live far from its gracious God, and it longed for the land of promise. When it had lost its earthly kingdom and its earthly king, it learned to look for the kingdom of heaven and for that One in whom all Gods promises to man are fulfilled. The exile became a blessing for the whole world, for the Jewish nation was thereby made fit to fulfil its destiny in the redemptive plan of God. It was a great opportunity, by which the name and glory of Jehovah were spread abroad, as a preparation for the preaching of the gospel of Christ (Starke). We all lay under the curse of the law, but Christ has redeemed us (Gal 3:13-14).

2Ki 25:22-26. See Jeremiah 42-44. The People who remained in the Country, (a) Their protection by Gedaliah, 2Ki 25:22-24. (The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, Pro 21:1. Nebuchadnezzar gave them a ruler from among their own countrymen who promised them favor and protection. So the Lord often offers consolation even in deserved misfortune, but men go their own way and plunge themselves into ruin.) (b) Their flight into Egypt (Jer 43:7; Jer 42:18; Jer 42:22. Their bad conscience leads them back to the country from which God had, wonderfully delivered them. Starke: When the godless attempt to flee from a calamity they plunge themselves into it. Isa 24:17 sq.)

2Ki 25:24. Osiander: It is great wisdom to bear our burdens with patience; we thus make them lighter. It is folly to resist a greater power, for thus we only make our burdens heavier.

2Ki 25:25. We see, by the example of Israel, how envy and jealousy, pride in high descent and destiny, and love of power, lead to the most utter ruin (Psa 5:6; Pro 27:4). Passion makes men fools. Ishmael could not hope with his small company to resist the Chaldean power.

2Ki 25:27-30. Jehoiachins Deliverance from his Prison, (a) Its significance for the whole captive people (Lev 26:44); (b) the warning which we may find therein.An unfortunate state of things often endures for a long time. It seems that it never will end. Happy is he who does not murmur against God, but can say with the Apostle,Rom 5:3-5; see also Rev 2:10,The time of our deliverance is in the hands of the Lord. It comes when He sees that it is best for us.Wrt. Summ.: We should despair in no trouble or punishment, but cry to God and trust in Him.

2Ki 25:27. Starke: Kings win great love by acts of grace and mercy (Act 25:1-9).The Same: We should be kind to captives, and pray to God for a loving disposition towards our enemies (Mat 5:44).Per Aspera ad astra! That is the way in which our Lord walked and in which we all must follow Him (Rom 8:17; Psa 126:1-6).Final Review of the History in the Apostles words: Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For of him, and through him, and to him are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen (Rom 11:33; Rom 11:36).

Footnotes:

[7]2Ki 25:9. [ . The translators took the stat. const. to mean house of a great (sc. man). It is a case, however, of an adjective bound somewhat more closely to its substantive by the stat. const.=every great house, mansion. Cf. , 2Ki 18:17. Ew. 237, 1.

[8]2Ki 25:10. [After we must supply from Jer 52:14. Ew. Lehrb. s. 737, ut 1.W. G. S.]

[9]2Ki 25:12. For the chetib the keri presents as in Jer 52:16. The signification is the same.Bhr.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

Pause, Reader! over the perusal of these verses. Behold the very temple of the Lord amidst the general ruins. And now Zion is plowed as a field, as the prophet Micah had foretold; Mic 3:12 . which prophecy the prophet Jeremiah quotes in confirmation of his own. See Jer 26:18 . Thus the temple of Solomon, which had stood the ornament of the whole world for more than 420 years, was now rased to the ground. Jeremiah most pathetically laments over this in his book of Lam 4:12Lam 4:12 . It hath been said by historians, (and I believe they gathered the account from Josephus) that in the after ages of the church, when, as our Lord predicted Jerusalem should the second time be destroyed by the Romans, as here it was by the Chaldeans, both events were accomplished on the very same day of the month.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2Ki 25:8 And in the fifth month, on the seventh [day] of the month, which [is] the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:

Ver. 8. And in the fifth month. ] In memory whereof the poor captives in Babylon kept a yearly fast. Zec 7:3

And on the seventh day of the month. ] Jeremiah hath it, on the tenth day, Jer 52:12 ; Jer 39:8 on the Sabbath day; till when, this profane person haply did, on purpose, defer the burning of the city and temple. Lydiat thinketh that he set fire to them on the seventh day, and burned them down on the tenth.

Nebuzaradan captain of the guard. ] Praefectus laniorum; master of the butchers or slaughtermen; so his swordmen seem to be called for their bloody cruelty.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

seventh day. Jer 52:12 says tenth day. He may have set fire to it on the seventh day, and it burnt until the tenth.

captain of the guard = chief of the royal executioners.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

fifth

i.e. August.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

in the fifth month: This answered to Wednesday, August 24; and three days after he reduced the temple to ashes, and carried Judah captive; in the 11th year of Zedekiah; the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar; 424 years, 3 months, and 8 days from the foundation of the temple; 468 years from the beginning of the reign of David; 388 years from the division of the ten tribes; and 134 years from their captivity. Jer 52:12-14, Zec 8:19

the nineteenth: 2Ki 25:27, 2Ki 24:12

Nebuzaradan: Jer 39:9-14, Jer 40:1-4, Jer 52:12-16, Lam 4:12

captain: or, chief marshal

Reciprocal: Gen 37:36 – captain Ezr 5:12 – into the hand Jer 1:3 – in the fifth Jer 41:1 – the seventh month Zec 7:3 – fifth Act 28:16 – captain

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Ki 25:8. And in the fifth month, &c. Though we have reason to think the Chaldeans were much enraged against the city, for holding out with so much stubbornness; yet they did not, therefore, put all to fire and sword as soon as they had taken the city, which is too commonly done in such cases; but about a month after (compare 2Ki 25:8 with 2Ki 25:3) Nebuzaradan was sent with orders to complete the destruction of it. This space God gave them for repentance after all the foregoing days of his patience; but in vain; their hearts were still hardened, and therefore execution was awarded to the uttermost.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Ki 25:8-26. Destruction of Jerusalem. Fate of the Remnant.This again is more fully related in Jeremiah (Jer 39:8 to Jer 42:22), of which the passage before us is probably an abridgement.

2Ki 25:8. Nebuzar-adan treated Jeremiah with marked favour (Jer 40:8).

2Ki 25:22. Gedaliah established himself at Mizpah in Benjamin (Jos 8:26). His murder by Ishmael was the ruin of the remnant, which escaped to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with them (p. 73).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

25:8 And in the fifth month, on the {f} seventh [day] of the month, which [is] the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:

(f) Jeremiah writes in Jer 52:12 the tenth day, because the fire continued from the seventh day to the tenth.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

I. The Captivity of the Southern Kingdom 25:8-30

Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar’s commander-in-chief, returned to destroy Jerusalem more thoroughly and to preclude any successful national uprising in Judah.

His burning of Yahweh’s house (2Ki 25:9) was a statement that the Babylonians had overcome Yahweh as much as it was an effort to keep the remaining Judahites from worshipping Him. This act would have thoroughly demoralized even the godly in Judah, since in the ancient Near East the condition of the house (temple) of a god reflected on that god’s reputation. The breaking down of Jerusalem’s walls (2Ki 25:10) prevented the inhabitants from defending themselves but also visualized the fact that Judah no longer had any defense. Yahweh had been her defense. The third deportation removed all but the poorest of the people from the land (2Ki 25:11-12).

The writer’s emphasis on the desecration of Yahweh’s temple (2Ki 25:13-17) illustrates God’s abandonment of His people (cf. 1Ki 9:7-9). His special interest in the pillars (2Ki 25:17) draws attention to the fact that Israel, which God had established (Jachin), had suffered destruction. Israel’s strength (Boaz) had also departed from her because of her apostasy (cf. Samson). Most scholars believe the Babylonians either destroyed the ark of the covenant or took it to Babylon from which it never returned to Jerusalem (but cf. 2Ch 5:9). A few believe the Jews hid it under the temple esplanade.

The Babylonians also cut the priesthood back (2Ki 25:18-21) so the people could not unite around it and rebel. Its temporary termination also meant that Israel was no longer able to worship God as He had prescribed because she had been unfaithful to Him. Access to God as the Mosaic Law specified was no longer possible. Both the temple furnishings and the priesthood that God had ordained for access to Himself were no longer available to the people. Israel could no longer function as a kingdom of priests as God had intended her to live (Exo 19:5-6).

Ezekiel and Daniel both ministered in Babylon during the Captivity: Ezekiel to the exiles in their settlement, and Daniel to the Babylonians and Medo-Persians in their capitals. The context of the Book of Esther is also the Babylonian captivity and the Persian capital.

"In the exile and beyond it, Judaism was born." [Note: Bright, p. 323.]

By this, Bright meant the present form of Israelite worship that operates around the world today without a temple and Levitical priesthood.

Gedaliah (2Ki 25:22) was a descendant of Josiah’s secretary (of state? 2Ki 22:3). He was a friend of Jeremiah (Jer 39:14) who followed that prophet’s advice to cooperate with the Babylonians. Ishmael (2Ki 25:25) possessed royal blood and evidently wanted to rule over Judah (cf. Jer 41:2). Mizpah, the Babylonian provincial capital, was just seven miles north of Jerusalem (cf. 1Sa 7:5-12).

"It is not altogether clear whether this [Gedaliah’s assassination] is in the same year that Jerusalem fell or not. The wall was breached in the fourth month (=early July; Jer 39:2) and Nebuzaradan came and burned the palace, the temple, and many of the houses and tore down the wall in the fifth month (=early August; Jer 52:12). That would have left time between the fifth month and the seventh month (October) to gather in the harvest of grapes, dates and figs, and olives (Jer 40:12). However, many commentators feel that too much activity takes place in too short a time for this to have been in the same year and posit that it happened the following year or even five years later when a further deportation took place, possibly in retaliation for the murder of Gedaliah and the Babylonian garrison at Mizpah (Jer 52:30). The assassination of Gedaliah had momentous consequences and was commemorated in one of the post exilic fast days lamenting the fall of Jerusalem (Zec 8:19)." [Note: The NET Bible note on 25:25.]

It is ironic that the Judahites who rebelled against the Babylonians and God’s will in an attempt to secure their independence ended up fleeing back to Egypt. Their forefathers had been slaves there, and God had liberated them from Egypt 850 years earlier (2Ki 25:26; cf. Deu 28:68).

In 560 B.C., the Babylonian king Evilmerodach (562-560 B.C.) permitted Jehoiachin to enjoy a measure of freedom. Perhaps the writer of Kings chose to end his book on this positive note because in the Abrahamic Covenant, God had promised that He would never abandon His chosen people completely (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 12:7). In the Mosaic Covenant, He also assured them that if they repented, He would bring them back into their land (Deu 30:1-5; cf. 1Ki 8:46-53). God’s mercy to Jehoiachin also points to the continuation of the Davidic dynasty that God had promised would never end (2Sa 7:16). God’s mercy to His people is one of the persistently recurring motifs in Kings.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)