Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 25:1

And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth [day] of the month, [that] Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

2Ki 25:1. in the ninth year of his reign ] i.e. Of Zedekiah’s reign. How long before this, the neglect to pay the tribute, which was the usual indication of disaffection, had gone on we are not told. The Babylonian power might overlook the first omission, but perhaps not the second. So we may date the determination to revolt from about the seventh year of Zedekiah’s reign. Thus time would be given for such preparations as in the weak condition of the land he could make.

and pitched [R.V. encamped ] against it ] The verb is one of constant occurrence in the descriptions of the marches of the Israelites from Egypt. There ‘to pitch’ is a very suitable word, but the Babylonian armies did not intend to move till the city of Jerusalem was taken. So ‘encamp’, the general term for such a military ‘pitching’ of tents, seems preferable.

built forts ] To the precise character of these erections the word gives no clue by its derivation. It is always used for works built against a city by the attacking party. Hence we must suppose some line of enclosure to be intended, or erections from which the besiegers could with greater effect discharge missiles over the walls.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

In the ninth year … – As the final catastrophe approaches, the historian becomes more close and exact in his dates, marking not only the year, but the month and the day, on which the siege began, no less than those on which it closed 2Ki 25:3. From Eze 24:1 we find that on the very day when the host of Nebuchadnezzar made its appearance before Jerusalem the fact was revealed to Ezekiel in Babylonia, and the fate of the city announced to him Eze 24:6-14. The army seems to have at first spread itself over all Judaea. It fought, not only against Jerusalem, but especially against Lachish and Azekah Jer 34:7, two cities of the south 2Ch 11:9, which had probably been strongly garrisoned in order to maintain the communication with Egypt. This division of the Babylonian forces encouraged Hophra to put his troops in motion and advance to the relief of his Jewish allies Jer 37:5. On hearing this, Nebuchadnezzar broke up from before Jerusalem and marched probably to Azekah and Lachish. The Egyptians shrank back, returned into their own country Jer 37:7; Eze 17:17, and took no further part in the war. Nebuchadnezzar then led back his army, and once more invested the city. (It is uncertain whether the date at the beginning of this verse refers to the first or to the second investment.)

Forts – Probably moveable towers, sometimes provided with battering-rams, which the besiegers advanced against the walls, thus bringing their fighting men on a level with their antagonists. Such towers are seen in the Assyrian sculptures.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

2Ki 25:1-21

And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign.

Captivity of Judah

We have two prominent characters in this lesson–Zedekiah King of Judah, and Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon. The latter was one of the remarkable men of the world, not only as a military conqueror, but as a ruler of great genius and executive power. Zedekiah was the youngest son of Josiah, and was placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar at the age of twenty-one. He reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord (2Ki 24:19). At length he revolted against the King of Babylon, and this revolt was the beginning of the end, which was the captivity of Judah. It was in the year 589 b.c., in the month of January, that the siege of Jerusalem commenced, and it lasted one year five months and twenty-seven days. During this time the besieging army, or a part of it, marched to meet the Egyptians, who were coming to the help of the Jews, and with the retreat of the Egyptians the siege was continued even more rigorously. As the Jews were accustomed to observe the anniversary of national disasters with lastings, the dates of such disasters were preserved accurately. (See Zec 7:3-5; Zec 8:19.) By turning to Jer 34:7 we learn that the army of Nebuchadnezzar also besieged the cities of Lachish and Azekah, which were the only strongholds remaining to the Jews, so that with their capture the victory was complete and the humiliation of Gods people perfected (verses 1-3). It is interesting to study the life of Jeremiah in connection with the events of this lesson (Jeremiah chaps, 37., 38.), for it was he who prevented for some time the revolt of the king against the yoke of Babylon by counselling submission and patience, and after the siege he urged Zedekiah to surrender to the enemy, assuring him, by the word of the Lord, that there was nothing to be gained by resistance, and that the end would be the burning of the city and the kings capture and death. And now commenced the afflictions of Zedekiah–afflictions which were the fulfilment of Divine prophecy, in which fulfilment the King of Babylon was unconsciously the instrument in Gods hand in the punishment of this wicked monarch of Judah. And notice how terrible the punishment was. In the first place, his sons were put to death before his eyes, the purpose being to put an end to the dynasty. Then we learn from Jer 12:10 that his daughters were carried into captivity. In addition to this, Zedekiah himself was bound in chains, fetters of brass, and double fetters too, so that he was bound hand and foot, making escape impossible. His trial took place in the royal camp at Riblah, but we may suppose that it was a mere form, since the guilt of Zedekiah in breaking his oath of allegiance to the King of Babylon was known to all. Now let us consider what sins Zedekiah had committed, which brought down upon him and his family and the people of God this terrible punishment.

1. We know from 2Ki 24:19 that he did not seek the glory of God in his reign. He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all which Jehoiakim had done. By studying the history of the reign of his brother Jehoiakim we know that this evil consisted in the fact that he did not oppose and overthrow idolatry in the kingdom. We have no evidence that Zedekiah was himself an idolater, but we are responsible to God not only for what we say and do, but for our influence over others.

2. Another sin of Zedekiahs was his revolt from the King of Babylon, and we learn from the punishment visited upon Judahs king the sacredness of an oath in Gods sight.

3. Zedekiah broke a solemn covenant which he had made with the people, that all Jews held in bondage should be set free. In accordance with the kings command, this degree of emancipation was carried out, and no Jew throughout Judah was a slave. But when it was known that the Egyptian army was coming to help them, then Zedekiah thought that he would not need the assistance of these freedmen in the battle with the enemy, and so the order of emancipation was revoked, and slavery was re-established in the land (Jer 34:16-17).

4. Zedekiahs treatment of the prophet was another cause which led to his overthrow. Although in the beginning of the national peril he had sent to Jeremiah with the urgent message, Pray now unto the Lord our God for us, yet we read (Jer 37:2), Neither he, nor his servants, nor the people of the land, did hearken unto the words of the Lord, which he spake by the prophet Jeremiah. And not only did he refuse to follow the prophets advice, but he yielded to the enemies of this fearless man of God, and suffered them to imprison and maltreat him. There are some very solemn lessons which we learn from the sad life and tragic end of this last king of Judah.

They are–

1. The first and indispensable requisite to success is for one to gain the victory over his own lower nature. So long as we are slaves to sin, we cannot be great in any path of life, but he who keeps self under, who has conquered passions and appetites for the sake of God and His cause, is sure to live a royal life, though he may never sit on a throne.

2. The fact that any one is our enemy does not relieve us from the obligation to keep faith with him (Jos 9:19). Perjury is always a terrible sin.

3. If our trust is in God, we need never fear what our enemies may do, for with God on our side all must be well. Zedekiah feared his nobles because he had no faith in God.

4. The Christian is the only one who can be absolutely fearless of the future, for around him are the everlasting arms. Zedekiah put his trust in the fortifications around Jerusalem; if he had trusted in Jehovah and believed the words of Jeremiah, his life would have been safe and his kingdom would have been preserved. David sang: In God is my salvation and my glory; the rock of my strength and my refuge is in God.

5. We never gain by doing wrong. When we do evil that good may come, we are always disappointed.

6. God is not mocked. If He determines to punish, no walls or weapons can defeat His purpose. When He says to us that all other paths but the one which he has marked out lead to destruction, we may be sure that our disobedience will in the end prove His words to be true (Jer 2:17; Hos 13:9). (A. E. Kitteridge, D. D.)

The captivity of Judah

The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and the removal of the Jews into the Babylonish captivity, were a Divine judgment. Nebuchadnezzar was an unconscious agent of God in destroying, as Cyrus was in rebuilding and restoring. This judgment was not final Terrible as it was, it was a chastisement rather than a punishment. As such it illustrates some features of the Divine method in disciplinary judgment.

I. It is a Divine method to delay judgment, not only final, but also partial judgment. The instructions of Moses had been clear. His warnings had been full and explicit. He had gathered in the Book of Deuteronomy a complete presentation of the conditions upon which his people would alone be blessed; failing to comply with which they would be afflicted and cursed. When the people began to transgress, God began to afflict them; first, however, reviewing the warning of Moses by His prophetic messengers. He was prompt to chide them. As a father He chastised them.

II. The Divine judgments are certain. We do not know the time of them, but God does. It is delayed, but it is not indefinite. It is fixed. There are many hints in the Scripture at the exact timing of events in Gods government. The Saviour began early to speak of His hour. At times He said it was not yet come. The night was coming, but it had not come. Then the fateful announcement fell from His lips in a prayer: Father, the hour is come! One chapter in Ezekiel, pointing to the culmination of judgment upon Judah, has for its awful refrain, It is come. The notes of time in the history grow definite. Nebuchadnezzar came in the ninth year of Zedekiahs reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month. In the eleventh year, the fourth month, the ninth day, the supply of food gave out, and famine prevailed. In the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzars reign, in the fifth month, in the seventh day of the month, the city was destroyed. The very hour when the Chaldeans broke into the city is recorded. So certain are the delayed judgments of God, if men do not repent. They impend. They are withheld. They may be withdrawn. God would withdraw them. It grieves Him to inflict them. But when a certain definite hour is reached, and His people is still incorrigible, they must fall. A thousand years may pass. Men may grow bold, and say, Since the fathers fell asleep, all things remain as they were from the beginning. But not when the hour strikes. Then, punctually, the fire falls upon the cities of the plain, and the floods of the deluge are poured out, and Shiloh falls, and Samaria falls, and Jerusalem falls. Here is a lesson for all nations, all families, all individuals, under the Divine government. To remain unsubmissive under the government of God is to expose ourselves to His judgments. These may be delayed. Not so, they will be delayed. But their time is not indefinite: it is fixed. When the hour is reached the blow will fall. It may be a trial; it may be an affliction! it may be a tragedy. It may be all these three, for disciplinary judgments are cumulative.

III. The judgments of God are thorough. It is true of those that are final, it is true also of those that are partial. When Nebuchadnezzar came, he had a force equal to his needs. He came in person with all his host. Jeremiah says more explicitly, All his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people. This immense host was the Lords messenger. It seemed, says Stanley, to those who witnessed it, like the rising of a mighty eagle, spreading out its vast wings, feathering with the innumerable colours of the variegated masses which composed the Chaldean host, sweeping over the different countries, and striking fear in his rapid flight. If this array had not been sufficient for the conquest, God would have brought new levies; for the day was come. The siege was thorough. The city was surrounded. It was assailed from huge mounds and towers built up for the purpose. For a year and a half it held out. Then its store of provisions failed. Fathers devoured the flesh of their own sons and daughters. The hands even of pitiful mothers have sodden their own children, the mere infants just born. When the city still stubbornly held out, the siege was pressed more fiercely. At last the wall was pierced. At midnight the breach was made. The Chaldeans swarmed in. The destruction was complete. The, ark now disappeared, to be seen no more. Tradition says that Jeremiah buried it. Probably the fire destroyed it. It could not have been taken to Babylon with the spoil of the temple, the pillars of Solomon, and the molten sea, whose loss Jeremiah so bitterly bewailed; for otherwise it would have been returned with the other temple furniture by Cyrus. It was not needed longer. Religion had not disappeared from the nation. It is of much consequence to observe, in the light of this history, that a certain proportion of religious life is necessary to save a nation or an individual. There were individuals like Jeremiah and Baruch and their friends. There were youths like Daniel and his companions. There were others, perhaps even numerous, who cherished the law so recently discovered by Josiah, and whose recovery was so joyfully regarded as an event of national importance. But it was not enough to save the nation that there were good men and women in it, or that it had the Bible.

IV. The purpose of a disciplinary judgment is kept ever in view. Though the judgment of Judah was terribly thorough it was not final. Its aim was to save the nation, if possible, and as many of its individual citizens as possible. A considerable remnant of the poorer classes was left on the land to keep it in tillage. Those taken into captivity were told that it should only be of limited duration. After seventy years they should return. They were permitted to have prophets and religious teachers with them in Babylon and in Judah. (Monday Club Sermons.)

Captivity of Judah

If we come to the fall of Jerusalem with the desire to see not merely a special judgment of God, but to gain lessons from the operation of what are commonly called natural causes, we shall discover three facts to which it was largely due.

1. Bad economic conditions. Judah fell into the hands of the Babylonians because her kings had wasted bet resources. David gave a united nation to Solomon, who in turn passed it, still entire, to Rehoboam. Under this its fourth king the nation was broken into two hostile kingdoms. The narrative gives the cause explicitly,–unendurable taxation. The glory of Solomon, his navy and palaces and harem and chariots, had been purchased at the price of great suffering on the part of the people. Had Rehoboam followed the advice of his older counsellors and lightened taxation, Jeroboam would never have become his rival, and the confederation of the twelve tribes, none too strong at best, would not have wasted its strength in civil war.

2. Moral degeneracy. But back of the bad financial policy of the nation lay its moral weakness. For a nation whose God was Jehovah, the Jews were wonderfully prone to idolatry. If we except a few years of Davids reign, there was not a moment, from the Call to the Return, when Israel was not itching to run after strange gods. Solomon was a typical eclectic in religion, permitting heathen divinities to be worshipped by the side of his great temple. The reforms of such kings as Hezekiah and Josiah were short-lived, and served but to set in strange contrast the popular worship in the high places and the groves.

3. Disregard of religious teachers. Nothing is more dramatic than the struggle between the prophets and the kings of Israel. Samuel with the gigantic Saul cowering at his feet; Elijah defying Ahab, slaying the prophets of Baal, and running from Jezebel; Elisha travelling up and down a half-converted land; Isaiah outspoken and dying a martyrs death; Jeremiah deep in the filth of his prison,–are but leaders in the noble army of prophets whom God sent to guide Israel through the paths of national success, in the face of the bitterest opposition. Each of them was faithful and spoke his message; but his words passed unheeded, or only excited anger and persecution. Neither people nor king cared to follow the stern words of their religious teachers except as they were threatened by some overwhelming disaster. Then perhaps, for a few days or months, the worship of Jehovah was reinstated in its proper place, and the prophetical office was again honoured. Judah is the type of the world. Had its king listened to Gods servants, the nation would have weathered its financial distress and been cured of its wickedness. In their words lay the only hope; and Judah laughed at them and stoned them. Jerusalem, the Zion of David, became the execution city of the prophets. Judah fell, just as any nation will fall that fails to apply religion to national problems. The one great lesson of the captivity of Judah is this: the fearless application of Christianity to living questions is the duty of both clergy and laymen, and the hope of the state. (S. Matthews.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER XXV

Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem; it is taken, after having

been sorely reduced by famine, c. and Zedekiah, endeavouring

to make his escape, is made prisoner, his sons slain before his

eyes; then, his eyes being put out, he is put in chains and

carried to Babylon, 1-7.

Nebuzar-adan burns the temple, breaks down the walls of

Jerusalem, and carries away the people captives, leaving only a

few to till the ground, 8-12.

He takes away all the brass, and all the vessels of the temple,

13-17.

Several of the chief men and nobles found in the city, he

brings to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, who puts them all to death,

18-21.

Nebuchadnezzar makes Gedaliah governor over the poor people that

were left, against whom Ishmael rises, and slays him, and

others with him; on which the people in general, fearing the

resentment of the Chaldeans, flee to Egypt, 22-26.

Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, releases Jehoiachin out of

prison, treats him kindly, and makes him his friend, 27-30.

NOTES ON CHAP. XXV

Verse 1. In the ninth year of his reign] Zedekiah, having revolted against the Chaldeans, Nebuchadnezzar, wearied with his treachery, and the bad faith of the Jews, determined the total subversion of the Jewish state. Having assembled a numerous army, he entered Judea on the tenth day of the tenth month of the ninth year of the reign of Zedekiah; this, according to the computation of Archbishop Usher, was on Thursday, January 30, A.M. 3414, which was a sabbatical year: whereon the men of Jerusalem hearing that the Chaldean army was approaching, proclaimed liberty to their servants; see Jer 34:8-10, according to the law, Ex 21:2; De 15:1-2; De 15:12: for Nebuchadnezzar, marching with his army against Zedekiah, having wasted all the country, and taken their strong holds, except Lachish, Azekah, and Jerusalem, came against the latter with all his forces. See Jer 34:1-7. On the very day, as the same author computes, the siege and utter destruction of Jerusalem were revealed to Ezekiel the prophet, then in Chaldea, under the type of a seething pot; and his wife died in the evening, and he was charged not to mourn for her, because of the extraordinary calamity that had fallen upon the land. See Eze 24:1-2, c.

Jeremiah, having predicted the same calamities, Jer 34:1-7, was by the command of Zedekiah shut up in prison, Jer 32:1-16.

Pharaoh Hophra, or Vaphris, hearing how Zedekiah was pressed, and fearing for the safety of his own dominions should the Chaldeans succeed against Jerusalem, determined to succour Zedekiah. Finding this, the Chaldeans raised the siege of Jerusalem, and went to meet the Egyptian army, which they defeated and put to flight. Joseph. Antiq., lib. 10, cap. 10. In the interim the Jews, thinking their danger was passed, reclaimed their servants, and put them again under the yoke Jer 34:8, &c.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

To chastise Zedekiah for his rebellion and perjury, 2Ch 36:13. They built forts against it round about; partly to keep all supplies of men or provisions from entering into the city; and partly that from thence they might shoot darts, or arrows, or stones into the city. See Jer 52:4; Eze 4:2; 17:17.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. Nebuchadnezzar . . . came . . .against JerusalemIncensed by the revolt of Zedekiah, theAssyrian despot determined to put an end to the perfidious andinconstant monarchy of Judea. This chapter narrates his third andlast invasion, which he conducted in person at the head of an immensearmy, levied out of all the tributary nations under his sway. Havingoverrun the northern parts of the country and taken almost all thefenced cities (Jer 34:7), hemarched direct to Jerusalem to invest it. The date of the beginningas well as the end of the siege is here carefully marked (compareEze 24:1; Jer 39:1;Jer 52:4-6); from which itappears, that, with a brief interruption caused by Nebuchadnezzar’smarching to oppose the Egyptians who were coming to its relief butwho retreated without fighting, the siege lasted a year and a half.So long a resistance was owing, not to the superior skill and valorof the Jewish soldiers, but to the strength of the cityfortifications, on which the king too confidently relied (compareJer 21:1-14; Jer 37:1-38).

pitched against it, and . . .built fortsrather, perhaps, drew lines of circumvallation,with a ditch to prevent any going out of the city. On this rampartwere erected his military engines for throwing missiles into thecity.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Ver. 1-7. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign,…. Of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah. From hence to the end of

2Ki 25:7, the account exactly agrees with Jer 52:4.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Siege and conquest of Jerusalem; Zedekiah taken prisoner and led away to Babel (cf. Jer 52:4-11 and Jer 39:1-7). – 2Ki 25:1. In the ninth year of the reign of Zedekiah, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar marched with all his forces against Jerusalem and commenced the siege (cf. Jer 39:1), after he had taken all the rest of the fortified cities of the land, with the exception of Lachish and Azekah, which were besieged at the same time as Jerusalem (Jer 34:7). On the very same day the commencement of the siege of Jerusalem was revealed to the prophet Ezekiel in his exile (Eze 24:1). “And they built against it (the city) siege-towers round about.” , which only occurs here and in Jeremiah (Jer 52:4) and Ezekiel (Eze 4:2; Eze 17:17; Eze 21:27; Eze 26:8), does not mean either a line of circumvallation (J. D. Mich., Hitzig), or the outermost enclosure constructed of palisades (Thenius, whose assertion that is always mentioned as the first work of the besiegers is refuted by Eze 17:17 and Eze 21:27), but a watch, and that in a collective sense: watch-towers or siege-towers (cf. Ges. thes. p. 330, and Hvernick on Eze 4:2).

2Ki 25:2

“And the city was besieged till the eleventh year of king Zedekiah,” in which the northern wall of the city was broken through on the ninth day of the fourth month (2Ki 25:3). That Jerusalem could sustain a siege of this duration, namely eighteen months, shows what the strength of the fortifications must have been. Moreover the siege was interrupted for a short time, when the approach of the Egyptian king Hophra compelled the Chaldaeans to march to meet him and drive him back, which they appear to have succeeded in doing without a battle (cf. Jer 37:5., Eze 17:7).

2Ki 25:3-4

Trusting partly to the help of the Egyptians and partly to the strength of Jerusalem, Zedekiah paid no attention to the repeated entreaties of Jeremiah, that he would save himself with his capital and people from the destruction which was otherwise inevitable, by submitting, to the Chaldaeans (cf. Jer 38:17, Jer 38:18), but allowed things to reach their worst, until the famine became so intense, that inhuman horrors were perpetrated (cf. Lam 2:20-21; Lam 4:9-10), and eventually a breach was made in the city wall on the ninth day of the fourth month. The statement of the month is omitted in our text, where the words (Jer 52:6, cf. Jer 39:2) have fallen out before (2Ki 25:3, commencement) through the oversight of a copyist. The overwhelming extent of the famine is mentioned, not “because the people were thereby rendered quite unfit to offer any further resistance” (Seb. Schm.), but as a proof of the truth of the prophetic announcements (Lev 26:29; Deu 28:53-57; Jer 15:2; Jer 27:13; Eze 4:16-17). are the common people in Jerusalem, or the citizens of the capital. From the more minute account of the entrance of the enemy into the city in Jer 39:3-5 we learn that the Chaldaeans made a breach in the northern or outer wall of the lower city, i.e., the second wall, built by Hezekiah and Manasseh (2Ch 32:5; 2Ch 33:14), and forced their way into the lower city ( , 2Ki 22:14), so that their generals took their stand at the gate of the centre, which was in the wall that separated the lower city from the upper city upon Zion, and formed the passage from the one to the other. When Zedekiah saw them here, he fled by night with the soldiers out of the city, through the gate between the two walls at or above the king’s garden, on the road to the plain of the Jordan, while the Chaldaeans were round about the city. In 2Ki 25:4 a faulty text has come down to us. In the clause the verb is omitted, if not even more, namely , “fled and went out of the city.” And if we compare Jer 39:4, it is evident that before still more has dropped out, not merely , which must have stood in the text, since according to 2Ki 25:5 the king was among the fugitives; but most probably the whole clause , since the words have no real connection with what precedes, and cannot form a circumstantial clause so far as the sense is concerned. The “gate between the two walls, which (was) at or over ( ) the king’s garden,” was a gate at the mouth of the Tyropoeon, that is to say, at the south-eastern corner of the city of Zion; for, according to Neh 3:15, the king’s garden was at the pool of Siloah, i.e., at the mouth of the Tyropoeon (see Rob. Pal. ii. 142). By this defile, therefore, the approach to the city was barred by a double wall, the inner one running from Zion to the Ophel, whilst the outer one, at some distance off, connected the Zion wall with the outer surrounding wall of the Ophel, and most probably enclosed the king’s garden. The subject to is , which has dropped out before . is the lowland valley on both sides of the Jordan (see at Deu 1:1).

2Ki 25:5

As the Chaldaeans were encamped around the city, the flight was immediately discovered. The Chaldaean army pursued him, and overtook him in the steppes of Jericho, whilst his own army was dispersed, all of which Ezekiel had foreseen in the Spirit (Eze 12:3.). are that portion of the plain of the Jordan which formed the country round Jericho (see at Jos 4:13).

2Ki 25:6

Zedekiah having been seized by the Chaldaeans, was taken to the king of Babel in the Chaldaean headquarters at Riblah (see at 2Ki 23:33), and was there put upon his trial. According to 2Ki 25:1, Nebuchadnezzar had commenced the siege of Jerusalem in person; but afterwards, possibly not till after the Egyptians who came to relieve the besieged city had been repulsed, he transferred the continuance of the siege, which was a prolonged one, to his generals, and retired to Riblah, to conduct the operations of the whole campaign from thence. , to conduct judicial proceedings with any one, i.e., to hear and judge him. For this Jeremiah constantly uses the plural , not only in Jer 52:9 and Jer 39:5, but also in Jer 1:16 and Jer 4:12.

2Ki 25:7

The punishment pronounced upon Zedekiah was the merited reward of the breach of his oath, and his hardening himself against the counsel of the Lord which was announced to him by Jeremiah during the siege, that he should save not only his own life, but also Jerusalem from destruction, by a voluntary submission to the Chaldaeans, whereas by obstinate resistance he would bring an ignominious destruction upon himself, his family, the city, and the whole people (Jer 38:17., Jer 32:5; Jer 34:3.). His sons, who, though not mentioned in 2Ki 25:4, had fled with him and had been taken, and (according to Jer 52:10 and Jer 39:6) all the nobles (princes) of Judah, sc. those who had fled with the king, were slain before his eyes. He himself was then blinded, and led away to Babel, chained with double chains of brass, and kept a prisoner there till his death (Jer 52:11); so that, as Ezekiel (Eze 12:13) had prophesied, he came to Babel, but did not see the land, and died there. Blinding by pricking out the eyes was a common punishment for princes among the Babylonians and Persians (cf. Herod. vii. 18, and Brisson, de region Pers. princip. p. 589). , double brazen chains, are brazen fetters for the hands and feet. Samson was treated in the same manner by the Philistines (Jdg 16:21).

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Jerusalem Besieged.

B. C. 590.

      1 And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.   2 And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah.   3 And on the ninth day of the fourth month the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land.   4 And the city was broken up, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king’s garden: (now the Chaldees were against the city round about:) and the king went the way toward the plain.   5 And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him.   6 So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him.   7 And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.

      We left king Zedekiah in rebellion against the king of Babylon (ch. xxiv. 20), contriving and endeavouring to shake off his yoke, when he was no way able to do it, nor took the right method by making God his friend first. Now here we have an account of the fatal consequences of that attempt.

      I. The king of Babylon’s army laid siege to Jerusalem, v. 1. What should hinder them when the country was already in their possession? ch. xxiv. 2. They built forts against the city round about, whence, by such arts of war as they then had, they battered it, sent into it instruments of death, and kept out of it the necessary supports of life. Formerly Jerusalem had been compassed with the favour of God as with a shield, but now their defence had departed from them and their enemies surrounded them on every side. Those that by sin have provoked God to leave them will find that innumerable evils will compass them about. Two years this siege lasted; at first the army retired, for fear of the king of Egypt (Jer. xxxvii. 11), but, finding him not so powerful as they thought, they soon returned, with a resolution not to quit the city till they had made themselves masters of it.

      II. During this siege the famine prevailed (v. 3), so that for a long time they ate their bread by weight and with care, Ezek. iv. 16. Thus they were punished for their gluttony and excess, their fulness of bread and feeding themselves without fear. At length there was no bread for the people of the land, that is, the common people, the soldiers, whereby they were weakened and rendered unfit for service. Now they ate their own children for want of food. See this foretold by one prophet (Ezek. v. 10) and bewailed by another, Lam. iv. 3, c. Jeremiah earnestly persuaded the king to surrender (Jer. xxxviii. 17), but his heart was hardened to his destruction.

      III. At length the city was taken by storm: it was broken up, &lti>v. 4. The besiegers made a breach in the wall, at which they forced their way into it. The besieged, unable any longer to defend it, endeavoured to quit it, and make the best of their way; and many, no doubt, were put to the sword, the victorious army being much exasperated by their obstinacy.

      IV. The king, his family, and all his great men, made their escape in the night, by some secret passages which the besiegers either had not discovered or did not keep their eye upon, v. 4. But those as much deceive themselves who think to escape God’s judgments as those who think to brave them; the feet of him that flees from them will as surely fail as the hands of him that fights against them. When God judges he will overcome. Intelligence was given to the Chaldeans of the king’s flight, and which way he had gone, so that they soon overtook him, v. 5. His guards were scattered from him, every man shifting for his own safety. Had he put himself under God’s protection, that would not have failed him now. He presently fell into the enemies’ hands, and here we are told what they did with him. 1. He was brought to the king of Babylon, and tried by a council of war for rebelling against him who set him up, and to whom he had sworn fidelity. God and man had a quarrel with him for this; see Ezek. xvii. 16, c. The king of Babylon now lay at Riblah (which lay between Judea and Babylon), that he might be ready to give orders both to his court at home and his army abroad. 2. His sons were slain before his eyes, though children, that this doleful spectacle, the last his eyes were to behold, might leave an impression of grief and horror upon his spirit as long as he lived. In slaying his sons, they showed their indignation at his falsehood, and in effect declared that neither he nor any of his were fit to be trusted, and therefore that they were not fit to live. 3. His eyes were put out, by which he was deprived of that common comfort of human life which is given even to those that are in misery, and to the bitter in soul, the light of the sun, by which he was also disabled for any service. He dreaded being mocked, and therefore would not be persuaded to yield (Jer. xxxviii. 19), but that which he feared came upon him with a witness, and no doubt added much to his misery for, as those that are deaf suspect that every body talks of them, so those that are blind suspect that every body laughs at them. By this two prophecies that seemed to contradict one another were both fulfilled. Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah should be brought to Babylon, Jer 32:5; Jer 34:3. Ezekiel prophesied that he should not see Babylon, Ezek. xii. 13. He was brought thither, but, his eyes being put out, he did not see it. Thus he ended his days, before he ended his life. 4. He was bound in fetters of brass and so carried to Babylon. He that was blind needed not be bound (his blindness fettered him), but, for his greater disgrace, they led him bound; only, whereas common malefactors are laid in irons (Psa 105:18; Psa 107:10), he, being a prince, was bound with fetters of brass; but that the metal was somewhat nobler and lighter was little comfort, while still he was in fetters. Let it not seem strange if those that have been held in the cords of iniquity come to be thus held in the cords of affliction, Job xxxvi. 8.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Second Kings – Chapter 25 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 36 (Cont’d.)

Jerusalem Under Siege – 2Ki 25:1-7

Upon Zedekiah’s rebellion Nebuchadnezzar came for the third and final time to Jerusalem. It was Zedekiah’s ninth year of rule, and the siege continued for two years. The Babylonian king was very much in earnest about putting the Jerusalem problem forever to rest. He brought his army and besieged the city, built forts against it all around the walls. It appears that little military effort was actually expended to capture the city. The great army of Babylon simply held their places while the city was slowly starved into submission.

In the fourth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the famine reached its ultimate, there was no more bread in the city. Jeremiah tells of this condition in his prophecy, he himself suffering want (Jer 37:21). It was then the city government collapsed, and defenders, king, and council all attempted to flee out of the city and escape capture. They stole out by night through a gate between two walls in the king’s gardens.

The army of the Chaldees had the city surrounded and soon discovered the attempt. The fleeing party went eastward to the plain of Jericho, evidently hoping to escape across the Jordan river and find refuge there. They were overtaken there by the Chaldean army. Zedekiah’s men scattered and left him to his fate. He and his party were taken to the Babylonian king’s headquarters at Riblah, the site of ancient army camps northwest of Damascus, on the Orontes River.

Here at Riblah the king passed sentence against Zedekiah. He was made a horrible example of what other kings who might think to rebel against Nebuchadnezzar could expect. First the heartless Babylonian king gave command to slay Zedekiah’s sons in his presence, before his eyes. Remember that this king, Zedekiah, was only about thirty-two years of age, and his young sons could have been no more than mere boys. He was compelled to witness their slaughter. That was the last act Zedekiah ever saw, for the next gruesome punishment rendered him was to gouge out his eyes. He was then bound with chains of brass and carried away to Babylon to live out his days.

The awful judgment of Zedekiah makes right thinking persons cringe in horror at the mental conception of it. It was cruel, sadistic, and undeserving in the mind of modern men. Yet it is a physical parallel of the spiritual judgment that awaits the unbeliever. The flames of hell are far worse, to the point of no comparison, to the physical tortures of Zedekiah. Hell will contain physical, mental, and spiritual agony for

every unbeliever (Mr 9:47-48; Lu 16:23).

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

THE UTTER DESOLATION OF JERUSALEM

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.

2Ki. 25:1. In the ninth year of his reignThe revolt of Zedekiah so incensed Nebuchadnezzar that he determined on the final act of the utter spoliation of Judah. With an immense army, which he conducted in person, he swept down upon the northern parts of the country, taking almost all the forced cries (Jer. 34:7), and marched direct against Jerusalem to besiege it. He was drawn aside temporarily from the siege to oppose the coming of the Egyptian army to the relief of the Jews. This prolonged the siege to a year and a half. At length (date given in Jer. 29:2), at midnight, in our month of July, B.C. 587, when the city was reduced to misery and starvation, an entrance was forced into the lower city on the north side. It was a moment for fearful slaughter (2Ch. 36:17; Lam. 1:15). Zedekiah, with his wives and children and guards, fled through an opening made in the wall (Eze. 12:12), but were captured in the plains of Jericho, his troops scattered (Jer. 52:8), he and his family manacled, and marched to Riblah to confront the wrathful Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 39:5). Doomed for his violation of his oath of allegiance to Babylon, Zedekiah was first made to behold the slaughter of his family and courtiers, then his own eyes were put out, and he was carried in chains to Babylon.

2Ki. 25:8. Came Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guardA month elapsed, during which the Chaldean princes had probably gone to Riblah to consult the king as to the fate of the city; and they then returned with orders to destroy Jerusalem with fire. While fire consumed the city, foul ravages were committed upon the inhabitants (Lam. 5:11-12), and desecration heaped upon the dead.

2Ki. 25:11. Did Nebuzar-adan carry awayAmong these captives carried off to Ramah (Jer. 39:9) was Jeremiah the prophet (Jer. 40:1). Pilgrims from around afterwards came to wonder and bewail over the ruined city (Jer. 41:5-6).

2Ki. 25:21. So Judah was carried away out of their landThis was the end of the Israelitish monarchy; but the last king who occupied the throne of the House of David, and called himself The Righteousness of God, (Tsidkiyahu), but falsified such a name, left the throne vacant until He should come who was truly The Righteousness of God, and the Eternal King, predicted by Jeremiah as (Jehovah Isidkener), THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. 2Ki. 25:22-26. Gedaliahs ruleThis Gedaliah had been Jeremiahs firm and trusted friend through the period of the prophets struggles (comp.Jer. 26:24), and is described by Stanley as a man of a generous, genial nature, such as might have rallied the better spirits of the men around him, and taken the place of the fallen dynasty. Against him Ishmael conspired. This Ishmael was the most conspicuous of a band of chiefs who fled across the Jordan during the siege. There he became closely leagued with Baalis, king of Ammon (Josephus, Antiq. x. 9, 2); and prompted by him, as well also as coveting Gedaliahs power, he plotted his assassination (Jer. 40:1). Then, contrary to Jeremiahs dissuasions, the whole people turned to Egypt for protection against the Chaldean king.

2Ki. 25:27. Evil-merodach did lift up the head of JehoiachinIt was on the occasion of his accession to the throne of Babylon, upon Nebuchadnezzars death. Spake kindly to him, &c. (2Ki. 25:26)Gave him liberty upon parole. This kindness is traced to a record that Evil-merodach himself was a fellow-prisoner with Zedekiah, in consequence of some antipathy of Nebuchadnezzar towards him, and that a sympathetic goodwill towards the captive king was engendered. Yet had not God declared that though, for their apostasy the seed of David should be severely chastised, yet they should not be utterly abandoned (2Sa. 7:14-15)? And to the captives in Babylon it was a promise of good things to come, when the term of their exiled lot should close, and merciful deliverance should reach them according to the good promises of the Lord God.W. H. J.

HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 25:1-30

THE LAST DISMAL SCENES IN A NATIONS OVERTHROW

Nothing of interest remains to be recorded of king or people. The historian is chiefly concerned in this chapter in relating how unmistakeably the Divine Word was fulfilled in the total overthrow of Jerusalem. The city was sacked, its palaces and public buildings demolished, and its massive walls pulled down. And the Templethe house of Jehovah, the pride of the Hebrews, the pivot of their national history, the lament of the pious to this daywas pillaged, dismantled, burnt to the ground, and its sacred vessels and furniture broken and scattered.

I. Here we have all the horrors of siege and famine (2Ki. 25:1-3). The Babylonish hosts, like a flock of vultures with outspread wings, closely invested the fated Jerusalem as if eager to devour it. The hour of final doom rapidly approached. A sword furbished, sharpened, and glittering, seemed to leap from the Divine scabbard, like that which, in the siege of Titus, was believed to flame across the heavens. The blockade was so complete that the besieged were reduced to great extremities. Hunger fastened upon them with its remorseless grip, and under its maddening torture the most inhuman atrocities were committed. The fathers ate their sons, and sons their fathers; and the pestilence consumed what hunger spared (Lam. 2:20; Lam. 2:22; Lam. 4:9-10; Eze. 5:10). In all this we see the dire fulfilment of the prophetic denunciations hurled against an apostate people (Lev. 26:29; Deu. 28:53-57; Jer. 15:2; Jer. 27:13; Eze. 4:16).

II. Here we have a desperate but unavailing effort to escape (2Ki. 25:4-6). The ponderous enginery of the Chaldees battered down the outer wall, and admitted a stream of the besieging forces into the northern part of the city. Seized with fear and weakened with famine, the king and his brave defenders made a night sally towards the Jordan Valley, with the hope of effecting an escape. But too many Chaldean eyes were awake, the retreat was cut off, and the king and his party captured. The toils of the Babylonian net were too thickly and widely spread to admit of successful flight; and the military strategy of Nebuchadnezzar was favoured by the avenging power of heaven.

III. Here we have a king cruelly degraded (2Ki. 25:7). Perfidious and rebellious as Zedekiah undoubtedly was, his punishment was a horrible example of the barbarity of the times. The last sight on which he gazed was the butchery of his own sons, and then he was rendered for ever incapable of ruling by his eyes being gouged; thatas Bishop Hall strongly puts ithis sons might be ever dying before him, and himself in their death ever miserable. This painful incident fulfilled two prophecies that were apparently contradictory of each other: that Zedekiah should come to Babylon, but should not see it (Jer. 32:5; Jer. 34:3; Eze. 12:13; Eze. 17:16). The last vassal king of Judah perished in a Babylonian prison. His was a life of religious vacillation, of stirring incident, of frightful carnage, of suffering and shame.

IV. Here we have a great and world-famed city utterly demolished (2Ki. 25:8-12). The Babylonian conqueror was not satisfied with the subjection of the Jewish people; his rage extended to the buildings in which they lived and worshipped. The celebrated buildings for which David had made such elaborate and wealthy preparations, and which Solomon had erected with infinite labour, and adorned with so much pomp and magnificence, were ruthlessly destroyed with fire and crowbar. Jerusalem, which was invincible, and had for centuries maintained a proud pre-eminence, while Jehovah was acknowledged and worshipped within its walls, was no sooner forsaken by that guardian Presence, than it shared the fate of many a great heathen city, and was levelled with the dust. The mightiest city cannot long survive the loss of virtue and religion; walls and bastions are no protection when the garrison is demoralised.

V. Here we have the sacred vessels of the Temple contemptuously broken, and the chief officers of religion savagely massacred (2Ki. 25:13-21). Persons, places, and things lose the sacredness which, like the delicate bloom of fruit, was their adornment and glory, when they are Divinely abandoned. The blessing changes into a curse that blackens, disfigures, and destroys. Years before Jeremiah had predicted that even the vessels of the Temple should be carried away to Babylon; but, like Cassandra, though he spake the truth, he was fated not to be believed. Little did the sacrilegious Babylon care for the sacred uses and hallowed associations of the Temple furniture and little did he understand that he was, after all, to be the safe custodian of those relics till better days should dawn for Israel, when they should again resume their place and office in a purified temple (Jer. 27:21-22). The priests and other temple officers were nothing in the eyes of the exasperated destructionists but so many rebels and instigators of sedition; and they shared the same fate as the shrine they had disgraced.

VI. Here we have, as the last record of the national remnant, a scene of conspiracy, assassination, and flight (2Ki. 25:22-26). The sagacious Nebuchadnezzar did not leave the country without some form of government, and Gedaliah was perhaps, the best adapted for the post of governor or overseer. He saw it was infatuation to contend with the Chaldees, and was disposed to rule the land in submission to their authority. But the prospect of rest and peace was dissipated with the plottings of envy. Once more the land is torn with faction and stained with bloodshed. Stricken with fear and despair, the feeble remnant fled into Egypt, where their forefathers had been enslaved, and from which they had been miraculously delivered, and where greater troubles awaited them than those from which they sought to escape. Such is the grim irony of history; the people who had sprung from poverty and serfdom, after a brilliant career among the foremost nations of the earth, sank again into poverty and serfdom!

VII. Here we have, as a relief to the dismal series of panoramic pictures, a commendable instance of royal clemency towards a captive prince (2Ki. 25:27-30). It could not but add bitterness to the grief of the exiles, as they sat by the waters of Babylon and wept, to know that two of their monarchs were miserable tenants in prison garments, in one of the dungeons of the citythe lamented Jehoiachin and the sightless Zedekiah. After thirty-seven years imprisonment, on the death of Nebuchadnezzar, his captor, Jehoiachin was released, and treated with great kindness and distinction by the successor to the Chaldean throne. It was some compensation for the dreary years of humiliation he had endured, that the last years of his life were spent amid brighter surroundings. Jehoiachin represented the faded glory of Israel; and the last reference made to him in the history suggests a faint hope of the future restoration and elevation of his unhappy people. Doubtless, the improvement in Jehoiachins condition is to be traced to the overruling providence and grace of Him who still cherished purposes of love to the House of David (2 Samuel 14, 15).Jamieson. The longest, weariest, darkest night comes to an end, and the long looked for dawn breaks at length, bringing rest, and hope, and gladness with its expanding light.

LESSONS:

1. The power of a great conqueror is sometimes used to inflict Divine punishment for sin.

2. The destruction of the most highly favoured nation does not frustrate the progress and triumph of the Divine purpose.

3. In national as in individual life, the greatest sufferings are not unmixed with blessings.

HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 25:8-21

THE FALL OF JERUSALEM

I. Was a calamity of world-wide significance. It was the grand catastrophe of the Jewish nation. The other cities of Palestine were insignificant: they were all subsidiary to, and received the law from, the great Metropolitan. Its influence dominated and governed the nation. In its midst the Temple reared its stately pile, the political and religions centre of the State, the basis and bond of the national unity. When the Temple fell, the national life was smitten, the national hope extinguished. The Jews fought with unexampled desperation, and endured incredible sufferings (2Ki. 25:3; 2Ki. 25:18-21) in defence of the holy city; and to the last clung with dogged pertinacity to the very ruins of the Temple (2Ki. 25:18). Other great cities have fallen; but their loss has not been mourned with a pathos and a grief like that which is continued by the wailing Israelites to this day. The significance of such a downfall dilates itself through the centuries, and stands out as a warning-beacon to the great cities of modern times.

II. Was a Divinely-declared punishment for persistent disobedience. The decline and fall of great cities have been traced to the inevitable operation of natural and universal forces. Gibbon attributes the ruin of Rome to the injuries of time and nature, the hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians, the use and abuse of the materials, and the domestic quarrels of the Romans; and thus he seeks to eliminate the Operation of a Divine retributive Providence. But the movements of the Divine Hand cannot be eliminated from the fall of Jerusalem, though we may trace the action of similar causes to those which have wrecked the fortunes of other great cities. While Israel remained true to Jehovah, the city was invincible and impregnable; and it was only after un-paralleled obstinacy in sin that Jerusalem was abandoned to its fate (Amo. 3:2; Lev. 26:2; 2Ch. 36:14-17; Jer. 25:8-9). This mournful truth is admitted by the Jews with sighs and tears.

III. Was a solemn and impressive proof to all ages of the Divine fidelity and justice. The promises and threatenings of the Divine Word have been faithfully fulfilled, and the Divine justice fully vindicated. In the history of the Jewish State this great truth is clearly and powerfully impressed, that, as righteousness exalteth a nation, so sin is the reproach of any people(Pro. 14:34)a lesson which, but for the immediate and extraordinary Providence displayed in this awful dispensation, could never have been so forcibly inculcated, or so clearly understood(Graves). The Jews are living witnesses to-day of the truth and faithfulness of God

Amazing race! deprived of land and laws,
A general language, and a public cause;
With a religion none can now obey,
With a reproach that none can take away;
A people still, whose common ties are gone;
Who, mixed with every race, are lost in none.Crabbe.

LESSONS:

1. A city where piety predominates is a great power for God.

2. The most strongly-fortified city may become a tomb in which its wicked inmates are interred.

3. The holiest and most renowned city is degraded and ruined by sin.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

2Ki. 25:3. Famine.

1. A more formidable enemy to contend with than an armed force.
2. Shows how rapidly consumption follows in the wake of productionit is like the Salt Sea swallowing the Jordan.
3. One of the most dreaded evils of war.

2Ki. 25:7. A suffering captive.

1. To the humiliation of defeat is added the excruciating agony of destroyed eye-sight.
2. It would intensify the pangs of the sufferer that the last sight on which his eye rested was the cruel massacre of his own sons.
3. The man who acts the traitor and rebel exposes himself to severe penalties.
4. It tarnishes the reputation of the mightiest conqueror to needlessly torture his helpless victim.
5. War is a prolific source of human misery.

The eyes of whose mind had been put out long before, else he might have foreseen and prevented this evilas prevision is the best means of preventionhad he taken warning by what was foretold (Jer. 32:4; Jer. 34:3; Eze. 12:13). The Dutchmen have a proverb: When God intends to destroy a man, He first puts out his eyes.Trapp.

2Ki. 25:8-17. Three other like events of parallel magnitude have been witnessed: the fall of Babylon, as the close of the primeval monarchies of the ancient world; the fall of Rome, as the close of the classical world; and, in a fainter degree, the fall of Constantinople, as the close of the first Christianized empire. But, in the case of Jerusalem, both its first and second destruction have the peculiar interest of involving the dissolution of a religious dispensation, combined with the agony of an expiring nation, such as no other people or city has witnessed, such as no other people have survived, and, by surviving, carried on the living recollection, first of one, then of the other, for centuries after the first shock was over.Stanley.

2Ki. 25:9. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the wonder of all times, the paragon of nations, the glory of the earth, the favourite of heaven, how art thou now become heaps of ashes, hills of rubbish, a spectacle of desolation, a monument of ruin! If later, yet no less deep hast thou now pledged that bitter cup of Gods vengeance to thy sister Samaria! Four hundred and thirty-six years had that temple stood, and beautified the earth, and honoured heaven; now, it is turned into rude heaps. There is no prescription to be pleaded for the favour of the Almighty: only that temple not made with hands is eternal in the heavens. Thither he graciously brings us, for the sake of the glorious High Priest, that hath once for all entered into that holy of holies.Bp. Hall.

Those of the captivity bewailed the destruction of Jerusalem by an annual fast (Zechariah 7.; Psalms 137.) The Jews at this day, when they build a house, leave one part of it unfinished, in remembrance that Jerusalem and the Temple lie desolate. At least they leave about a yard square of the house unplastered, on which they write in great letters: If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, &c.; or else the words, The memory of the desolation.Trapp.

2Ki. 25:13-17. The changing aspects of religious work.

1. That religious work is carried on with a great variety of instrumentalities (2Ki. 25:14-15).

2. That the value of religious work depends on the strength and symmetry of moral character (2Ki. 25:13; 2Ki. 25:16-17).

3. That there are Chaldean enemies ever ready to destroy character and depreciate religious work (2Ki. 25:13).

2Ki. 25:18-21. Official responsibility.

1. Demands that the post of duty should be the more tenaciously held in time of danger.
2. Exposes to the first and fiercest attacks of the enemy.

3. Involves great suffering, and even death itself (2Ki. 25:21), in trying times.

4. Often makes one long for the peace and security of the poor and obscure (2Ki. 25:12).

2Ki. 25:18. These likely were fired out of those secret corners of the temple where they lay hid. Our chroniclers tell us that William the Conqueror, firing the city Mayence in France, consumed a church there, in the walls whereof were enclosed an anchoret, who might but would not escape, holding it a breach of his religious vow to forsake his cell in that distress. At the last destruction of Jerusalem, certain Jews who had taken sanctuary in the Temple came forth when it was on fire, and besought the emperor Titus to give them quarter for their lives; but he refused so to do, giving this for a reason, which, indeed, was no reasonYe deserve not to live, who will not die with the downfall of your Temple.Trapp.

2Ki. 25:21. So Judah was carried away out of their land. The curse and the blessing of the exile. I. The curse consisted in this, that the Lord removed the people from before his face (chap. 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. II. 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).Lange.

The mercy, the justice, and the wisdom of God are all equally displayed in this event. His mercy appears in bringing this judgment so graduallyfrom less to greater, during the space of twenty-two yearsso that most ample warning was given, and abundant opportunity of repentance was afforded. That it was a most just punishment for their sins no one ever questioned, and the Jews themselves have constantly admitted it, even with tears. It was, in particular, a most righteous punishment of their idolatry, as Moses had long ago foretold in Leviticus 26., where the succession of the Divine judgments is most remarkably traced out. But the wisdom of God is also seen here. He did not mean utterly to cast off His people, and he therefore brought them under this great affliction, because, as had too plainly appeared, nothing less would suffice to purify them, and turn their hearts from the love of idols. It is certain that after this captivityand under occasional inducements, as strong as any to which they had ever been subjected in former timesthere was never among them the least tendency to idolatry, but the most intense and vehement abhorrence of it, as the true cause of all their ancient miseriesso deep and salutary was the impression made upon them by this great affliction, and so effectual the cure.Kitto.

While the work of destruction was carried on by the Chaldean army, it was viewed with malignant exultation by the nations which had so long chafed beneath the yoke of their kinsman Israel. The Ammonites cried Aha! against the sanctuary, when it was profaned; and against the land of Israel when it was desolate; and against the house of Judah when they went into captivity. Moab and Seir said, Behold the house of Judah is like unto all the heathen. The more active enmity, which was but natural in the Philistines, who took vengeance with a despiteful heart, to destroy it for the old hatred, was emulated by Edom, the nearest kinsman and bitterest rival of his brother Israel. All these nations soon fell victims to the like fate, which the prophets again and again denounce upon them.Dr. Smiths Students Scrip. History.

2Ki. 25:22-26. The last vestige of government in Judah.

1. Might have been an important rallying point for the scattered remnant.
2. Was destroyed by the blind infatuation of envy.
3. When destroyed, completed the desolation of the country.

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. Passion makes men fools. Ishmael could not hope with his small company to resist the Chaldean power.Lange.

Self-love and envy teach men to turn the glass to see themselves bigger and others lesser than they are.
An envious spirit.

1. Cannot brook a superior.
2. Is disquieted with ambitious and wicked designs.
3. Does not hesitate to commit the worst crimes to attain its ends.

4. Loses the prize at which it clutches. (Jer. 41:15).

2Ki. 25:26. When the godless attempt to flee from a calamity they plunge themselves into it (Isa. 24:17).Starke.

Jeremiah lived on in the land to see the misery and anarchy which followed the murder of Gedaliah; to tell the Jews who were flying to Egypt that if they stayed in the land they would be safe, that in Egypt they would meet with destructionfor that Egypt had been given up to the king of Babylonfinally to sing the future ruin of Babylon itself; the confusion and breaking in pieces of her idols, the deliverance of those in whose destruction and desolation she had rejoiced.Maurice.

2Ki. 25:27-30. The release and preferment of Jehoiachin suggestive of the future restoration of his exiled people.

1. Their captivity, like his, might be painful and prolonged.
2. As in his case, a prince might arise who would have compassion on their sufferings.
3. As in his experience, they might be restored to freedom and comparative prosperity.
4. The darkest distress is not without some ray of hope.

The new king, Evil Merodach, having no such personal feeling against Jehoiachin as had swayed his father, strove to atone for the long sufferings of the unfortunate exile by setting him free, and entertaining him thenceforward at the royal table in suitable splendour. Legend has brightened the story of his last days, describing him as living on the Euphrates, in a sumptuous house, surrounded by a spacious paradise, and married to the fairest woman of his day, the chaste Susannah, the companion of the king of Babylon, and the chief personage of and high judge among the captives. It is added, moreover, that amidst all, he was still mindful of his native land, listening, with his brethren, to Baruch at he read the prophecies before them, and amidst weeping, fasting, and prayer, sending off help to the remnant of his people in Jerusalem. But this touching picture is only a creation of national pride, to adorn with a fictitious prosperity the closing years of the last direct heir to the Jewish crown.Geikie.

2Ki. 25:29. The like whereto befel Joseph, whose fetters one hour changed into a chain of gold, his rags into robes, his stocks into a chariot, his goal into a palace. So God turned again the captivity of Job, as the streams in the South.Trapp.

2Ki. 25:30. So is, or might be, every true believers portion; who should therefore eat his bread with joy, and drink his wine with cheerfulness all the days of his life, which are not to be numbered by the hours, but measured by spiritual mirth; as monies are not by tale, but by value.Ibid.

Great principles illustrated in the books of Kings.

I. That the Divine purpose in raising up the Jewish nation as a means of conveying greater blessing to the world is steadily kept in view.

II. That the nation is prospered and strengthened in proportion to its fidelity to the Divine purpose.

III. That the ambition to form foreign alliances was contrary to the fundamental law of the theocracy, and led to the introduction of the idolatry which ultimately wrought the nations ruin.

IV. That a nation, as an individual, cannot be purged of great evils without great suffering.

V. That God is slow to punish, and delays the final blow till all possible means of reclamation are exhausted.

VI. That great emergencies bring to the front the noblest and most highly gifted talent of the nation.

VII. That the unfaithfulness and vice of the Jewish people did not prevent the carrying out of the Divine purpose.

VIII. That true religion can alone give greatness and permanent to national life.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

V. THE REVOLT OF ZEDEKIAH AND PUNISHMENT OF ZEDEKIAH 24:18-25:7

TRANSLATION

(18) Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem; and the name of his mother was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. (19) And he did evil in the eyes of the LORD according to all which Jehoiakim had done. (20) For through the anger of the LORD it came to pass in Jerusalem and in Judah that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon until He cast them out from His presence. (1) And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem; and he camped against it, and built siege towers round about. (2) And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. (3) On the ninth day of the (fourth) month the famine was strong in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. (4) And the city was broken into and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between the walls which were beside the garden of the king; (now the Chaldeans were against the city round about) and he went by the way of the Arabah. (5) And the Chaldean army pursued after the king, and they caught up with him in the plains of Jordan; and all his army were scattered from him. (6) So they seized the king and they brought him unto the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they pronounced judgment upon him. (7) And the sons of Zedekiah they slew before his eyes; then the eyes of Zedekiah were blinded, and they bound him in bronze fetters, and took him to Babylon.

Nineteenth King of Judah
ZEDEKIAH BEN JOSIAH
597587 B.C.
(Righteousness of Yahweh)

2Ki. 24:17 to 2Ki. 25:21; 2Ch. 36:11-21

Contemporary Prophets
Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Daniel

Mother: Hamutal

Appraisal: Bad

As I live, says the Lord God, Surely in the country of the king who put him on the throne, whose oath be despised, and whose covenant he broke, in Babylon be shall die. Eze. 17:16

COMMENTS

Zedekiah reigned from 597587 B.C.[683] He was the full brother of Jehoahaz who had been deported to Egypt by Pharaoh Necho in 609 B.C. (cf. 2Ki. 23:31). He was the half brother of Jehoiakim (cf. 2Ki. 23:36). His father-in-law, Jeremiah of Libnah, is not the prophet who was of Anathoth (2Ki. 24:18). Zedekiah allowed the people of Judah to continue their pollutions and abominations (2Ch. 36:14). He ignored the prophetic warning to submit willingly to Babylon and sought instead by political maneuverings to extricate himself from the grip of Nebuchadnezzar. For these reasons it is said that he did evil in the eyes of the Lord as did Jehoiakim his half brother (2Ki. 24:19). It was because of Gods righteous anger that He permitted this perverse and faithless monarch to sit on the throne of David. The Almighty permitted Zedekiahs stupid and stubborn rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar to proceed unimpeded until finally the cup of Judahs iniquity was full to overflowing. Judah was cast out from the presence of the Lord, i.e., Judah lost the protecting power of God and thus was left defenseless against national enemies. Yet in spite of the precarious predicament of his people, Zedekiah broke his solemn vassal oath to Nebuchadnezzar and rebelled against his overlord (2Ki. 24:20).

[683] Thiele argues for the date 586 B.C. for the termination of Zedekiahs reign and the fall of Jerusalem.

The reign of Zedekiah was in many respects the most tragic in the history of the people of God. The territory of Judah was diminished, and many of the cities of the land were severely damaged. The population had been drastically reduced through deportation, the upper classes being completely depleted. Zedekiah himself seems to have been at the mercy of his princes. The royal court was bent on rebellion. Jeremiah the prophet thundered forth against the folly of resistance against Babylon,[684] but still the political leaders clung to their suicidal course. A brief insurrection in Babylon sparked renewed hope in the western part of the empire. When a new Pharaoh, Psamtik II, came to power in 594 B.C. the little states of Syria-Palestine began to make plans for a concerted effort against Babylon. Ambassadors from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon met in Jerusalem to plan the rebellion (Jer. 27:3 ff.). The plan must have been uncovered, for that very year Zedekiah was summoned to Babylon to reaffirm his allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 51:59 ff.). Zedekiahs first major effort to break with Babylon was nipped in the bud.

[684] Unlike the Assyrians, the Babylonians did not include worship of their gods as a condition of servitude, and thus there was no theological reason why Judah should not render homage to the Chaldeans. Cf. Finley, BBC, p. 500.

A still more boastful and aggressive Pharaoh took the throne of Egypt in 588 B.C. Pharaoh ApriesHophra, as he is known in the Bibleactively encouraged a western coalition against Babylon. But the revolt does not seem to have been widespread in Syria-Palestine. So far as is known, only Tyre and Ammon seem to have committed themselves. Zedekiah, however, sent ambassadors to Egypt (Eze. 17:15), and entered wholeheartedly into the rebellion.

The author of Kings is very precise in dating the events of the last days of Judah. Only in chapter 25 does he give the year, month and day of any event, and this he does three times. Extreme exactness with respect to a date indicates the extreme importance of the event dated. Chronologists have computed that the Babylonian army arrived at Jerusalem on January 15, 588 B.C. They blockaded the city and began to systematically eliminate the outlying strong points. The fortified towns of Lachish and Azekah were among the last to fall to the Chaldeans[685] (Jer. 34:7). With the fall of these two villages, Zedekiahs communication lines to Egypt were cut. The siege of Jerusalem now began in earnest. Siege towers (KJV forts) were constructed (2Ki. 24:1). These towers were movable ones, made of planks, which were pushed up to the walls of the city. Such towers enabled the assailants to attack their adversaries with better advantage, being now on a level with the top of the walls. Sometimes these towers contained battering rams.

[685] In 1935 eighteen ostraca which date to this very time were discovered in the ruins of the ancient fortress city of Lachish. In the main these ostraca are military communiques between a field commander by the name of Hoshayahu and his superior in Lachish whose name was Yaosh. For a discussion of the significance of these letters, see Smith, JL, pp. 2224.

The author of Kings omits all details of the siege of Jerusalem and passes immediately to the final catastrophe (2Ki. 24:2). Jeremiah and Ezekiel add significant information at this point. In the summer of 588 B.C. an Egyptian army marched northward toward Jerusalem with the intention of relieving the pressure on Zedekiah. Nebuchadnezzar was forced temporarily to lift the siege of the city in order to deal with the Egyptian threat (Jer. 37:5; Eze. 17:17). Apparently with little effort, Nebuchadnezzar was able to send the Egyptians scurrying back home. He then resumed the siege of Jerusalem. The defenders of the city began to suffer from famine (Jer. 21:7; Jer. 21:9; Lam. 2:12; Lam. 2:20). All the bread in the city was consumed by July of 588 B.C.[686] (2Ki. 24:3). Famine was followed by pestilence (Jer. 21:6-7), and after a time the city was reduced to the last extremity (Lam. 4:10).

[686] From the information given here and in Jeremiah 52, it cannot be determined whether the bread was exhausted in the fourth month of Zedekiahs tenth year (July, 587) or fourth month of his eleventh year (July 587 B.C.).

On July 29, 587 B.C. after a siege of eighteen months, the Babylonians were able to make a breach in the walls of Jerusalem, probably on the north side of the city. Zedekiah and the men of war who were left fled from Jerusalem on the south side by means of a gate which opened into the Tyropoeon valley, between the two great walls that guarded the town on either side of it. The escape route took Zedekiah and his men by the kings gardens which were located near the Pool of Siloam. Under cover of darkness, the desperate Jews slipped past the Babylonian outposts and made their way in the direction of the Arab ah, the plains region near Jordan. The way toward the Arabah is the ordinary road from Jerusalem to Jericho. It would appear that Zedekiah was attempting to reach one of the friendly lands beyond the river.

When the escape of Zedekiah and his soldiers was discovered, the Babylonians set out in hot pursuit. Doubtlessly, the commander at Jerusalem was incensed to learn that the king had successfully abandoned the city. A company of soldiers was dispatched immediately to pursue the fugitives. When the Babylonians came within sight, the troops of Zedekiah deserted him (2Ki. 24:5). The king was taken captive without any resistance and was transported north to Riblah where Nebuchadnezzar had made his headquarters. There the rebel stood trial before the Babylonian princes (2Ki. 24:6). The judgment against Zedekiah probably corresponded to the self-maledictions which he had pronounced at the time he swore allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar. He was forced to witness the execution of his young sons.[687] This turned out to be the last sight Zedekiah had on earth, for the Babylonians blinded him, probably by means of a red-hot iron rod.[688] The Babylonians then put Zedekiah in fetters of bronze and carried him away to Babylon (2Ki. 24:7) where he remained in prison until the day of his death (Jer. 52:11).

[687] As Zedekiah was no more than thirty-two years old (cf. 2Ki. 24:18), his sons must have been minors.

[688] Zedekiahs loss of eyesight reconciled the two apparently conflicting propheciesthat he would be carried captive to Babylon (Jer. 22:5), and that he would never see Babylon (Eze. 12:13).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

XXV.

(1) And it came to pass.With the account which follows comp. Jer. 52:4 seq., Jer. 39:1-10, Jeremiah 40-43.

In the ninth year . . . tenth day.Comp. the similarly exact dates in 2Ki. 25:3; 2Ki. 25:8. Eze. 24:1-2, agrees with the present. The days were observed as fasts during the exile (Zec. 7:3; Zec. 7:5; Zec. 8:19).

Came . . . against Jerusalem.After taking the other strong places of Judah, as Sennacherib had done (Jer. 34:7; comp. 2Ki. 18:13; 2Ki. 19:8), Zedekiah must have prepared for the siege, as it lasted a year and a half.

Forts.The Hebrew word (dyq) occurs in Eze. 4:2; Eze. 17:17; Eze. 21:27; Eze. 26:8. Its meaning is some kind of siege work, as appears from the context in each case; but what precisely is not clear. The LXX. here has wall (); Syriac, palisade (qalqm, i.e., ).

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

1. Ninth year tenth month tenth day Compare also the specification of exact dates in 2Ki 25:3; 2Ki 25:8. “These dates,” says Bahr, “could be given thus accurately to the month and the day, because the Jews were accustomed during the exile to fast on the anniversary of these days of disaster.” See Zec 7:3; Zec 7:5; Zec 8:19. On this same day Ezekiel received and uttered his oracle of woe against Jerusalem. Eze 24:1.

He, and all his host Nebuchadnezzar was, doubtless, present more or less during the two years of siege at Jerusalem, to counsel and direct the besieging army, but he seems to have had his own headquarters most of the time at Riblah. 2Ki 25:6; 2Ki 25:20. During this same campaign he also fought “against all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish and Azekah; for these defenced cities remained of the cities of Judah.” Jer 34:7.

Built forts against it round about The word rendered forts ( ) Michaelis explains as a wall or line of circumvallation. This is favoured by the Septuagint and the expression round about. But according to Gesenius the word means a watchtower, and is here to be taken collectively in the sense of towers erected by the besiegers to overlook and harass the city.

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

ZEDEKIAH’S REIGN, 2Ki 24:18 to 2Ki 25:7.

In the fifty-second chapter of Jeremiah we have a duplicate history so nearly identical with the close of this book of Kings from this verse, as to show that both narratives proceeded from one original source. Compare also Jer 39:1-10. Of the authorship precisely the same thing is to be said as of the history of Hezekiah which is given in 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:21, and Isaiah 36-39. See note introductory to 2Ki 18:13.

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

The Last Days Of Judah ( 2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:26 ).

As Huldah had forewarned the death of Josiah signalled the beginning of the end for Judah, and in fact within twenty five years of his death (in 609 BC) Jerusalem would be no more. Jehoahaz (nee Shallum), who succeeded him, only lasted three months before the inevitable Egyptian punitive invasion consequent on Josiah’s precipitate action resulted in his being taken into exile in Egypt, to be replaced by his brother Eliakim, who was renamed Jehoiakim as a sign that he was Pharaoh’s vassal. And yet even within that three month period it is apparent that Josiah’s reforms had begun to collapse without Jehoahaz even lifting a hand to prevent it. The violent death of Josiah was seemingly seen as a signal to the Baalists that they could return to their old ways. Indeed Jehoahaz apparently approved of the moves, for the verdict delivered against him was that he had done evil in the eyes of YHWH. The truth was that the reforms had been mainly external, and had not really changed the hearts of the people, who could not wait to backslide.

For a few years Jehoiakim ruled as a vassal of Egypt, who now for a while controlled the land south of the Euphrates, but Egypt’s control over this area was not to last for long, and it was eventually lost to the new rising power of Babylon under first Nabopolassar, and then his son Nebuchadnezzar. The result of Nebuchadnezzar’s advance was that Jerusalem was invested and taken, and a number of important people, including Daniel and his three friends, transported to Babylon ‘in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah’ (Dan 1:1). Jehoiakim himself became a vassal of Babylon (2Ki 24:3), whilst Egypt retreated behind its own borders, and remained there unable to do anything about it (2Ki 24:7). It may have been at this stage that Jehoiakim was bound in fetters to be carried off to Babylon (2Ch 36:6), before finally being restored to his throne.

Unfortunately, like his brother, Jehoiakim also ‘did evil in the sight of YHWH’, and whilst this might partly have been forced on him by Nebuchadnezzar, as he insisted on the gods of Babylon being introduced into the Temple, it was clearly seen as going beyond that. In line with what we have seen previously it indicated that he allowed the syncretistic and false high places to flourish again. Jeremiah tells us that Jehoiakim also ‘shed innocent blood’ like Manasseh (2Ki 24:4), thereby demonstrating his total disregard for the Law of YHWH. This included the blood of Uriah the prophet (Jer 26:23). The Chronicler further speaks of ‘his abominations which he did’ (2Ch 36:8), a description which demonstrates his full participation in idolatry. Thus he fully earned the description which was applied to him. All Josiah’s efforts were proving to have been in vain. Again we see that idolatry had not been removed out of the hearts of the people.

The failure of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt in 601 BC, which resulted in heavy losses for both sides, meant that he had to retire back to Babylon to lick his wounds, and it was probably this that encouraged Jehoiakim to rebel, relying on Egypt for support. But Nebuchadnezzar’s reverse would only be temporary, and when he returned with his armies in greater force and besieged Jerusalem (see Jer 25:1-12) Jehoiakim was seemingly only saved from humiliation by his death, which may well have been at the hands of assassins who were seeking to appease Nebuchadnezzar. He was replaced by his eighteen year old son Jehoiachin who almost immediately surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar and was carried away to Babylon, along with many prominent people (including Ezekiel), being replaced by his uncle Mattaniah, who was given the throne name of Zedekiah. Jehoiachin was, however still seen as king, even though absent, with Zedekiah merely acting as his regent. Under such circumstances it would have required a much more charismatic man than Zedekiah to hold Judah together. But Judah was in ferment and Zedekiah was unequal to the task, and lacking in his response towards YHWH.

The destruction of Assyria had brought great relief to the world and been hailed by all as the end of an era, and Judah still could not reconcile itself to the idea that Babylon had taken over Assyria’s mantle. Who did Babylon think they were? Zedekiah therefore ruled over a people in constant ferment who felt that Babylon’s yoke could be overthrown, and he was encouraged in this by ‘false prophets’. This comes out very strongly in the prophecy of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah is seen as standing almost alone in warning that Babylon must not be opposed (Jer 27:12 onwards). The final consequence was that Zedekiah foolishly rebelled, and the consequence was that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and took it, and later destroyed its walls and burned it to the ground, carrying the cream of the people away to Babylon. Jerusalem was no more. All that remained of Judah was a devastated country, devoid of its most prominent people, and ruled over from Mizpah by a governor, Gedaliah (2Ki 25:22-23).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Reign Of Zedekiah, King of Judah 597-587 BC ( 2Ki 24:18 to 2Ki 25:7 ).

It is a reminder of how quickly events were moving that it was a son of Josiah himself who now came to the throne as the last king of Judah, and that he was only twenty one years old, so short would be the time from the death of Josiah (609 BC) to the final destruction of Jerusalem (586 BC). Furthermore he was not helped by the fact that he was seen by many as only acting as deputy for Jehoiachin, who was still looked on as king of Judah, and expected to return (Jer 28:4).

But as with his brother Jehoiakim before him he did not follow in his father’s footsteps. Instead he continued to encourage the syncretistic worship in high places, and in the Temple, for he ‘did evil in the eyes of YHWH’. It was clear that Josiah’s legacy had not been a permanent one. As we have learned above Judah had in fact fallen too far before he came to the throne. Thus YHWH’s anger continued to be directed against Judah with the result that in the end Zedekiah also foolishly rebelled against the king of Babylon and withheld tribute. We can only assume that it was largely at the instigation of Egypt, for it would have been obvious that Judah and her local allies would have had little chance alone.

However, the author of Kings was not interested in the detail. As far as he was concerned Zedekiah’s reign was doomed from the start. Thus he tells us nothing about what led up to the rebellion. In his eyes it was all due to the fact that the wrath of YHWH was levelled against His people so that He had determined to spew them out of the land. This was not without reason. As Jeremiah reveals the people had become totally corrupt, and the leadership were only out for themselves. And yet, incredibly, they were ridiculously optimistic and responsive to prophets who declared that there would be a quick end to Babylonian supremacy, and that it would be within two years from the commencement of Zedekiah’s reign (Jer 28:1-11). Such was the certainty that they had that YHWH would not allow their desperate state to continue. They still remembered and held on to the earlier promises of the prophets about the final establishment of YHWH’s kingdom without recognising the need to fulfil the conditions which were required. The consequence was that Zedekiah also ignored the warnings of Jeremiah the prophet that he should remain in submission to the king of Babylon. But what they had one and all ignored was the fact that they were not walking in YHWH’s ways and that He had therefore deserted them. The promises of the prophets were not for them. They awaited a day when they would have been restored to full obedience.

This passage divides up into three sections:

1) Introduction (2Ki 24:18-19).

2) Zedekiah Rebels And Is Brought To Judgment (2Ki 24:20 to 2Ki 25:7).

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

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2). Zedekiah Rebels And Is Brought To Judgment ( 2Ki 24:20 to 2Ki 25:7 ).

It will be noted that as so often the prophetic author ignores the details of Zedekiah’s reign and concentrates on what to him was theologically important. It was Zedekiah’s rebellion and its consequences in the arrival of the king of Babylon that highlighted the fact that YHWH’s anger was directed against Jerusalem and Judah for it was an indication that He intended to cast them out of His presence, so that was what he concentrated on. What happened to Jerusalem was not to be the act of Nebuchadnezzar, but the act of YHWH.

Analysis.

a For through the anger of YHWH did it come about in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence (2Ki 24:20 a).

b And Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon (2Ki 24:20 b).

c And it came about in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and encamped against it, and they built forts against it round about, and the city was besieged to the eleventh year of king Zedekiah (2Ki 25:1-2).

d On the ninth day of the fourth month the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land, and a breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king’s garden (now the Chaldeans were against the city round about), and the king went by the way of the Arabah (2Ki 25:3-4).

c But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho, and all his army was scattered from him (2Ki 25:5).

b Then they took the king, and carried him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah, and they gave judgment on him (2Ki 25:6).

a And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon (2Ki 25:7).

Note that in ‘a’ YHWH would cast them out of His presence, and in the parallel they were carried off to Babylon. In ‘b’ Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon, and in the parallel he was brought before the king of Babylon for judgment. In ‘c’ the Babylonian army came and the siege of Jerusalem began, and in the parallel the Chaldean army pursued the king and he was taken and all his army scattered. Centrally in ‘d’ famine was so intense in the city that they sought to escape.

2Ki 24:20

‘For through the anger of YHWH did it come about in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence.’

The fact of YHWH’s anger against Judah and Jerusalem, and their removal from His sight has been a theme of these last few chapters (2Ki 21:12-14; 2Ki 22:13; 2Ki 23:26; 2Ki 24:2-3). It had been His continual purpose from the time of Manasseh. The warnings of Lev 18:25; Lev 18:28; Lev 26:28-35; Deu 29:28 were being fulfilled. And it was being brought about by YHWH Himself.

2Ki 24:20

‘And Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon.’

The result of YHWH’s anger against Judah and Jerusalem was that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. This rebellion appears to have been inspired as a result of news being received of an internal rebellion in Babylon in which many Jews were involved (there was constant contact with Babylon), and was no doubt partly stirred up by the continuing urgings of Egypt, who would indeed at one stage send an army to temporarily relieve Jerusalem (Jer 37:5). Tyre and Sidon, Edom, Moab and Ammon all appear to have been involved (Jer 27:1-11).

2Ki 25:1

‘And it came about in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and encamped against it, and they built forts against it round about.’

In the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, came with all his army and encamped against Jerusalem, setting up siege forts around it. Nebuchadnezzar had once and for all lost patience with Jerusalem (as the Book of Daniel makes clear he suffered from a mental illness, and was probably a manic depressive).

2Ki 25:2

‘So the city was besieged to the eleventh year of king Zedekiah.’

The siege continued over a period of nineteen months, although at one stage possibly temporarily suspended as a result of the arrival of an Egyptian army (Jer 37:5). It was clear that the city was doomed.

2Ki 25:3

‘On the ninth day of the fourth month the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land.’

As a result of the siege starvation became a problem in the city, for there was no food for ‘the people of the land’ who were now sheltering in Jerusalem. The city had been cut off from outside help for many months. (The word ‘fourth’ is not in the text but is introduced from Jer 39:2; Jer 52:6).

2Ki 25:4

‘Then a breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king’s garden (now the Chaldeans were against the city round about), and the king went by the way of the Arabah.’

A breach being made in the wall by the enemy a desperate attempt was made to escape by night by using a small postern gate (the main gates would be closely guarded) which would have been identifiable at the time, and all the men of war fled from Jerusalem, along with the king who was making for the Jordan Rift Valley.

2Ki 25:5

‘But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho, and all his army was scattered from him.’

However, the movement of such a large number of men could hardly fail to be detected, and the escape may well have involved some fighting, so when the Chaldeans realised that there had been an escape they pursued after the king, whose troops had scattered to find refuge where they could. It is possible that the hope was that this would aid the king’s escape as the Chaldeans would not know who to follow, but if so it failed, and he was captured in the plains of Jericho in the Arabah.

2Ki 25:6

‘Then they took the king, and carried him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah, and they gave judgment on him.’

He was then taken to Riblah in the region of Hamath on the Orontes where Nebuchadnezzar was stationed, and there given a form of trial. But the result could hardly have been in doubt. He had broken his oath of allegiance and was worthy of death.

2Ki 25:7

‘And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon.’

Nebuchadnezzar’s penalty was severe. All his sons were slain before his eyes and he was then blinded, leaving the last sight that he had experienced before becoming blind as that of his sons being killed. Then he was bound in fetters and carried off to Babylon. His rebellion, into which humanly speaking he had been forced by the anti-Assyrian party in Jerusalem, had cost him dear. From the divine point of view his evil behaviour had brought its own reward.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Ki 25:22-26 The Governorship of Gedaliah Over Judah (586 B.C.) 2Ki 25:22-26 records the account of the governorship of Gedaliah over Judah.

2Ki 25:27-30 King Jehoiachin Raised Up Out of Prison The book of Kings closes with the important note that God’s hand was still upon His people because the king of Babylon raised up King Jehoiachin out of prison and placed him above the other kings under his dominion.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Judah Carried into Captivity

v. 1. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, when Zedekiah had rebelled against the Babylonian supremacy, that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came, he and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it, encamped round about it; and they built forts against it round about, bulwarks with watch-towers, such as were used in besieging a city. Although Nebuchadnezzar was not present in person, or at least did not remain, yet he directed all the operations, carrying them forward with all energy.

v. 2. And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, for the walls and fortifications of the city were very strong.

v. 3. And on the ninth day of the fourth month, after almost a year and a half, the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land, the common people were in such sore straits on account of the severity of the famine that they resorted to the most horrible means of sustaining life, Lam 2:11-19; Lam 4:3-10; Eze 5:10; Jer 37:21.

v. 4. And the city was broken up, the breach being made on the north side of the outer wall, Jer 39:3-5, and all the men of war, the soldiers who were defending the city, fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, the outer and the inner wall, which is by the king’s garden, in the lower part of the city, for they believed that escape to the south might still be possible; (now the Chaldees were against the city round about, although their lines may not have been so strong on this side;) and the king went the way toward the plain, Jer 39:4, the meadows of the Jordan near Jericho.

v. 5. And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho, for the king’s intention evidently was to escape beyond the river into the desert country; and all his army were scattered from him. Cf Eze 12:3-16.

v. 6. So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon, to Riblah, a city in a fruitful plain in the north, where the headquarters of Nebuchadnezzar had been established; and they gave judgment upon him, namely, a tribunal appointed by the king, since Zedekiah had broken his oath of allegiance and revolted.

v. 7. And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, for they were guilty with their father and might have continued the dynasty, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, they blinded him, probably by passing a heated metal rod over his open eyes, and bound him with fetters of brass, doubly fettered hand and foot, and carried him to Babylon. Thus Zedekiah was maimed for life and had to give up all hope of ever being able to rule again.

v. 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 Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, one of his chief officers and most trusted officials, unto Jerusalem;

v. 9. and he burned the house of the Lord, the wonderful Temple of Solomon, whose upper structure was all of wood, and the king’s house, the beautiful royal palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, all the palaces of the rich, and every great man’s house burned he with fire, thus completing the taking of the city, and leaving houses only for the poor people of the land.

v. 10. And all the army of the Chaldees that were with the captain of the guard, placed under his command for this purpose, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about, the fortifications which had rendered the city almost impregnable.

v. 11. Now, the rest of the people that were left in the city, the few who had escaped the ravages of the sword and of famine, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, those who had deserted to the enemy during the siege, with the remnant of the multitude, probably the remaining able-bodied men who might have been able to bear arms, did Nebuzar-adan, the captain of the guard, carry away.

v. 12. But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land, those without landed possessions, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen, they received orders to cultivate the vineyards and fields, lest the country revert to its wild state.

v. 13. And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, the two conspicuous hollow columns, 1Ki 7:15, and the bases, 1Ki 7:22, of which Ahaz had removed the borders, 2Ki 16:17, and the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord, resting on a stone base since the oxen had been removed, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon.

v. 14. And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, those used in the service, of the altar of burnt offering in the court, took they away. Cf Exo 27:3; 1Ki 7:45-50.

v. 15. And the fire-pans, and the bowls, 1Ki 7:50, and such things as were of gold, the appointments used in the Sanctuary proper, in gold, and of silver, in silver, including all vessels made of precious metals, the captain of the guard took away.

v. 16. The 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; its amount was so great that it was useless to attempt to weigh it, 1Ki 7:47.

v. 17. The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and the chapiter, the capital, upon it was brass, and the height of the chapiter three cubits, or five cubits over all, 1Ki 7:16; 2Ch 3:15; Jer 52:22; and the wreathen work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass, this artistic work making the columns very costly; and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work. Cf Jer 52:17-22.

v. 18. And the captain of the guard took Seraiah, the chief priest, and Zephaniah, the second priest, one of those ordinarily engaged in the work of sacrifice, but evidently a person of importance, and the three keepers at the door, the chief officers of the Temple guard, one of whom was stationed at each of the three main entrances, Cf Jer 38:14.

v. 19. And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, the commander of the city, and five men of them that were in the king’s presence, which were found in the city, of the king’s intimate counselors, and the principal scribe of the host, an officer in the direct service of the commander-in-chief, which mustered the people of the land, enrolling them for military service, these seven representing the civil population, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city, either the leaders in the rebellion or such as had distinguished themselves in the defense of the city;

v. 20. and Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the king of Babylon, to Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar was still encamped.

v. 21. And the king of Babylon smote them, for participating in the rebellion, and slew them at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, the Syrian province in the extreme northern part of Palestine. So Judah was carried away out of their land. This was the beginning of the great captivity, wherewith the ancient glory of Judah faded away, for it never again regained its position of independence and power. The destruction of Jerusalem is a type of the last great Judgment which will come upon the world.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

2Ki 25:1-30

THE LAST SIEGE OF JERUSALEM. THE JEWS LED INTO CAPTIVITY. HISTORY OF THE REMNANT LEFT BEHIND. RELEASE FROM PRISON OF JEHOIACHIN.

2Ki 25:1-10

LAST SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM. The open rebellion of Zedekiah was followed almost immediately by the advance into Judaea of a Babylonian army under Nebuchadnezzar in person, and the strict investment of the capital. We learn the circumstances of the siege from Jeremiah, in the prophecy which bears his name, and in the Book of Lamentations. It lasted one year and seven months, and was accompanied by a blockade so strict that the defenders were reduced to the last extremity, and, as in Samaria under Jehoram (2Ki 6:29), and again in Jerusalem during the siege by Titus (Josephus, ‘Bell. Jud.,’ 6.3. 4), mothers ate their children (see Lam 2:20; Lam 4:10). When resistance was no longer possible, Zedekiah, with his men-at-arms, attempted to escape by night, and fled eastward, but were overtaken and captured in the plain of Jericho (Jer 39:4, Jer 39:5). Meanwhile the city fell into the enemy’s hands, and was treated with all the rigors of war. The temple, the royal palace, and the great houses of the rich men were first plundered and then delivered to the flames (verse 9). The walls of the city were broken down (verse 10), and the gates laid even with the ground (Lam 2:9). A great massacre of the population took place in the streets (Lam 2:3, Lam 2:4).

2Ki 25:1

And it cams to pass in the ninth year of hisi.e. Zedekiah’sreign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month. Extreme exactness with respect to a date indicates the extreme importance of the event dated. In the whole range of the history contained in the two Books of the Kings, there is no instance of the year, month, and day being all given excepting in the present chapter, where we find this extreme exactness three times (2Ki 25:1, 2Ki 25:4, and 2Ki 25:8). The date in 2Ki 25:1 is confirmed by Jer 52:10 and Eze 24:1. That Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem. ‘According to the description of the eye-witness, Jeremiah, the army was one of unusual magnitude. Nebuchadnezzar brought against Jerusalem at this time “all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people” (Jer 34:1). The march of the army was not direct upon Jerusalem; it at first spread itself over Judea, wasting the country and capturing the smaller fortified towns (.Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.7. 3)among them Lachish, so famous in the war against Sennacherib (2Ki 18:14, 2Ki 18:17; 2Ki 19:8), and Azekah (Jer 34:7). The capture of these two places was important as intercepting Zedekiah’s line of communication with Egypt. Having made himself master of them, Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to invest the capital. And pitched against iti.e; encamped, and commenced a regular siegeand they built forts against it round about. It has been argued that does not mean a “fort” or “tower,” but a “line of circumvallation” (Michaelis, Hitzig, Thenius, Bahr). Jerusalem, however, can scarcely be surrounded by lines of circumvallation, which, moreover, were not employed in their sieges by the Orientals. Dayek () seems to be properly a “watchtower,” from , speculari, whence it passed into the meaning of a “tower” generally. The towers used in sieges by the Assyrians and Babylonians were movable ones, made of planks, which were pushed up to the walls, so that the assailants might attack their adversaries, on a level, with greater advantage. Sometimes they contained battering rams (see Layard, ‘Monuments of Nineveh,’ first series, pl. 19; and comp. Jer 52:4; Eze 4:2; Eze 17:17; Eze 26:8; Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.8. 1).

2Ki 25:2

And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. The writer omits all the details of the siege, and hastens to the final catastrophe. From Jeremiah and Ezekiel we learn that, after the siege had continued a certain time, the Egyptian monarch, Hophra or Apries, made an effort to carry out the terms of his agreement with Zedekiah, and marched an army into Southern Judaea, with the view of raising the siege (Jer 37:5; Eze 17:17). Nebuchadnezzar hastened to meet him. With the whole or the greater part of his host he marched southward and offered battle to the Egyptians. Whether an engagement took place or not is uncertain. Josephus affirms it, and says that Apries was “defeated and driven out of Syria” (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.7. 3). The silence of Jeremiah is thought to throw doubt on his assertion. At any rate, the Egyptians retired (Jer 37:7) and took no further part in the struggle. The Babylonians returned, and the siege recommenced. A complete blockade was established, and the defenders of the city soon began to suffer from famine (Jer 21:7, Jer 21:9; Lam 2:12, Lam 2:20). Ere long, as so often happens in sieges, famine was followed by pestilence (Jer 21:6, Jer 21:7; Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ l.s.c.), and after a time the place was reduced to the last extremity (Lam 4:3-9). Bread was no longer to be had, and mothers devoured their children (Lam 4:10). At length a breach was effected in the defenses; the enemy poured in; and the city fell (see the comment on verse 4).

2Ki 25:3

And on the ninth day of the fourth month. The text of Kings is hero incomplete, and has to be restored from Jer 52:6. Our translators have supplied the missing words. The famine prevailed in the city (see the comment on Jer 52:2). As I have elsewhere observed, “The intensity of the suffering endured may be gathered from Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Josephus. The complexions of the men grew black with famine (Lam 4:8; Lam 5:10); their skin was shrunk and parched (Lam 4:8); the rich and noble women searched the dunghills for setups of offal (Lam 4:5); the children perished for want, or were even devoured by their parents (Lam 2:20; Lam 4:3, Lam 4:4, Lam 4:10; Eze 5:10); water was scarce, as well as food, and was sold at a price (Lam 5:4); third part of the inhabitants died of the famine, and the plague which grew out of it (Eze 5:12)”. And there was no bread for the people of the land. Bread commonly fails comparatively early in a siege. It was some time before the fall of the city that Ebed-Meleeh expressed his fear that Jeremiah would starve, since there was no more bread in the place (see Jer 38:9).

2Ki 25:4

And the city was broken up; rather, brown into; i.e. a breach was made in the walls. Probably the breach was on the north side of the city, where the ground is nearly level (see Eze 9:2). According to Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.8. 2), the enemy entered through the breach about midnight. And all the men of wari.e; all the soldiers who formed the garrisonfled by night by the way of the gate between two walls; rather, between the two walls, as in Jer 52:7. As the enemy broke in on the north, the king and garrison quitted the city on the south by a gate which opened into the Tyropoeon valley, between the two walls that guarded the town on either side of it. Which is by the king’s garden. The royal gardens were situated near the Pool of Siloam, at the mouth of the Tyrepoeon, and near the junction of the Hinnom with the Kidron valley (see Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 7.11). (Now the Chaldees were against the city round about.) The town, i.e; was guarded on all sides by Chaldean troops, so that Zedekiah and his soldiers must either have attacked the line of guard, and broken through it, or have slipped between two of the blockading pests under cover of the darkness. As no collision is mentioned, either here or in Jeremiah, the latter seems the more probable supposition. And the king went the way toward the plain; literally, and he ‘went. The writer supposes that his readers will understand that the king left the city with his troops; and so regards “he went” as sufficiently intelligible. Jer 52:7 has “they went. By “the plain” (literally, “the Arabsh”) the valley of the Jordan is intended, and by “the way” to it the ordinary road from Jerusalem to Jericho.

2Ki 25:5

And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king. When the escape of Zedekiah and the soldiers of the garrison was discovered, hot pursuit was made, since the honor of the great king required that his enemies should be brought captive to his presence. The commanders at Jerusalem would fuel this the more sensibly, since Nebuchadnezzar had for some time retired from the siege, and left its conduct to them, while he himself exercised a general superintendence over military affairs from Riblah (see 2Ki 25:6). They were liable to be held responsible for the escape. And overtook him in the plains of Jericho. The “plains of Jericho” ( ) is the fertile tract on the right bank of the Jordan near its embouchure, which was excellently watered, and cultivated in gardens, orchards, and palm-groves. It is probable, though not certain, that Zedekiah intended to cross the Jordan, and seek a refuge in Moab. And all his army were scattered from him (comp. Eze 12:14). This seems to be mentioned in order to account for there being no engagement. Perhaps, thinking themselves in security, and imagining that they were not followed, the troops had dispersed themselves among the farmhouses and homesteads, to obtain a much-needed refreshment.

2Ki 25:6

So they took the king [Zedekiah], and brought him up to the King of Babylon. The presentation of rebel kings, when captured, to their suzerain, seated on his throne, is one of the most common subjects of Assyrian and Babylonian sculptures. The Egyptian and Persian artists also represent it. To Riblah. (For the situation of Riblah, see the comment on 2Ki 23:33.) As Nebuchadnezzar was engaged at one and the same time in directing the sieges both of Tyro and of Jerusalem, it was a most convenient position for him to occupy. And they gave judgment upon him. As a rebel, who had broken his covenant and his oath (Eze 17:16, Eze 17:18), Zedekiah was brought to trial before Nebuchadnezzar and his great lords. The facts could not be denied, and sentence was therefore passed upon him, nominally by the court, practically by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 52:9). By an unusual act of clemency, his life was spared; but the judgment was still sufficiently severe (see the next verse).

2Ki 25:7

And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes (comp. Herod; 2Ki 3:14, and 2 Macc. 7; for similar aggravations of condemned persons’ sufferings). As Zedekiah was no more than thirty-two years of age (2Ki 24:18), his sons must have been minors, who could not justly be held responsible for their father’s doings. It was usual, however, in the East, and even among the Jews, to punish children for the sins of their fathers (see Jos 7:24, Jos 7:25; 2Ki 9:26; 2Ki 14:6; Dan 6:24). And put out the eyes of Zedekiah. This, too, was a common Oriental practice. The Philistines blinded Samson (Jdg 16:21). Sargon, in one of his sculptures, seems to be blinding a prisoner with a spear (Botta, ‘Monumens de Ninive,’ pl. 18). The ancient Persians often blinded criminals. In modern Persia, it was, until very lately, usual for a king, on his accession, to blind all his brothers, in order that they might be disqualified from reigning. The operation was commonly performed in Persia by means of a red-hot iron rod (see Herod; 7.18). Zedekiah’s loss of eyesight reconciled the two apparently conflicting propheciesthat he would be carried captive to Babylon (Jer 22:5, etc.), and that he would never see it (Eze 12:13)in a remarkable manner. And bound him with fetters of brass; literally, with a pair of brazen fetters. Assyrian fetters consisted of two thick rings of iron, joined together by a single long link (Botta, l.s.c.); Babylonian were probably similar. Captives of importance are usually represented as fettered in the sculptures. And carried him to Babylon. Jeremiah adds (Jer 52:11) that Nebuchadnezzar “put him in prison till the day of his death:” and so Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.8. 7). The latter writer further tells us that, at his death, the Babylonian monarch gave him a royal funeral (comp. Jeremiah, Jer 34:5).

2Ki 25:8

And in the fifth month, on the seventh clay of the month. Jeremiah says (Jer 52:12) that it was on the tenth day of the month; and so Josephus (‘Bell Jud.; 6.4. 8). The mistake probably arose from a copyist mistaking (ten) for (seven). According to Josephus, it was on the same day of the same month that the final destruction of the temple by the soldiers of Titus was accomplished. Which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in B.C. 605, which was the fourth year of Jehoiakim, who began to reign in B.C. 608. The seven remaining years of Jehoiakim, added to the eleven of Zedekiah, and the three months of Jehoiachin, produce the result of the textthat the last year of Zedekiah was the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar. Came Nebuzaradan. Nebuchadnezzar had apparently hesitated as to how he should treat Jerusalem, since nearly a month elapsed between the capture of the city and the commencement of the work of destruction. He was probably led to destroy the city by the length of the resistance, and the natural strength of the position. The name, Nebuzar-adan, is probably a Hebraized form of the Babylonian Nebu-sar-iddina. “Nebo has given (us) a king.” Captain of the guard; literally chief of the executioners; but as the King’s guard were employed to execute his commissions, and especially his death-sentences, the paraphrase is quite allowable. A servant of the King of Babyloni.e. a subjectunto Jerusalem. He came doubtless with instructions, which he proceeded to carry out.

2Ki 25:9

And he burnt the house of the Lord. After it had stood, according to Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 2Ki 10:8. 5), four hundred and seventy years six months and ten days. This calculation, however, seems to exceed the truth. Neither the Assyrians nor the Babylonians had any regard for the gods of other nations. They everywhere burnt the temples, plundered the shrines, and carried off the images as trophies of victory. In the temple of Jerusalem they would find no images except those of the two cherubim (1Ki 6:23-28), which they probably took away with them. And the king’s house (see 1Ki 7:1, 1Ki 7:8-12; 2Ki 11:16). The royal palace was, perhaps, almost as magnificent as the temple; and its destruction was almost as great a loss to art. It doubtless contained Solomon’s throne of ivory (1Ki 10:18), to which there was an ascent by six steps, with two sculptured lions on each step. And all the houses of Jerusalem. This statement is qualified by the words of the following clause, which show that only the houses of the princes and great men were purposely set on fire. Many of the remaining habitations may have perished in the conflagration, but some probably escaped, and were inhabited by “the poor of the land.” And every great man’s house burnt he with fire.

2Ki 25:10

And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. A complete demolition is not intended. When the exiles returned, and even in the time of Neh 2:13, Neh 2:15, much of the wall was still standing, and the circuit was easily traced. Probably the Babylonians did not do more than break one or two large breaches in the wall, as Joash had done (2Ki 14:13) when he took Jerusalem in the reign of Amaziah.

2Ki 25:11-21

Fate of the inhabitants of Judah, and of the contents of the temple. Having burnt the temple, the royal palace, and the grand residences of the principal citizens, Nebuzar-adan proceeded to divide the inhabitants of the city and country into two bodiesthose whom he would leave in the land, and those whom he would carry off. The line of demarcation was, in a general way, a social one. The rich and well-to-do he would take with him; the poor and insignificant he would leave behind (2Ki 25:11, 2Ki 25:12). Among the former were included the high priest, the “second priest,” three of the temple Levites, the commandant of the city, a certain number of the royal councilors, the “principal scribe of the host,” and sixty of the “princes” (2Ki 25:18, 2Ki 25:19). The latter were chiefly persons of the agricultural class, who were left to be “vinedressers and husbandmen.” From the temple, which had been already plundered twice (2Ch 36:7, 2Ch 36:10), he carried off such vessels in gold and silver and bronze as were still remaining there, together with the bronze of the two pillars Jachin and Boaz, of the great laver, or “molten sea,” and of the stands for the smaller layers, all of which he broke up (2Ki 25:13). Having reached Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar still was, he delivered up to him both the booty and the prisoners. Rather more than seventy of the latter Nebuchadnezzar punished with death (2Ki 25:21). The rest were taken to Babylon.

2Ki 25:11

Now the rest of the people that were left in the cityi.e; that remained behind when the king and the garrison fledand the fugitives that fen away to the King of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude; rather, both the fugitives that had fallen away to the King of Babylon, and the remnant of the multitude, The writer means to divide “the rest of the people” into two classes:

(1) those who during the siege, or before it, had deserted to the Babylonians, as no doubt many did, and as Jeremiah was accused of doing (Jer 37:13);

(2) those who were found inside the city when it was taken. Did Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carry away.

2Ki 25:12

But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land. It was inconvenient to deport persons who had little or nothing. In the Assyrian sculptures we see the captives, who are carried off, generally accompanied by their own baggage-animals, and taking with them a certain amount of their own household stuff. Pauper immigrants would not have been of any advantage to a country. To be vinedressers and husbandmen. Jeremiah adds that Nebuzar-adan “gave” these persons “vineyards and fields at the same time” (Jer 39:10). The Babylonians did not wish Judaea to lie waste, since it could then have paid no tribute. On the contrary, they designed its continued cultivation; and Gedaliah, the governor of their appointment, made great efforts to have cultivation resumed and extended (see Jer 40:10, Jer 40:12).

2Ki 25:13

And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord. The two columns, Jachin and Boaz, cast by Hiram under the directions of Solomon (1Ki 7:15-22), are intended. They were works of art of an elaborate character, but being too bulky to be carried off entire, they were “broken in pieces.” And the bases. “The bases” were the stands for the layers, also made by Hiram for Solomon (1Ki 7:27-37), and very elaborate, having “borders” ornamented with lions, oxen, and cherubim. And the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord. This was the great laver, fifteen feet in diameter, emplaced originally on the backs of twelve oxen, three facing each way (1Ki 7:23-26), which King Ahaz had taken down from off the oxen (2Ki 16:17) and “put upon a pavement of stones,” but which Hezekiah had probably restored. The oxen are mentioned by Jer 52:20 among the objects which Nebuzar-adan carried off. Did the Chaldees break in piecesthus destroying the workmanship, in which their value mainly consistedand carried the brass of them to Babylon. Brass, or rather bronze, was used by the Babylonians for vessels, arms, armor, and implements generally.

2Ki 25:14

And the pots. The word used, , is translated by, “caldrons” in Jer 52:18, and “ash-pans” in Exo 27:3. The latter is probably right. And the shovelsappurtenances of the altar of burnt sacrificeand the snuffersrather, the knivesand the spoonsor, incense-cupsand all the vessels of brain wherewith they ministered. It appears that after the two previous spoliations of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, in B.C. 605 and in B.C. 597, wherein so many of the more costly vessels had been carried off (Dan 1:2; 2Ki 24:13); the ministrations had to be performed mainly with vessels of bronze. Took they away. Soldiers are often represented in the Assyrian sculptures as carrying off vessels from temples, apparently on their own account.

2Ki 25:15

And the firepans, and the bowls; rather, the snuff-dishes, (Exo 25:38; 1Ki 7:50) and the bowls, or basins (Exo 12:22; 1Ki 7:50; 2Ch 4:8). Of these Solomon made one hundred, all in gold. And such things as were of gold, in gold. The “and” supplied by our translators would be better omitted. The writer means that of the articles enumerated some were in gold and some in silver, though probably the greater pert were in bronze. And of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away (comp. Jer 52:19).

2Ki 25:16

The two pillars (see the comment on 2Ki 25:13), one searather, the one seaand the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the Lord; the brass of all these vessels was without weight; i.e. the quantity of the brass was so large that it was not thought to be worth while to weigh it. When gold and silver vessels were carried off, their weight was carefully taken by the royal scribes or secretaries, who placed it on record as a check upon embezzlement or peculation.

2Ki 25:17

The height of the one pillar wee eighteen cubits, and the chapiter upon it was brass; rather, and there was a chapiter (or capital) upon it of brassand the height of the chapiter three cubits. The measure given, both in 1Ki 7:16 and Jer 52:22, is “five cubits,” which is generally regarded as correct; but the proportion of 3 to 18, or one-sixth, is far more suitable for a capital than that of 5 to 18, or between a third and a fourth. And the wreathen workrather, and there was wreathen work, or networkand pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass: and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work. The ornamentation of the second pillar was the same as that of the first (see Jer 52:22).

2Ki 25:18

And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest. The “chief priest” is a new expression; but it can only mean the “high priest.” Seraiah seems to have been the grandson of Hilkiah (1Ch 6:18, 1Ch 6:14), and an ancestor (grandfather or great-grandfather) of Ezra (Ezr 7:1). He had stayed at his post till the city was taken, and was now seized by Nebuzar-adan as one of the most important personages whom he found in the city. And Zephaniah the second priest. Keil and Bahr translate “a priest of the second order;’ i.e. a mere Ordinary priest; but something more than this must be intended by Jeremiah, who calls him (Jer 52:34), i.e. distinctly “the second priest.” It is conjectured that he was the high priest’s substitute, empowered to act for him on occasions. Possibly he was the Zephaniah, son of Maaseiah, of whom we hear a good deal in Jeremiah (see Jer 21:1; Jer 29:25-29 : Jer 37:3). And the three keepers of the door; rather, and three keepers of the threshold. There were twenty-five “gatekeepers” of the temple (1Ch 26:17, 1Ch 26:18), all of them Levites. On what principle Nebuzar-adan selected three out of the twenty-four is uncertain, since we have no evidence that the temple had. as Bahr says it had, “three main entrances.” Jer 38:14 certainly does not prove this.

2Ki 25:19

And out of the city he took an officerliterally, a eunuchthat was set over the man of wareunuchs were often employed in the East as commanders of soldiers. Bagoas, general of the Persian monarch, Ochus, is a noted exampleand five men of them that were in the king’s presenceliterally, of them that saw the king‘s face; i.e. that were habitually about the court; Jeremiah says (Jer 50:25) “seven men” instead of fivewhich were found in the citythe majority of the courtiers had, no doubt, dispersed, and were not to be found when Nebuzar-adan searched for themand the principal scribe of the host; rather, as in the margin, the scribe of the captain of the host ( , LXX.). “Scribes” or “secretaries” always accompanied the march of Assyrian armies, to count and record the number of the slain, to catalogue the spoil, perhaps to write dispatches and the like. We may gather that Jewish commandants were similarly attended. Which mustered the people of the landi.e; enrolled them, or entered them upon the army list, another of the “scribe’s” dutiesand threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city. Probably notables of one kind or another, persons regarded as especially responsible for the revolt.

2Ki 25:20

And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took those, and brought them to the King of Babylon to Riblah (see the comment on 2Ki 25:6). Two batches of prisoners seem to have been brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblahfirst, the most important of all the captives, Zedekiah and his sons (2Ki 25:6, 2Ki 25:7); then, a month later, Seraiah the high priest, and the other persons enumerated in 2Ki 25:18 and 2Ki 25:19. The remaining prisoners were no doubt brought also by Nebuzar-adan to Ribiah, but were not conducted into the presence of the king.

2Ki 25:21

And the King of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. Severities of this kind characterized all ancient warfare. The Assyrian sculptures show us prisoners of war impaled on crosses, beheaded, beaten on the head with maces, and sometimes extended on the ground and flayed. The inscriptions speak of hundreds as thus executed, and mention others as burnt in furnaces, or thrown to wild beasts, or cruelly mutilated. Herodotus says that Darius Hystaspis crucified three thousand prisoners round about Babylon after one of its revolts. That monarch himself, in the Behistun inscription, speaks of many eases where, after capturing rebel chiefs in the field or behind walls, he executed them and their principal adherents (see Col 2:1-23. Par. 13; Col 3:1-25. Par. 8, 11). If Nebuchadnezzar contented himself with the execution of between seventy and eighty of the rebel inhabitants of Jerusa-lee, he cannot be charged with cruelty, or extreme severity, according to the notions of the time. So Judah was carried away out of their land. Jeremiah adds an estimate of the number carried off. These were, he says (Jer 52:28-30), in the captivity of the seventh (query, seventeenth?) year, 3023; in the captivity of the eighteenth year, 832; and in that of the twenty-third, five years later, 745, making a total of 4600. If we suppose these persons to be men, and multiply by four for the women and children, the entire number will still be no more than 18,400.

2Ki 25:22-26

History of the remnant left in the land by Nebuzar-adan. Nebuchadnezzar, when he carried off Zedekiah to Babylon, appointed, as governor of Judaea, a certain Gedaliah, a Jew of good position, but not of the royal family. Gedaliah made Mizpah, near Jerusalem, his residence; and here he was shortly joined by a number of Jews of importance, who had escaped from Jerusalem and hidden themselves until the Babylonians were gone. Of these the most eminent were Johanan the son of Karcah, and Ishmael, a member of the royal house of David. Gedaliah urged the refugees to be good subjects of the King of Babylon, and to settle themselves to agricultural pursuits. His advice was accepted and at first followed; but presently a warning was given to Gedaliah by Johanan that Ishmael designed his destruction; and soon afterwards, as Gedaliah took no precautions, the murder was actually carried out. Other atrocities followed; but after a time Johanan and the other leading refugees took up arms, forced Ishmael to fly to the Ammonites, and then, fearing that Nebuchadnezzar would hold them responsible for Ishmael’s act, against Jeremiah’s remonstrances, fled, with the great mass of the Jews that had been left in the land, from Judaea into Egypt. Here our writer leaves them (verse 26), without touching on the calamities which befell them there, according to the prophetic announcements of Jer 44:2-28.

2Ki 25:22

And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah. These con-stated of Gedaliah and his court, which included Jeremiah, Baruch, and some princesses of the royal house (Jer 43:6); the poor of the land, whom Nebuzar-adan had intentionally left behind; and a considerable number of Jewish refugees of a better class, who came in from the neighboring nations, and from places in Judaea where they had been hiding themselves (Jer 40:7-12). For about two months all went well with this “remnant,” who applied themselves to agricultural pursuits, in which they prospered greatly. Whom Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon had left (see verse 12), even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam. Ahikam had protected Jeremiah in his earlier days (Jer 26:24); Gedaliah protected him in the latter part of the siege (Jer 39:14). Nebuchadnezzar’s choice of Gedaliah for governor was probably made from some knowledge of his having sided with Jeremiah, whose persistent endeavors to make the Jews submit to the Babylonian yoke seem to have been well known, not only to the Jews, but to the Babylonians; most likely by reason of the letter he sent to his countrymen already in captivity (Jer 29:1-32.). The son of Shaphan, ruler. Probably not “Shaphan the scribe” (2Ki 22:3, 2Ki 22:12), but an unknown person of the same name.

2Ki 25:23

And when all the captains of the armies; rather, the captains of the forces (Revised Version); i.e. the officers in command of the troops which had defended Jerusalem, and, having escaped from the city, were dispersed and scattered in various directions, partly in Judaea, partly in foreign countries. They and their menapparently, each of them had kept with him a certain number of the men under his commandheard that the King of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor. The news was gratifying to them. It was something to have a Jewish ruler set over them, and not a Babylonian; it was, perhaps, even more to have a man noted for his justice and moderation (Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.9. 12), who had no selfish aims, but desired simply the prosperity and good government of the country. There same to Gedaliah to Mispah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Jo-hanan the son of CareahJer 40:8 has “Johanan and Jonathan, the sons of Kareah”and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite. In Jer 40:8 we read, “And Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netephathite,” by which it would seem that some words have fallen out here. By “Netophathite” is to be understood “native of Netophah,” now Antubah, near Bethlehem (see Ezr 2:22; Neh 7:26). And Jaazaniah the son of a Maschathite. Called Jezaniak by Jeremiah, and said by him (Jer 42:1) to have been the son of a certain Heshaiah. Hoshaiah was a native of the Syrian kingdom, or district, known as Maschah, or Maachathi (Deu 3:14; 1Ch 19:6, 1Ch 19:7), which adjoined Bashan towards the north. They and their men. The persons mentioned, that is, with the soldiers under them, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and placed themselves under him as his subjects.

2Ki 25:24

And Gedaliah aware to them, and to their men. As rebels, their lives were forfeit; but Gedaliah granted them an amnesty, and for their greater assurance swore to them that, so long as they remained peaceful subjects of the King of Babylon, they should suffer no harm. Jeremiah adds (Jer 40:10) that he urged them to apply themselves diligently to agricultural pursuits. And said unto them, Fear not to be the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, sad serve the King of Babylon; and it shall be well with you; rather, and said unto them, Fear not because of the servants of the Chaldeans, etc. “Do not be afraid,” i.e; “of the Chaldean officials and guards (Jer 42:3) that are about my court. Be assured that they shall do you no hurt.”

2Ki 25:25

And it mane to pass in the seventh monthtwo months only after Gedaliah received his appointment as governor, which was in the fifth monththat Ishmael the son of Nethaniah; the son of Elishama“Nethaniah” is otherwise unknown; “Elishama” may be the “scribe” or secretary of Jehoiakim mentioned in Jer 36:12, Jer 36:20of the seed royal. So Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.9. 2) and Jer 41:1. Josephus adds that he was a wicked and most crafty man, who, during the siege of Jerusalem, had made his escape from the place, and fled for shelter to Baalim (Baalis, Jer 40:14), King of Ammon, with whom he remained till the siege was over. Came, and ten men with himas his retinueand smote Gedaliah, that he died. Gedaliah had been warned by Johanan and the other captains (Jer 40:13-15) of Ishmael’s probable intentions, but had treated the accusation as a calumny, and refused to believe that his life was in any danger. When Ishmael and his ten companions arrived, he still suspected nothing, but received them hospitably (Jer 41:1), entertained them at a grand banquet, according to Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.9. 4), and being overtaken with drunkenness, was attacked and killed without difficulty. And the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah (comp. Jer 41:3, “Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him, even with Gedaliah, at Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found them, and the men of war”). It is evident from this that Gedaliah had a Chaldean guard.

2Ki 25:26

And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies (see above, 2Ki 25:23). The leader of the movement was Johanan, the son of Careah. Having first attacked Ishmael, and forced him to fly to the Ammonites (Jer 41:15), he almost immediately afterwards conceived a fear of Nebuchadnezzar, who would, he thought, resent the murder of Gedaliah, and even avenge it upon these who had done all they could to prevent it. He therefore gathered together the people, and made a preliminary retreat to Chimham, near Bethlehem (Jer 41:17), on the road to Egypt, whence he subsequently, against the earnest remonstrances and prophetic warnings of Jer 42:9-22, carried them on into Egypt itself (Jer 43:1-7). The first settle-merit was made at Tahpanhes, or Daphnae. Arose, and came into Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees (see Jer 41:18; Jer 43:3). There does not appear to have been any real reason for this fear. Nebuchadnezzar might have been trusted to distinguish between the act of an individual and conspiracy on the part of the nation.

2Ki 25:27-30

Fate of Jehoiachin. The writer of Kings, whose general narrative, since the time of Hezekiah, has been gloomy and dispiriting, seems to have desired to terminate his history in a more cheerful strain. He therefore mentions, as his last incident, the fate of Jehoiachin, who, after thirty-six years of a cruel and seemingly hopeless imprisonment, experienced a happy change of circumstances. The king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, his son, Evil-Merodach, in the first year of his sovereignty had compassion upon the miserable captive, and releasing him from prison, changed his garments (2Ki 25:29), and gave him a place at his table, among other dethroned monarchs, even exalting him above the rest (2Ki 25:28), and making him an allowance for his support (2Ki 25:30). This alleviation of their king’s condition could not but be felt by the captive Jews as a happy omena portent of the time when their lot too would be alleviated, and the Almighty Disposer of events, having punished them sufficiently for their sins, would relent at last, and put an end to their banishment, and give them rest and peace in their native country.

2Ki 25:27

And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin King of Judah. According to Berosus and the Canon of Ptolemy, Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-four years. He carried off Jehoiachin to Babylon in his eighth year (2Ki 24:12), and thus the year of his death would exactly coincide with the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of the Jewish prince. In the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month. The five and twentieth day, according to Jer 52:31, (On the rarity of such exact dates in the historical Scriptures, see the comment on Jer 52:1.) That Evil-Merodach King of Babylon. The native name, which is thus expressed, seems to have been “Avil-Marduk.” The meaning of avil is uncertain; but the name probably placed the prince under the protection of Merodach, who was Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite god. Avil-Marduk ascended the Babylonian throne in B.C. 561, and reigned two years only, when he was murdered by Neriglissar, or Nergal-sar-uzur, his brother-in-law. In the year that he began to reignthe year B.C. 561did lift up the head of Jehoiachin King of Judah out of prison. (For the phrase used, see Gen 40:13, Gen 40:19, Gen 40:20.) The act was probably part of a larger measure of pardon and amnesty, intended to inaugurate favorably the new reign.

2Ki 25:28

And he spake kindly to him; literally, he spake good things with him; but the meaning is well expressed by our rendering. Evil-Merodach compassionated the sufferings of the unfortunate monarch, who had grown old in prison, and strove by kind speech to make up to him for them in a certain measure. And set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon. Evil-Merodach had at his court other captured kings besides Jehoiachin, whose presence was considered to enhance his dignity and grandeur (comp. Jdg 1:7). An honorable position and probably a seat of honor was assigned to each; but the highest position among them was now conferred on Jehoiachin. Whether he had actually a more elevated seat, is (as Bahr observes) a mattes of no importance.

2Ki 25:29

And changed his prison garments. The subject to “changed” may be either “Jehoiachin” or” Evil-Merodach.” Our translators preferred the latter, our Revisers the former. In either case the general meaning is the same. Evil Merodach supplied suitable garments to the released monarch instead of his “prison garments,” and Jehoiachin arrayed himself in the comely apparel before taking his seat among his equals. Dresses of honor are among the most common gifts which an Oriental monarch makes to his subjects (see Gen 41:42; Est 6:8, Est 6:11; Est 8:15; Dan 5:29; Xen; ‘Cyrop.,’ 5.1. 1). And hei.e. Jehoiachindid eat bread continually before him. Besides giving occasional great feasts (see Est 1:3-9), Oriental monarchs usually entertain at their table daily a large number of guests, some of whom are specially invited, while others have the privilege of daily attendance. It was to this latter class that Jehoiachin was admitted. Comp. 2Sa 9:7-13, which shows that the custom was one not unknown at the Jewish court. All the days of hisi.e. Jehoiachin’slife. Jehoisohin enjoyed this privilege till his death. Whether this fell in the lifetime of Evil-Merodach or not, is scarcely in the writer’s thoughts. He merely means to tell us that the comparative comfort and dignity which Jehoiachin enjoyed after the accession of Evil-Merodach to the throne was not subsequently clouded over or disturbed. He continued a privileged person at the Baby-Ionian court so long as he lived.

2Ki 25:30

And his allowance was a continual allowance. Keil supposes that this “allowance” was a daily “ration of food,” intended for the maintenance of a certain number of servants or retainers. But it is quite as likely to have been a money payment. The word translated by “allowance”does not point necessarily to food. It is a “portion’ of any kind. Given him of the kingi.e; out of the privy purse, by the king’s commanda daily rate for every dayor, a certain amount day by dayall the days of his life (see the comment on the preceding verse). Beth the privileges accorded to Jehoiachin, his sustenance at the king’s table, and his allowance, whether in money or in kind, continued to the day of his death. Neither of them was ever revoked or forfeited. Thus this last representative of the Davidic monarchy, after thirty-six years of chastisement, experienced a happy change of circumstances, and died in peace and comfort. Probably, as Keil says, “this event was intended as a comforting sign to the whole of the captive people, that the Lord would one day put an end to their banishment, if they would acknowledge that it was a well-merited punishment for their sins that they had been driven away from before his face, and would turn again to the Lord their God with all their heart.”

HOMILETICS

2Ki 25:1-10

The fall of Judah and Jerusalem a warning for all time to all nations.

Jerusalem had defied Zerah with his host of a minion men (2Ch 14:9-15), and had triumphed over Sennacherib at the head of all the armed force of Assyria (2Ki 19:35, 2Ki 19:36): why did she succumb to Nebuchadnezzar? It is quite certain that Babylon was not a stronger power than either Egypt or Assyria when in their prime. There is no reason to believe that Nebuchadnezzar was a better general than Sennacherib, or even than Zerah. The ground of the difference in the result of Judah’s struggle with Babylon, and her earlier struggles with Egypt and Assyria, is certainly not to be sought in the greater strength of her assailant, but in her own increased weakness. What, then, were the causes of this weakness?

I. IT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY DECLINE IN MILITARY STRENGTH, AS ORDINARILY ESTIMATED. The population of Judaea may have diminished, but under Josiah her dominion had increased (2Ki 23:15-20), and it is probable that she could still put into the field as many men as at any former period. Even if there were a diminution in the number of her troops, the fact would not have been one of much importance, since her military successes had never been dependent upon the numerical proportion between her own forces and those of her adversaries, but had been most signal and striking where the disproportion had been the greatest (see Num 31:3 47; Jdg 7:7-22; Jdg 8:4 12; Jdg 15:15; 1Sa 14:11-16; 2Ch 14:8-12; 2Ch 20:15-24, etc.).

II. IT WAS NOT PRODUCED BY INTERNAL QUARREL OR DISSENSION. Ewald attributes the fall of Judah and Jerusalem mainly to the antagonism between the monarchy and the prophetical order, and to the violence employed by each against the other. “The kingdom of Judah was torn,” he says, “with less and less hope of remedy, by the most irreconcilable internal divisions; and the sharpest dissensions at length made their way into the sanctity of every house.” Violence on the part of the kings was met by violence on the part of the prophets; and “the sacred land went to ruin under the development of the element of force”. It is difficult to discover any sufficient support for this view in the sacred narrative, which shows us Hezekiah on the most friendly terms with Isaiah, Josiah on the same terms with Huldah, and Zedekiah certainly not on unfriendly terms with Jeremiah. In the closing scene the antagonism is not between prophetism and monarchy, but between prophetism and an aristocratical clique. Nor is it at all clear that the final result was seriously affected by the antagonism in question. It may have somewhat relaxed the defense; but we cannot possibly imagine that, if there had been no difference of view, no sharp dissension, a successful resistance could have been made, The resistance might, perhaps, have been prolonged had all Israelites been of one mind; but still Babylon would have prevailed in the end.

III. IT WAS NOT FROM ANY TREACHERY OR DESERTION ON THE PART OF ALLIES. Allies had never done Judaea much good; and dependence on them was regarded as an indication of want of faith in Jehovah. But, so far as the matter of alliances went, Judah was in a superior, rather than in an inferior, position now than formerly. Her natural allies in any struggle with the dominant power of Western Asia were Phoenicia and Egypt; and at this time both Phoenicia and Egypt rendered her aid. Tyro was in revolt against Babylon from B.C. 598 to B.C. 585, and gave occupation to a considerable portion of the Babylonian forces while Jerusalem was being besieged. Egypt, under the enterprising Hophra, took the field soon after the siege began, and for a time succeeded in raising it. Babylon had to contend with the three allies, Tyro, Egypt, and Judea, at one and the same time, but proved equal to the strain, and overcame all three antagonists. Judaea’s weakness lay in thisthat she had offended God. From the time of Moses to that of Zedekiah, it was not her own inherent strength, or vigor, or energy, that had protected and sustained her, but the supporting hand of the Almighty. God had ever “gone forth with her armies” (Psa 60:10). God had given her “help from trouble.” Through God she had “done valiantly.” He it was who had “trodden down her enemies” (Psa 60:11, Psa 60:12). Many of their deliverances had been through actual miracle; others were the result of a divinely infused courage pervading their own ranks, or a panic falling upon their adversaries. It was only as God’s “peculiar people,” enjoying his covenanted protection, that they could possibly hold their place among the nations of the earth, so soon as great empires were formed and mighty monarchs devised schemes of extensive conquests. God’s arm had saved them, from Egypt and from Assyria; he could as easily have saved them from Babylon. It is nothing with God to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power” (2Ch 14:11). He could have bridled Nebuchadnezzar as easily as Zerah or Sennacherib, and have saved the Jews under Zedekiah as readily as under Asa or Hezekiah. But Judah’s sins came between him and them. The persistent transgressions of the people from the time of Manasseh, their idolatries, immoralities, cruelties, and wickedness of all kinds, shortened God’s arm, that he could not interpose to save them. As the author of Chronicles puts it, “there was no remedy” (2Ch 36:16). “They had transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem they had mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets” (2Ch 36:14-16); and so “filled up the measure of their iniquities.” Under such circumstances, God could not spare even his own children (Isa 1:4; Isa 63:16)his own people. Can, then, any sinful nation hope to escape? Ought not each to feel the fate of Judah a warning to itself? a warning to repent of its evil ways, and turn from them, and walk in the paths of righteousness, according to the exhortation of Isaiah?”Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (Isa 1:16-20).

2Ki 25:27-30

The loving-kindness of the Lord.

God, “in his wrath, thinketh upon mercy.” The captive king, and the captive nation, each of them suffered a long and severe punishment. Each of them must have been inclined to sink into a state of hopelessness and apathy. Each may have thought that God had forgotten them altogether, or at any rate had forgotten, and would forget, to be gracious. Thirty-six yearshow long a space is this in the life of a man! Jehoiachin had grown from youth to a man of full age, and from a man of full age almost into an old man, for he was in his fifty-fifth year, and Jewish monarchs rarely reached the age of sixty. Yet he had not really been forgotten. God had had his eye upon him all the while, and had kept in reserve for him a happy change of circumstances. The Disposer of events brought Evil-Merodach to the throne, and put it into the heart of that monarch to have compassion upon the aged captive. Jehoiachin passed from a dungeon to a chair of state (2Ki 25:28), from prison food and prison dress to royal banquets and apparel fitting his rank, from the extreme of misery to happiness, dignity, and honor. This was the doing of the Almighty Father, using men as his instruments; and it was a strong evidence of his loving-kindness. Would not the nation likewise experience his mercy? The penal sentence passed upon it was well deserved, and might, in strict justice, have been final. But would God exact the uttermost farthing? No. By the release and restoration to honor of Jehoiachin, he sufficiently indicated to his people that for them too there was a place of repentance, a day of grace, a restoration to his favor. A ray of light thus broke in upon the long darkness of the Captivity. God’s gracious intent was indicated. The nation felt a stir of hope, and woke up to the expectation of a new life; Isaiah’s later prophecies (Isa 40:1-31 :66.), which had seemed a dead letter, became living words, speaking to the heart of the people; and the later years of the Captivity were cheered by the prospectever becoming brighter and clearerof a reinstatement in God’s favor, a return to the Holy Land, and a restoration of the sanctuary (Dan 9:2-19).

HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN

2Ki 25:1-21

The last days of Jerusalem.

The shameful story of Judah’s disobedience and sin is now drawing to a close. Here we have an account of the capture of Jerusalem and its king by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon. Zedekiah, the king, was taken prisoner. His sons were first put to death before his eyes. Then his own eyes were put out. He was bound in fetters of brass, and carried sway to Babylon. Jerusalem itself, the city of David and Solomon, was a scene of desolation. Nebuzar-adan, captain of the Babylonian guard, burnt with fire the house of the Lord and the king’s house and all the principal houses of the city. The men of war had deserted their pests and fled from the city. All who remained there were taken captive. The poor of the land only were left to be vinedressers and husbandmen. What were the causes of this sad downfall.

I. THE WICKEDNESS OF ITS RULERS. One after the other, the kings of Judah had done evil in the sight of the Lord.

1. They disobeyed God‘s commands. They imitated the idolatry and the vices of the heathen.

2. They ill-treated God‘s prophets. When men begin to despise and ill-treat God’s messengers, those who are trying to lead them to what is fight, they are blind to their own true interests. The treatment which the Prophet Jeremiah in particular received showed how low in degradation the kingdom of Judah had sunk. After the prophet’s fearless denunciations of national sin (Jeremiah 13-19.), Pashur, who was chief governor of the temple, smote Jeremiah, and put him in the stocks, or pillory, that was in the high gate of Benjamin, near the temple, where all men might see him and mock at his disgrace. We have seen how Jehoiakim cut the roll of Jeremiah’s prophecies with his penknife, and burned its leaves. Jeremiah’s last years at Jerusalem were years of increased suffering and persecution. Zedekiah actually put him in prison. The princes cast him to perish in a hideous pit in the prison-house, where he sank in the mire, but at the intercession of an Ethiopian officer, Ebed-Melech, the king rescued him. Wickedness in high places soon proves to be a nation‘s ruin.

II. THE CORRUPTION OF ITS PEOPLE. Unhappily, the people were just as corrupt and as godless as their rulers. A nation is responsible for its national sins. The sins of Judah cried aloud to Heaven for vengeance. And in the days of the Captivity they were taught to feel that there is a God that reigneth in the earth. We learn from the fate of Judah and Jerusalem:

1. The danger of forsaking God. They forsook God in the day of their prosperity. And when the hour of their need came, the gods whom they served were not able to deliver them.

2. The danger of disregarding God‘s Word. How often, in these later years of Judah’s history, was the Law of God utterly neglected and forgotten: No life can be truly happy which is not based on the Word of God. No home can be truly happy where the Bible is not read. No nation can expect prosperity which disregards the Word of God.

3. The danger of despising God‘s warnings. Every message God sends us is for our good. If it is worth his while to speak to us, it is worth our while to listen. Neglected warningswhat guilt they revolve! what danger they threaten. Because I have called, and. ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh.”C.H.I.

HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS

2Ki 25:18-21

Space for repentance.

“And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the door,” etc. This piece of history may be usefully employed to illustrate that space which Heaven allows to be given men for improvement in this life. Notice here

I. SPACE FOR IMPROVEMENT. “And the captain of the guard,” etc. Though we have reason to think that the army of 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 three months after Nebuzar-adan was sent with orders to complete the destruction of Jerusalem. This space God gave them to repent after all the foregoing days of his patience; but in vain. Their hearts were still hardened. Thus wicked men constantly ignore “things that belong to their peace.”

II. SPACE FOR IMPROVEMENT NEGLECTED. “And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war,” etc. These men, to whom time had been given to do the work required, day after day neglected it. No effort was put forth to avoid the threatened calamity. It is ever thus. Men are waiting for a more “convenient season.” The cry, “Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish,” was neglected.

III. NEGLECTED SPACE FOR IMPROVEMENT AVENGED. “And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the King of Babylon to Riblah.” “Be sure your sins will find you out.” “Rejoice, O, young man, in thy youth but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.”

IV. THE AVENGEMENT OF THIS NEGLECT WAS TERRIBLE IN THE EXTREME. “And the King of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Biblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their land.” The city and the temple were burnt. The walls were never repaired until Nehemiah’s time; and Judah was carried out of their land, etc. The history of this calamity is too well known to record here. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”D.T.

2Ki 25:22-26

Rulers and their enemies.

“And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon had left,” etc. By this fragment of Jewish history two observations are suggested.

I. MEN ARE SOMETIMES ELEVATED INTO RESPONSIBLE POSITIONS. Gedalaih, a friend of Jereremiah’s, and acting under the prophet’s counsel, took the government of Judaea, and fixed his court at Mizpah. He seemed on the whole qualified for the office he assumed. The people committed to his charge were those who were left in the country after Judah had been carried away into Babylonian captivity. They were, perhaps, considered too insignificant to be removed. However, being peasantry, who could till the land and dress the vineyards, he counseled them to submit to his rule, promising them that they should retain their possessions and enjoy the produce of the land. Such was the responsible position to which this Gedaliah was elevated. In every age and land there are some men thus distinguishedmen that rise to eminence and obtain distinction and power. Sometimes it may be by the force of their own genius and character, and sometimes by the force and patronage of others. Hence in Church and state, literature, commerce, and art, we have rulers ecclesiastical, political, scholastic, and mercantile. This arrangement in our social life has many signal advantages, although often exposed to many terrible evils.

II. MALIGNANT ENMITY SOMETIMES FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE OF SUCH MEN. “But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nathaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah.” Thus envy is always excited by superiority, and one of the most cruel of human passions terminated the life of Gedaliah and-the purpose of his mission a few brief months after his elevation to office. Envy murdered Gedaliah, and drove back those poor scattered Jews to Egypt, which they loathed. Thus envy is ever at work, blasting the reputations and degrading the positions of distinguished men. “Envy is the daughter of Pride, the author of murder and revenge, the beginner of secret sedition, and the perpetual tormentor of virtue. Envy is the filthy slime of the soul; a worm, a poison or quicksilver which consumeth the flesh, and drieth up the marrow of the bones” (Socrates).D.T.

2Ki 25:27-30

Jehoiachin as a victim of tyrannic despotism, and as an object of delivering mercy.

“And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year,” etc. The life of this man has been already sketched. The incident here recorded presents him

I. AS A VICTIM OF TYRANNIC DESPOTISM. He had been in prison for thirty-seven years, and was fifty-five years of age. It was Nebuchadnezzar, the tyrannic King of Babylon that stripped this man of liberty and freedom, and shut him up in a dungeon for this long period of time. Such despotism has prevailed in all egos and lands.

II. As AN OBJECT OF DELIVERING MERCY. We are told that as soon as Evil. Merodach came to the throne on the death of his father Nebuchadnezzar, mercy stirred his heart and relieved this poor victim of tyranny. Corrupt as this world is, the element of mercy is not entirely extinct. This mercy gave honor and liberty to the man who had been so long in confinement and disgrace. Let not the victims of tyrannyand they abound everywheredespair. Mercy will ere long sound the trump of jubilee over all the land. “The Spirit of the Lord,” said the great Redeemer of the race, “is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.”D.T.

HOMILIES BY J. ORR

2Ki 25:1-10

The fall and destruction of Jerusalem.

With this account of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar should be compared the narrative of its later destruction by Titus (A.D. 70). History does not always repeat itself; but in this instance it does so with marvelous fidelity. The close investment of the city, the desperate resistance, the horrors of famine within, the incidents of the capture, the burning of the temple, the demolition of the walls, and the captivity of the people, present striking parallels in the two cases. By one of those rare coincidences that sometimes occur, it was on the very same month and day of the month on which the temple was burned by Nebuchadnezzar, that the sanctuary was fired by the soldiers of Titus. The earlier destruction fulfilled the predictions of the prophets; the later the predictions of our Lord (Mat 24:1-51.).

I. THE LAST SIEGE.

1. Fatal dates. The days which mark the different stages of this terrible siege of Nebuchadnezzar are minutely recorded and carefully remembered. “The ninth year” of Zedekiah, “in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month,” Nebuchadnezzar came, he and his host, against Jerusalem (verse 1); in the eleventh year of Zedekiah “on the ninth day of the fourth month the-famine prevailed in the city” (verse 3), and a breach was affected; “in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar,” the temple and other buildings were burned by Nebuzar-adan (verse 8). We have the same careful dating in Jer 39:1, Jer 39:2; Jer 52:4, Jer 52:12 (in the latter passage “tenth” for “seventh” as above). These were dates which burned themselves into the very memories of the wretched people crowded in the city, and could never be forgotten. Indirectly they testify to the intensity of misery which was endured, which made them so well remembered. They were observed afterwards as regular days of fasting (Zec 7:3, Zec 7:5; Zec 8:19).

2. The enemy without. Nebuchadnezzar’s army came up against the city, and closely invested it, building forts against it round about. Eze 21:1-32. is a vivid prophecy of what was about to happen. The prophet announces the impending capture of the holy city. A sword was furbished which would work terrible destruction. Ezekiel is directed to mark off two ways along which this sword was to travelthe one leading to Jerusalem, and the other to Rabbath of Ammon. The scene changes, and we see the King of Babylon standing at the head of the ways, deliberating, which one he shall choose. He shakes the arrows, consults images, looks for omens m the liver of dead beasts. The decision given is for advancing first against Jerusalem. Now he is at its gates, and has appointed captains “to open the mouth in the slaughter, to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering-rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort” (Eze 21:21, Eze 21:22).

3. The famine within. For a year and five months the weary siege dragged itself on, the people within well knowing that, when once it was captured, they could expect no mercy. The writings of Jeremiah give us a vivid picture of the city during this period. From the first the prophet held out no hope. When Zedekiah, at the beginning of the siege entreated him, “Inquire, I pray thee, of the Lord for us,” Jeremiah plainly told him that the city was delivered to the Chaldeans, and that Nebuchadnezzar would not spare them, “neither have pity, nor have mercy” (Jer 21:1-7). Life was promised, however, to those who should surrender themselves to the enemy (verses 8-10). This strain was kept up throughout, in spite of imprisonment, threats, and the contrary testimony of false prophets (cf. Jer 32:1-5; Jer 34:1-7; Jer 37:6-21; Jer 38:1-28; etc.). At one point an Egyptian army came forth to arrest the Chaldeans, and great hopes were raised, but Jeremiah bade the people not deceive themselves, for the Chaldeans would prevail, as indeed they did, in spite of a temporary raising of the siege (Jer 37:5-11). By-and-by, as in the previous long siege of Samaria by the Syrians (2Ki 6:24-33), the misery of the people became extreme. The bread was “spent” in the city (Jer 37:21). The Book of Lamentations gives vivid glimpses of the horrorsthe young children fainting for hunger at the top of every street (Lam 2:11, Lam 2:19); crying to their mothers. Where is corn and wine? (Lam 2:12); and asking bread, and no mall breaking it to them (Lam 4:4); the delicately nurtured lying on dunghills (Lam 4:5); women eating their own offspring (Lam 2:20), etc.

II. THE FATE OF ZEDEKIAH. AS the vigor of the defense slackened, the besiegers redoubled their energies, till, on the ninth day of the fourth month, a breach was made in the walls, and Nebuchadnezzar’s princes penetrated as far as the middle gate (Jer 29:1-3). The stages that follow are, as respects Zedekiah, those of:

1. Flight. The besiegers had entered by the north side of the city, and the king, with his men of war, feeling that all was lost, made their escape by night through a gate of the city on the south” the gate between the two walls, which is by the king’s garden”and, evading the Chaldeans in the darkness, fled towards the Jordan. By a symbolic action Ezekiel had foretold this flight, and the actual manner of the escape, down to its minutest detailsa singular instance of the unerring prescience of these inspired prophets (Eze 12:1-16). What the king’s thoughts were as he fled that night with beating heart and covered face, who can tell? Jeremiah had been vindicated, and the prophets who had buoyed the people up with so many false hopes were now shown to be miserable deceivers.

2. Capture. The flight of the king was soon discovered, and a contingent of Chaldeans was dispatched in pursuit. It was not long ere they overtook the fleeing monarch, no doubt faint with hunger, unnerved by fear, and exhausted with the miles he had already traversed, unable therefore to make any defense. If his followers made any stand, they were speedily scattered, and the king was taken on the plains of Jericho. His hopes, his plans, his intrigues with Egypt, all had come to nothing. He stood there, a prisoner of the Chaldeans, as Jeremiah declared he would be. It is God’s Word that always comes true. Would that Zedekiah had believed it in time!

3. Punishment. The fate which awaited Zedekiah was not long deferred. With his sons, and the nobles who were with him (Jer 39:6; Jer 52:10), he was taken to Riblah, to have judgment passed on him by Nebuchadnezzar. Little mercy had he to look for from the haughty, infuriate king, who had given him his throne, and whose covenant he had broken, entailing on him the trouble and delay of a sixteen months’ siege. Tortures, perhaps, and death in protracted agonies. The wonder is that Zedekiah escaped as mercifully as he did. But his punishment was, nevertheless, heart-breaking in its severity.

(1) He saw his own sons slain before his eyes. It was the last spectacle he ever beheld; for

(2) his own eyes were next put out. Then

(3) he was bound with fetters of brass, and carried to Babylon, where he remained a prisoner all the rest of his life (Jer 52:11; cf. Jer 34:5-8). The nobles of Judah were at the same time slain (Jer 39:6; Jer 52:10). Life thus ended for Zedekiah when he was yet a young man of little over thirty years of age. His sons must have been mere boys, and their pitiable death would be a pang in his heart greater even than the pain of the iron which pierced his eyes. The joy of life was lost to him, like the darkness which had now fallen forever on the outer world. The dreary living death of the prison was all that was left to him. Miserable man, how bitterly he had to expiate his sin, and mourn over past errors and self-willed courses! Will it be otherwise with those who stand at the last before the judgment-seat of God, if their lives are spent in disobedience? If it was hard to face Nebuchadnezzar when he was “full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed” (Dan 3:19), how shall men endure “the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev 6:16)?

III. JERUSALEM DESTROYED. A month elapsed before the destruction of the now captured city was carried out. It was probably during this interval that Jeremiah composed his passionate and pathetic Lamentations. When at length the work was taken in hand by Nebuzar-adan, an officer deputed for the purpose, it was done with characteristic thoroughness, amidst the glee of Judah’s hereditary enemies, whose shouts, “Raze it, ruse it, even to the foundations thereof!” (Psa 137:7), stimulated the work of demolition. We see:

1. The temple burned. “He burnt the house of the Lord,” etc. Thus came to an end the great and beautiful house of God, built by Solomon, consecrated by so many ceremonies and prayers (1Ki 8:1-66.), and whose courts had so often resounded with the psalms and shouts of the multitude that kept holy day (Psa 42:5). But idolatry and hypocrisy had made “the house of prayer” into “a den of robbers” (Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11; Mat 21:13), and God’s glory had been seen by the prophet on the banks of the Chebar departing from it (Eze 11:22, Eze 11:23). The temple had been the special boast of the godless people. They had trusted in lying words, saying, “The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these” (Jer 7:4). This was to make the temple a fetish, and, as Hezekiah had broken the brazen serpent in pieces when it began to be worshipped (2Ki 18:4), it had become necessary to destroy the temple also.

2. The buildings burned. “The king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man’s house burnt he with fire.” When the central glory of the city had perished, secular palaces and houses could not expect to escape. They also were set on fire, and the ruddy blaze, spreading from street to street, would consume most of the humbler houses as well. How faithfully had all this been foretold, yet none would believe it! Literally had Jerusalem now become heaps (Mic 3:12).

3. The walls broken down. “All the army of the Chaldeans brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about.” This completed the catastrophe, made the holy city a heap of ruins, and rendered it impossible for inhabitants any longer to dwell in it. Gedaliah made his headquarters at Mizpah (verse 23). The center of Judah’s nationality was destroyed. Jerusalem had been emptied, “as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down” (2Ki 21:13). One stands appalled at so complete a wreck of a city which God had once honored by making it the place of his abode, and for which he had done such great things in the past. But the lesson we are to learn from it is that nothing can reverse the action of moral laws. God is terrible in his justice. Though a person or place is as “the signet upon his right hand,” yet will he pluck it thence, if it abandons itself to wickedness (Jer 22:24, Jer 22:28).J.O.

2Ki 25:11-21

The final deportation.

An end having been made of the city, the next step was to complete the conquest by deporting to Babylon the remnant of the population, and carrying away the spoil. To this task Nebuzar-adan now addressed himself.

I. THE PEOPLE CARRIED AWAY.

1. The gleanings taken. Ten or eleven thousand persons had been carried away in the earlier captivity (2Ki 24:14), including amongst them the best part of the population (cf. Jer 24:3-10). The remnant had since been thinned by famine, pestilence, and war (Jer 21:7; Jer 24:10). On the most probable view of Jer 52:28 (“seventeenth” for “seventh”), a further large deportation of captivesover three thousandtook place a year before the conclusion of the siege. Now there were only the gleanings to take away, and these amounted to but eight hundred and thirty-two persons (Jer 52:29). They were but a small handful compared with those who had perished, but they would comprise all the people of any position and influence. They consisted of those who were in the city, of those who had previously deserted to the Chaldeans, and of the pickings of the multitude outside. The mourning and lamentation occasioned by these captivities is poetically represented by Jeremiah in the well-known description of Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted, as she sees the long trains defile away (Jer 31:15).

2. The poor left. As before, it was only the poorest of the land, those “which had nothing” (Jer 39:10) who were left behind, to till the fields and care for the vineyards. With the exception of these, the country was depopulated. The best even of this poorer class had been removed in the last sifting of the population, so that the residue must have been poor indeed. They formed but a scant remnant; but even they, as we shall see, were unable to hold together, and were soon to be expatriated, leaving the land utterly desolate.

II. THE BRAZES VESSELS CARRIED AWAY. The temple plunder. The more valuable of the temple vessels had been carried away in the first captivity (2Ki 24:13), but there remained a large number of articles and utensils of brass, together with some of the precious metals (verse 15), either formerly overlooked or subsequently replaced. All these had been gathered out before the temple was burnt, and were now carried away as spoil. They consisted

(1) of the two brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz, which stood in the porch of the temple, and by their symbolical names, “He shall establish,” “In it is strength,” witnessed to the fact that God’s dwelling-place was now established in the midst of his people, and that its stability was secured by his presence.

(2) The bases, with their layers, for washing the sacrifices; and the molten sea for the use of the priests.

(3) The common utensils connected with the service of the altar and sanctuarypets, shovels, etc. These brazen pillars, vessels, and utensils were the work of Hiram of Tyro, and were wrought with the utmost artistic skill (1Ki 7:13-51). The pillars were masterpieces of strength and ornamental beauty; the sea and bases were also exquisitely carved and adorned with figures of cherubim, palms, and flowers. They were the pride and glory of the temple, and as mere works of art stood in the highest place.

2. Treatment of the vessels. The more grievous, for the above reasons, was the treatment to which these beautiful objects were now subjected. Not only were they torn from their places and uses in the temple, but they were ruthlessly broken to pieces, that they might be the more easily carried away. Hiram’s masterpieces had sunk to the level of common brass, and were treated only as such. The lesser vessels were, of course, taken away whole. What could more significantly tell of the departure of God from his house, the rejection of its worship, and the reversal of the promises of stability, etc; he had given in connection with it, than this ignominious treatment of its sacred vessels. They had, indeed, when his presence was withdrawn, become mere “pieces of brass,” as did the brazen serpent of Moses, when men turned it into an occasion for sin (2Ki 18:4). Their house was left unto them desolate (Mat 23:38).

III. THE SLAUGHTER OF THE CHIEF MEN. A final act of vengeance was yet to be perpetrated. Singling out a number of the chief men, Nebuzar-adan brought them to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, and there “the King of Babylon smote them, and slew them.” The victims were contributed by:

1. The temple. “Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and three keepers of the door.”

2. The army and court. “An officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the king’s presence and the principal scribe of the host.”

3. The citizens. “Three score men of the people of the land that were found in the city.” All classes were thus represented, and bore their share, in the expiation of the common guilt. The slaughter was no doubt partly intended to inspire terror in those who were left.J.O.

2Ki 25:22-26

Gedaliah and the remnant.

Nothing could more effectually show the hopeless condition of the people, and their unfitness for self-government, than this brief narrative of events which followed the destruction of Jerusalem. The detailed history is given in Jeremiah 40-43.

I. GEDALIAH MADE GOVERNOR. It was necessary to appoint a governor over the land, and for this purpose Nebuchadnezzar chose “Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan.” The country was desolate, and had been robbed of its chief elements of strength; but, had the people chosen to hold together, they might still have subsisted with a reasonable degree of comfort, and gradually again built up a prosperous community.

1. They had a good governor. Gedaliah was one of themselves, a man of an honorable and godly stock, a sincere patriot, and of a kindly and generous nature. Under his rule they had nothing to fear, and were assured of every help and encouragement.

2. They had a good company.’ In numbers the population was probably still not inconsiderable, and it was soon reinforced by many Jews, “who returned out of all places whither they were driven, and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah, unto Mizpah” (Jer 40:12). They mine from Moab; from Ammon, from Edom, and “all the countries,” attracted by the prospect of the fields and vineyards which were to be had for the asking (Jer 39:10; Jer 40:11). A number of captains with their men also, who had been hiding in the fields, came to Gedaliah, and took possession of the cities (cf. Jer 40:10). Their names are givenIshmael, Johanan, Seraiah, Jaazaniah, etc. There were here the elements of a community, which, with proper cohesion, might soon have come to something.

3. They had good promises. To those who came to him, Gedaliah gave ready welcome and reassuring promises. He swore to the captains that they need fear no harm. Let them dwell in the land, and serve the King of Babylon, and it would be well with them. Let them gather wine, and summer fruits, and oil, and dwell in the cities they had occupied (Jer 40:10). It may, indeed, be affirmed that the Bulk of the people now left in the land were better off materially than they had been for some time. Formerly they were poor and starving, ground down by oppression, and many of them bondmen; now they had liberty, land, the choice of fields and vineyards, and the advantage of keeping to themselves the fruits of their labor.

II. GEDALIAH‘S MURDER, AND THE FLIGHT UNTO EGYPT. What the people might have come to under Gedaliah’s benevolent rule, time was not given to show. It soon became fatally evident that the people were incapable of making the best of their situation, and of working heartily and loyally together for the general good. Among the leaders there was a want of faith, of patriotism, of principle; among the people the sense of nationality was utterly broken. This hopeless want of cohesion and absence of higher sentiment was shown:

1. In the murder of Gedaliah. Turbulent spirits were among the captains, who had no concern but for their own advantage, and were utterly unscrupulous as to the means they took to gain it. Intrigue, treachery, and violence were more congenial to them than the restraints of settled government. One of these captains, Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, was of the seed royal, and naturally resented the elevation of a commoner like Gedaliah to the position of governor. Instigated by Baalis King of the Ammonites, he formed a plot for Gedaliah’s assassination, and with the help of ten men he secretly carried it out, slaying not only the unsuspicious governor, but all the Jews and Chaldeans and men of war that were with him at Mizpah (cf. Jer 40:13-16; Jer 41:1-3). Ishmael gained nothing by his treachery, for he was immediately afterwards pursued, and his captives taken from him (Jer 41:11-18). What a picture of the wickedness of the human heart is given in his dastardly deed, and in the manner of its accomplishment! Ishmael’s moving principle was envy, the source of, so much crime. To gratify a base grudge against one whom he regarded as his rival, he was willing to become the tool of an enemy of his people, to break sacred pledges, to repay kindness with murder, and to plunge the affairs of a community that needed nothing so much as peace into irretrievable confusion. “From whence come wars and fightings among you? etc. (Jas 4:1, Jas 4:2).

2. The flight into Egypt. The narrative here only tells that, for fear of the vengeance of the Chaldeans, “all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt.” From Jeremiah, however, we learn, that first the leaders consulted the prophet as to what they should do, promising faithfully to abide by his directions; that he counseled them from the Lord to abide where they were, and not go down to Egypt; and that then they turned against him”all the proud men”and said, “Thou speakest falsely: the Lord our God hath not sent thee to say, Go not into Egypt to sojourn there” (Jer 42:1-22.; Jer 43:1-7). They then took their own way, and compelled Jeremiah and all the people to go with them. Here the same unchastened, wayward, stubborn spirit reveals itself which had been- the cause of all their troubles. Had they obeyed Jeremiah, they were assured that it would be well with them; while, if they went down to Egypt, it was foretold that the sword and famine, which they feared, would overtake them (Jer 42:16), as from the recently disinterred ruins at Tahpanhes we know it actually did. But through this self-willed action of their own, God’s Word was fulfilled, and the land of Judah swept clean of its remaining inhabitantsJ.O.

2Ki 25:27-30

Jehoiachin’s restoration.

We have here

I. A LONG CAPTIVITY. “In the thirty-seventh year of the reign of Jehoiachin King of Judah.”

1. Weary years. Thirty-seven years was a long time to spend in prison. The king was but eighteen years of age when he was taken away, so that now he would be fifty-five. Existence must have seemed hopeless, yet he went on enduring. He was suffering even more for his fathers’ sins, and for the nation’s sins, than for his own. Life is sweet, and hard to part with, and the love of it is nowhere more strongly seen than when men go on clinging to it under conditions which might, if anything could, suggest the question, “Is life worth living?’ Jehoiachin must have had a stout heart to endure so long.

2. A change of rulers. Nebuchadnezzar at length died, and his son Evil-Meredach ascended the throne. Possibly this prince may have formed a friendship with Jehoiachin in prison, and this may have contributed to sustain the captive king’s hopes. A change of government usually brings many other changes in its train.

II. A GLIMPSE OF SUNSHINE AT THE CLOSE.

1. At the close of Jehoiachin‘s life. The new ruler treated Jehoiachin as a human being, a friend, and a king.

(1) He took him out of prison, charting the policy of harshness for one of kindness.

(2) He set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon. It was a shadowy honor; but is any earthly throne more than a shadow? Evil-Merodach himself kept his for only two years, and was then murdered.

(3) He gave him suitable provision. The ignominy of prison garments was changed for honorable clothing; the scarcity and hard fare of the dungeon was altered for the royal bounty of the king’s own table. Jehoiachin, in short, had now everything but freedom. But how much does that mean? He was still an exile. All he enjoyed was but an alleviation of captivity.

2. At the close of the book. It is not without purpose that the Book of Kings closes with this glimpse of brightness. The story it has had to tell has been a sad onea story of disappointment, failure, rejection, exile. But there is unshaken faith, even amidst the gloom, that God’s counsel will stand, and that he hath not cast off his people whom he foreknew (Rom 11:2). Jeremiah had predicted the exile, but he had also predicted restoration after seventy years (Jer 25:11, Jer 25:12; Jer 29:10). That period had but half elapsed, but this kindness shown to Jehoiachin seemed prophetic of the end, and is inserted to sustain faith and hope in the minds of the exiles. The history of the world, like the history in this book, will close in peace and brightness under Christ’s reign.J.O.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

THIRD SECTION
The Monarchy From The Reign Of Jehoahaz To That Of Zedekiah

(2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:30)

A.The Reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah

2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:7

31Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 32And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that his fathers had done. 33And Pharaohnechoh put him in bands [took him captive] at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign1 in Jerusalem; and put the land to [laid upon the land] a tribute of a hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. 34And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there: 35And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every [each] one according to his taxation [assessment], to give it unto Pharaohnechoh.

36Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. 37And he did that which was evil in the sight of 2Ki 24:1 the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. 2And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy [devastate] it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by 3his servants the prophets. Surely [Only] at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to [in]2 all that he did; 4And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon. 5Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they 6not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. 7And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.

8Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that his father had done. 10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came3 up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his 13[the king of Babylons] reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the kings house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. 14And he carried away [captive] all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 15And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the kings mother, and the kings wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. 17And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his fathers brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.

18Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 19And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that Jehoiakim had done. 20For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence [.] that [omit that; insert And] Zedekiah rebelled 2Ki 25:1 against the king of Babylon. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched 2against it; and they built forts [siege-works] against it round about. And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. 3And on the ninth day of the fourth [omit fourth]4 month the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. 4And the city was broken up [a breach was made in the city], and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the kings garden (now the Chaldees were against the city round about [had invested the city]:) and the king5 went the way toward the plain. 5And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him. 6So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him. 7And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and [he] put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and [they] bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Ki 23:31. Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old. This son of Josiah is called by Jeremiah (22:11) Shallum (), which name, according to Hengstenberg, Keil, and Schlier, is significant, and means: He who shall be recompensed, referring to his fate (2Ki 23:33-34). But why should this king be expressly so named when others, as, for instance, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, met with a similar fate (chaps. 24:15; 25:7)? According to Junius, Hitzig, and Thenius, Jeremiah gave him the name Shallum, with reference to his reign of three months (2Ki 15:13), in the same manner as Jezebel named Jehu Zimri, murdered of his master (2Ki 9:31). But this also is forced and invented. In 1Ch 3:15, in the enumeration of the sons of Josiah, he is called Shallum instead of Jehoahaz, but we may be certain that the chronicler did not put in a symbolical name, which the prophet only once used with particular significance and emphasis, by the side of three other actual names, and in a dry genealogical list. Shallum was the name which this king actually bore before his accession to the throne. When he became king he received another name, just as Eliakim and Mattaniah did (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17). Shallum took the name Jehoahaz, i.e., He-whom-Jehovah-sustains. The people made him king in place of his elder brother, and Shallum seemed a name of evil omen, inasmuch as the former king Shallum [of Israel] only reigned for one month. According to Josephus, Jehoahaz reigned three months and ten days.

2Ki 23:33. And Pharaoh-necho took him captive at Riblah in the land of Hamath. is generally translated: he bound him, or put him in bands, but has also the primary meaning, to make captive, without the notion of fettering, Gen 42:16 (Gesenius), and, taking into consideration 2Ki 17:4, this more general signification is here to be preferred.The city of Riblah (now the village Ribleh) belonged to the district of the Syrian city Hamath at the foot of Mt. Hermon (Antilebanon), on the river Orontes, that is, therefore, on the northernmost boundary of Palestine towards Damascus (1Ki 8:65; 2Ki 14:25; Amo 6:14). Riblah lay in a large and fruitful plain on the high-way which led, by way of the Euphrates, from Palestine to Babylon. At a later time Nebuchadnezzar also established his headquarters there (2Ki 25:6; 2Ki 25:20-21. See Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 323). It can hardly be the same Riblah which is mentioned in Num 34:11 (see Keil on that passage). If Necho had already advanced, since the battle of Megiddo in which Josiah fell (2Ki 23:29), on his way to the Euphrates, as far as Riblah, it cannot be that, during the three months that Jehoahaz reigned, he had also made a detour to Jerusalem and besieged and taken that city. Shalmaneser spent three years in besieging and taking Samaria, which was not so strongly fortified (2Ki 17:5). Moreover, Necho did not probably quit the main army without great necessity while it was advancing against a powerful enemy (Winer). The text says distinctly that he took Jehoahaz prisoner in Riblah and not in Jerusalem, and it gives no support to Keils statement, that, while the main army advanced slowly towards Riblah, he sent a detachment to Jerusalem to take that city and dethrone the king. In that case he must have captured the king in Jerusalem and not in Riblah. The attempt has been made to sustain this notion that Necho took Jerusalem by a statement of Herodotus (II. 159): (at Megiddo) . But it is now universally admitted that cannot mean Jerusalem, but rather that it was some sea-port (cf. Herod. III. 5), although this does not necessarily imply that it was Gaza, as Hitzig and Starke affirm. [It is Kadesh, a city of Syria, on the Orontes, near to Emessa, the ruins of which have lately been discovered.Lenormant.] We are not told how Jehoahaz came to Riblah, but it certainly was not, as the old expositors supposed, with a large army in the intention of repeating his fathers attempt to arrest Nechos advance, for the army of Judah had perished in the battle of Megiddo. According to Josephus, who says nothing of any capture of Jerusalem by Necho, the latter summoned Jehoahaz to come to his camp ( ), and took him captive when he came. This is more probable than that he came of his own accord, perhaps to seek from the victor the ratification of his election to the throne (Thenius). However that may be, he was unexpectedly made a captive at Riblah. We may infer, as Ewald does, from Eze 19:4, where he is likened to a young lion whom the nations had taken in their pit (certainly not, therefore, at Jerusalem), that he was treacherously bound and carried away captive to Egypt. [See the Supplem. Note below, at the end of this section.]The words are translated by Keil: When he had become king in Jerusalem. That, however, had been said just before in 2Ki 23:31, and is understood from the connection as a matter of course, so that it would be a mere idle remark. Neither can the translation: Because he had exalted himself to be king in Jerusalem (Dereser), or, dum regnaret (Vatablus) be sustained. We must, therefore, adopt the keri , as is done by the Chaldee version, the Sept. ( ), and the Vulg. (ne regnaret in Jerusalem). This is further confirmed by the parallel passage (2Ch 36:3) in which the verse is abbreviated: And the king of Egypt put him down () [i.e., removed him, set him aside] at Jerusalem. (The Sept. have in that place which represents the Hebrew of Kings, and they have here which represents the Hebrew of Chronicles.) In 3 Esra 1:3 also we find: . It is not necessary to suppose, with Ewald, that was dropped out from 2Ch 36:3; still less, with Thenius, to read in this place, instead of .And laid upon the land a tribute. The relative amount of the silver and the gold is remarkable, one hundred talents of silver to one of gold, but, as the same figures are given in 2Ch 36:3 and in 3 Esra 1:36, we are not justified in changing them, as Thenius does, appealing to 2Ki 18:14, and adopting the statement of the Sept. that there were ten talents of gold instead of one. It may be that Necho wanted silver, which was rarer in the Orient, or that he did not wish to alienate the country too much from himself by pitiless severity. The entire tribute amounted, according to Thenius, to 230,000 thaler [$165,600]; according to Keil the gold amounted to 25,000 thaler [$18,000], and the silver to 250,000 thaler [$180,000].

2Ki 23:34. And Pharaoh-necho made Eliakim, son of Josiah, king, &c. After the victory at Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho regarded himself as master of the country, and therefore he would not recognize as king Jehoahaz, who had been elevated to the throne by the people without his (Nechos) consent. Possibly also, as has often been assumed, either the elder brother Eliakim, who had been passed over, had appealed to Necho, or the Egyptian party had, by its intrigues, induced Necho, after setting aside Jehoahaz, to appoint the elder brother, and not a foreigner, for instance one of his own generals. He changed his name, as was the customary sign of subjection and vassalage (2Ki 24:17; Dan 1:7). It appears that the choice of a name was left to Eliakim, who only changed to in the composition of his former name so that its signification: God (Jehovah) will-establish, remained the same. Whether he did this in intentional contradiction to the humiliation of the royal dynasty of David, which Jeremiah and the other prophets had threatened (Keil), is very doubtful. Menzel very mistakenly infers that the name Jehoiakim pleased Necho better on account of the connection with the Egyptian moon-God.And took Jehoahaz away, does not mean here: He had taken prisoner, any more than it does in 2Ki 23:30. This much has already been stated in 2Ki 23:33. It only means that he did not leave him in Riblah where he had taken him captive, but took him away from there (Gen 2:15). The Sept. and the Vulg. read, instead of ,; et duxit, and in Chronicles we find , but implies that Jehoahaz came to Egypt before Necho returned thither.In 2Ki 23:35 the details in regard to the payment of the tribute imposed by Necho are given before the history of the reign of Jehoiakim is entered upon, because the payment of that tribute was one of the conditions on which he was elevated to the throne (Keil). = nevertheless, but in order to obtain the sum; he did not pay it out of his own means. He demanded contributions from each one, even from the humblest inhabitant (Ewald). This place shows that by the people of the land we have not to understand, as Thenius does, the national militia, or the male population fit for war.

2Ki 23:36. Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old. He was therefore two years older than Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:31), and must have been begotten by Josiah in the fourteenth year of the latters age. His mother was not the same person as the mother of Jehoahaz. Rumah, her native place, is probably identical with Arumah in the neighborhood of Shechem (Jdg 9:41).

2Ki 24:1. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up. On the name (Jeremiah generally, and Ezekiel always, writes it ), its different forms, and its significance, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, II. p. 840, and Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr. s. 41. [The name is Nabu-kudurri-uzur, and means either Nebo-protects-the-youth (Oppert), or, Nebo-is-the-protector-of-landmarks (Sir H. Rawlinson)Rawlinson, Five Great Mon. III. 80.] He was the son of Nabopolassar, and he appears here for the first time in this history. The question as to the time in Jehoiakims reign at which he made this expedition can be answered from other data with tolerable certainty. According to Jer 25:1, the fourth year of Jehoiakims reign was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and according to Jer 46:2 this fourth year of Jehoiakim was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar inflicted a decisive defeat upon Necho near Carchemish, a large well-fortified city at the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates (Winer. R.-W.-B. I. s. 211 sq.). Moreover, according to Jer 36:1, Jeremiah commissioned Baruch, in this fourth year of Jehoiakim, to write down his discourses in a book which was read in public on a great fast day which was held in the ninth month, that is, towards the end of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 24:9). This fast-day was not ordained on account of a misfortune which had already been experienced. in order, by humiliation and submission, to turn aside the wrath of God, and to implore the divine pity (Keil), but evidently, because Jehoiakim was alarmed at the approach of the Chaldeans, and saw in it danger of a calamity to the country which might perhaps yet be averted (Ewald); for Jehoiakim, when he heard that the book had been read, commanded it to be brought, and then cast it into the fire, because there was written in it: The king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land (22 Kings 24:29, cf. also Jer 24:3). At the time of this fastday, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar had not yet come. His coming was something to be looked forward to even in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim. It follows that his expedition took place, at the very earliest, at the end of the fifth, or at the beginning of the sixth, year of Jehoiakims reign. How far southward he penetrated, whether as far as Egypt, as some suppose, is uncertain. The supposition that he at this time captured the strongly fortified city of Jerusalem (Keil), and even took captive a part of the inhabitants of the city or country, as he did at a later time under Jehoiachin, is not sustained by anything in the Book of Kings or in Jeremiah. It is inconceivable that he should have done so and yet no mention of it be found in Scripture. This much only is certain: that Jehoiakim then became subject to him for three years, that is, until the eigth or ninth year of his reign (Jer 24:1), which may well have come to pass without the capture of Jerusalem, or the deportation of its inhabitants, although we do not know the manner in which it did come about. We have, therefore, to present to our minds the course of events as follows: After Necho had defeated Josiah at Megiddo and taken Jehoahaz captive at Riblah, and had made Jehoiakim king, he pushed on northeasterly towards the Euphrates, but he was met and so severely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish that he was obliged to give up his plan of conquering Assyria and retreat to Egypt. The victor, Nebuchadnezzar, then advanced through the territory east of Jordan, where he had little opposition to encounter (Knobel, Prophet. II. s. 227), and made the king of Judah, who had for five years been a vassal of the king of Egypt, subject to himself. After three years, however, Jehoiakim revolted, but for the remaining two or three years of his reign he was hard pressed by bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites, who were probably incited to invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, for he was too much occupied in other directions, in consequence of the death of his father, to march against Judah in person. When he found opportunity he appeared in person with an army to punish the revolt, and he took vengeance for it upon the son [Jehoiachin] who had recently succeeded Jehoiakim (Thenius), especially because Jehoiachin had not at his accession, immediately submitted to the Babylonian authority.

Against this natural and simple conception of the course of events two biblical texts may be cited. 2Ch 36:6 reads: Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried [some] of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon. It is not here asserted that Jehoiakim was actually brought as a captive to Babylon, and this can, in fact, hardly have been the fact, for he was king in Jerusalem not eight or nine but eleven years (2Ki 23:36; 2Ch 36:5). It would be necessary, therefore, to assume that he was set at liberty again and came back to Jerusalem as king, of which we have no hint anywhere, and which is highly improbable. Certainly he did not die in Babylon (2Ki 24:6; cf. Jer 22:17-19). The Sept. filled out the meagre story of Jehoiakim in Chronicles from this account, but omitted entirely the words: And bound him in fetters, &c., evidently because they considered them incorrect. In view of the remarkable brevity and superficiality with which the chronicler treats the history of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, it appears, as Hitzig supposes (note on Dan 1:2), that he confused the two, for, according to our more detailed and more accurate account, the incidents which he mentions as having occurred to Jehoiakim really happened to Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:13-15). Josephus (Antiq. x. 6, 1) seems to have made the same mistake, for he confuses the history of the two kings. He says that Jehoiakim, on the promise that no harm should happen to him, admitted Nebuchadnezzar into the city, but that the Babylonian broke his word and put to death the king and the principal men threw the body of the king under the wall, and left it unburied, took about 3,000 Jews, among whom was Ezekiel, away captive to Babylon, and placed Jehoiakims son, Jehoiachin, on the throne. Then that, fearing lest Jehoiachin might, out of revenge for his fathers murder, lead the city to revolt, he sent an army to Jerusalem, but gave an oath to Jehoiachin that, in case the city should be taken, no harm should befall him. That then the king of Judah surrendered, in order to spare the city, but was nevertheless taken away into captivity with 10,000 other captives. It appears that Josephus was not able to harmonize the account in Chronicles with the account here, and so he mixed them both up together, not writing history but inventing it.

The other text which may be cited against the construction of the history above given is Dan 1:1 : In the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it ( [pressed it hard] see Isa 21:2; Jdg 9:31; Est 8:11), and the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God, &c. It is true that this passage does not say that the city was besieged and taken, and that then the king was bound and taken away to Babylon. When the Chaldeans had driven the Egyptians out of Palestine, Jehoiakim found himself in great distress, and, in order not to lose his crown and his kingdom, he surrendered to the king of Babylon, gave him some of the temple ornaments and utensils, and, probably enough, also gave him certain hostages, among whom was Daniel. But the statement that this took place in the third year of Jehoiakim does not agree with the statements above quoted from Jeremiah. No one has yet succeeded in removing the discrepancy, although very many attempts have been made (see a critical analysis of these attempts by Rsch in Herzogs Real-Encyc. XVIII. s. 464). The latest of these attempts, that of Keil, which insists that we must regard the third year of Jehoiakim, in Dan 1:1, as the terminus a quo of Nebuchadnezzars coming, i.e., must understand that statement to mean that Nebuchadnezzar began the expedition against Judah in that year; that Necho was defeated at Carchemish in the beginning of Jehoiakims fourth year, and that, in consequence of this victory, Jerusalem was taken and Jehoiakim was made tributary in the same year, is unsatisfactory especially in view of Jer 36:9. There is scarcely any escape remaining except to assume that Daniel reckoned from some other point of time which we cannot now specify. It is not admissible to give his one statement the preference over the numerous chronological statements of Jeremiah, since these are consistent with one another, and with the historical connection, and are, moreover, as will be shown below in the review of the chronology of this period, in perfect harmony with all the other chronological data both in Jeremiah and in the Book of Kings, while the statement in Daniel, if it is taken as fixed and correct, introduces confusion. [See the Supplement. Note below.]

2Ki 24:2. And the Lord sent against him bands, &c. It is not stated what impelled Jehoiakim after three years to try to throw off the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps his courage rose again when Nebuchadnezzar had withdrawn and was fully occupied in other parts of his immense kingdom. Perhaps also he hoped for aid from Egypt. Before Nebuchadnezzar himself could come, bands ( in distinction from , 2Ki 25:1, not an organized army) devasted the country, though they could not take the capital. All the nationalities here mentioned had no doubt been obliged to recognize Nebuchadnezzars supremacy, and they gratified their own hate against Judah at the same time that they served his purposes (Thenius). The in does not refer to Jehoiakim (Luther: dass sie ihn umbrchten [that they might put him to death]), but to Judah which immediately precedes. This is evident from 2Ki 24:3. On 2Ki 24:2-4 Starke observes: It is expressly said: The Lord sent, and again: According to the word of the Lord, and in 2Ki 24:3 again: Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this (i.e., it came to pass only because the Lord had commanded it), and again in 2Ki 24:4 : The Lord would not pardon, in order that in all this the hand of God might appear and be recognized, and that men might not think that these judgments came upon Judah by accident, or merely on account of the physical strength of the Babylonians. The author means to say that the judgments which had long been threatened and predicted by the prophets (Isaiah, Micah, Huldah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah) now began. The invasion of all these bands on every side was the presage of the downfall of the kingdom, for from this time on came one misfortune after the other, and the kingdom and nation moved on steadily towards their downfall.

2Ki 24:3. Only at the commandment of the Lord, i.e., it came only for the reason that God had so willed it. Instead of Ewald and Thenius desire to read as in 2Ki 24:20, i.e., because of the wrath of God. The Sept. have: ; the Vulg. has: per verbum. The change in the text is not necessary. For the sins of Manasseh, see notes on chap. 21. The sin of Manasseh was far greater and heavier than that of Jeroboam. Judah gave itself up to this sin so entirely that not only were all the warnings and exhortations of the prophets ineffectual, but also the stern measures of Josiah could not effect anything in opposition; on the contrary, as we see from the words of Jeremiah, after his death this sin once more permeated the national life. The sins of Manasseh were not, therefore, avenged upon the people, but, because they persisted in them, they fell under the judgments of God. [That is, the nation was not punished under Jehoiakim for sins which Manasseh and his contemporaries had committed. The sins of Manasseh had become a designation for a certain class of offences, and a particular form of public and social depravity, which was introduced by Manasseh, but of which generation after generation continued to be guilty.W. G. S.] Keil is mistaken when he thus states the connection between 2Ki 24:1 and 2Ki 24:2, and the following verses: After God had given the nation into subjection to the Babylonian supremacy, as a punishment for its sins, every revolt against that power was a revolt against Him.In 2Ki 24:5 we find the last reference to the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. The history of Jehoiakim therefore seems to have formed the conclusion to this book.

2Ki 24:6. So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers. The details which are given elsewhere in mentioning the death of a king, as to his burial and the place of his sepulture, are here wanting, certainly not through accident or error. Jeremiah says of Jehoiakim, Jer 22:19 : He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem, and, Jer 36:30 He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat and in the night to the frost. As the statement that he slept with his fathers means neither more nor less than that he came to death, this text does not exclude or deny the fulfilment of the prophecy; nor can the statement which is interpolated in the Sept.: , , for which there are no corresponding words in the Hebrew, avail, as Thenius believes, to prove the non-fulfilment of the prophecy. On the contrary, Ewald infers from the prophecy, which, however, he says was written, in its present form, after the event, that the following is the circumstantial story of Jehoiakims death: Probably he had complied with a treacherous invitation of the enemy to visit his camp, for the purpose of making a treaty, and as soon as he came out he was taken prisoner in the very sight of his own capital. But as he resisted with rage and violence, he was borne away by force, and shamefully put to death. Even an honorable burial, for which his family no doubt entreated, was harshly refused. This representation of the incident goes beyond the prophecy even, and builds history upon it. Winer supposes that Jehoiakims body was thrown out after, and in consequence of, the capture of the city in the reign of Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:10), on which occasion either the enemy, or perhaps the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves, showed their rage against the hated king, but, according to Jeremiah, he met with no burial at all. We therefore limit ourselves to the assumption, which is also made by Keil, that he perished in a battle with some one of the irregular marauding bands mentioned above, and was not buried.

2Ki 24:7. And the king of Egypt came not again any more, &c. This remark is here inserted in order to show under what circumstances Jehoiachin succeeded his father (2Ki 24:6), and how it came that he only reigned for so short a time (2Ki 24:8). Necho had retired finally from Asia after such losses that he could not venture again to meet his victorious enemy, therefore Judah could expect no more support from him. Much less could it attempt alone to resist the conqueror from whom it had revolted. The river of Egypt is not the Nile, but the stream now known as Arish, which forms the southern boundary of Palestine (1Ki 8:65; Isa 27:12).

2Ki 24:8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old, &c. The form of the name which occurs here and in Chronicles (II. 36:8, 9), is the full and original form. The signification is He-whom-Jehovah-confirms. In Eze 1:2 we find ; in Jer 27:20; Jer 28:4 : ; and in Jer 22:24; Jer 22:28 : , which last is probably a popular abbreviation of the name. Instead of eighteen years the chronicler gives eight years, evidently through an omission of = 10. The grounds adduced by Hitzig (note on Jer 22:28) in favor of eight are swept away by ver 15 of this chapter, where the kings wives are mentioned. There is no reason to cast suspicion upon the more accurate statement of the chronicler: three months and ten days, as Thenius does. Elnathan belonged to the at the court of Jehoiakim, Jer 26:22; Jer 36:12; Jer 36:25.

2Ki 24:10. At that time, &c. The chronicler says instead: When the year was expired [more correctly it would read: At the turning-point of the year, i.e., either the spring equinox, or the beginning of the Jewish year, both of which came at nearly the same time; the time at which military movements were commenced], i.e., in the spring, not late in the summer or in the autumn (Thenius). Nebuchadnezzar sent out his generals (), in the first place, with the army to besiege the city. Afterwards he came himself, in order to be present at the capture (see notes on 2Ki 24:2).And Jehoiachin, king of Judah, went out, &c., 2Ki 24:12. , as in 2Ki 18:31, is the ordinary expression for besieged who go out to surrender to the besiegers (1Sa 11:3; Jer 21:9; Jer 38:17). Jehoiachin perceived that the city would not be able to hold out very long, and therefore determined to surrender, in the hope of meeting with grace from Nebuchadnezzar, and of being allowed to keep his kingdom, though as a vassal. He therefore went out with his mother as the Gebirah (1Ki 15:13), and with his ministers and officers, but his hopes were all disappointed. Nebuchadnezzar distrusted him, not without reason, and he desired to punish the father in the son. , he seized him, not he received him graciously (Luther and the Calw. Bib.), for, if the latter were the meaning, he would have restored him as a vassal, but he dethroned him and took him into exile. The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, who became king in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25:1), fell in the year after the eleven-year reign of Jehoiakim had closed. On Jer 52:28 sq. see below.

2Ki 24:13. And he carried out thence, &c., that is, from the city which he had entered after seizing the king and his chief men. In the first place he took all there was in the treasuries of the temple and the royal palace, and then he took the utensils of the temple. The meaning of is not altogether clear. To tear off the gold surface (Keil) is a meaning which is not applicable to all the vessels, for many of these were entirely of gold, as, for instance, the candlesticks, and such, we may be sure, he did not leave behind. The Sept. have , the Vulg. concidit or confregit (2Ki 18:16), hence Thenius renders it: to crush into shapeless masses, but, if this had been done, Cyrus would not have been able to give these articles back again to the Jews, as it is stated in Eze 1:7-11 that he did do. We must understand it to mean, to tear away violently, avellit (Winer), for the most of these articles were no doubt fastened to the floor of the temple. does not mean the temple as a whole, but the sanctuary, the dwelling, all the articles in which were of gold. Nebuchadnezzar did not take away the brazen vessels from the forecourt until he destroyed Jerusalem (2Ki 25:13 sq.).As the Lord had said, 2Ki 20:17; cf. Jer 15:13; Jer 17:3.

2Ki 24:14. And he carried away captive all Jerusalem. He left only the poorest and humblest of the population, because nothing was to be feared from them (see Jer 39:10 : the poor of the people which had nothing). 2Ki 24:14 states in general, and in round numbers, what persons were taken into exile. There were two classes: first, the , the chiefs [E. V. princes], not the military chiefs, but the chief men of rank, the nobles, and the , i.e., the mighty men of wealth, the rich (2Ki 15:20); and second, , the artisans, the workers either in brass, or iron, or wood (Isa 44:12-13; Gen 4:22; 1Ki 7:14), and , i.e., not common laborers who broke stone and carried burdens (Hitzig on Jer 24:1), but, literally, one who shuts in, encloses, or locks up, from , to close, or shut up, and so, according to Ewald: persons who are skilled in siege operations (from , to invest or enclose, cf. Jer 13:19), but we prefer to understand by it locksmiths, inasmuch as these also made weapons (1Sa 13:19). When these persons were taken away into captivity the rest were deprived of the power to revolt or to make war. There were in all ten thousand of the exiles. 2Ki 24:15-16 are not a mere repetition of 2Ki 24:14; they particularize what 2Ki 24:14 stated in general. The king and his court are mentioned first, then the (keri, ), that is, the mighty men of the land, who are included in the in 2Ki 24:14, then the , who are there called . There were seven thousand of the rich and noble, and one thousand of the two classes of artisans. in 2Ki 24:16 (not ) gathers in one all who have been mentioned, and it is then specified in regard to them that they were all men in the prime of life, and that they were familiar with the use of weapons (Thenius). We see from Jeremiah 29. that there were also priests and prophets among them, and according to Josephus, (Antiq. x. 6, 3) especially . Cf. Eze 1:1-3. 2Ki 24:17. Mattaniah was, according to 1Ch 3:15, the third son of Josiah, so that he was the uncle of the exiled king Jehoiachin (Jer 37:1). , 2Ch 36:10, must not, therefore, be translated: his brother, but: his cousin, or, his relative, a sense in which it frequently occurs. (Sept. ). On the change of name see notes on 2Ki 23:34. Nebuchadnezzar did not choose the name, he only approved of the new name chosen by the king, as Necho had done in the case of Jehoiakim. , gift, is changed to , justice, righteousness, so that the name means: the righteousness of Jehovah, that is, he by whom Jehovah executes justice. It is hardly probable that the king meant by this name to identify himself with promised by Jeremiah (23:6), as Hengstenberg and Von Gerlach think; it is much more likely that the prophet took occasion from the kings name, with which his character did not at all correspond, to promise that one should come to whom alone this name might justly be applied.Nebuchadnezzar showed himself merciful in that he put another member of the native dynasty on the throne, and did not appoint a stranger and foreigner as viceroy.

2Ki 24:18. Zedekiah was twenty and one years old. Of the passage from this verse on to the end of the book, Jer 52:1-34 is a duplicate, almost word for word. The only differences are that Jerem. lacks 2Ki 25:22-26, and 2 Kings lacks Jer 52:28-30. It follows that neither one is borrowed from the other. Moreover there are also a few other slight differences, as, for instance, 2Ki 25:16-17 compared with Jer 52:20-23. It is certain that the fifty-second chapter of Jeremiah is an appendix to the discourses of that prophet, and that it does not come from his hand, for it is impossible that he should have survived the liberation of Jehoiachin (Jer 52:31). (See the Introd. 1.) Although it is not true that the text in Kings is thoroughly corrupt (Hitzig), yet that in Jerem. is, on the whole, to be preferred, and is therefore the more original. On the other hand, that of Kings has some peculiar excellences, as, for instance, 25:6, 7, 11, 17 compared with Jer 52:9-10; Jer 52:15; Jer 52:20. We are driven to a conclusion similar to that which we reached in regard to the history of Hezekiah (see p. 201), and which is adopted also by Keil and Thenius, that both narratives were borrowed from one source which is now lost.The mother of Zedekiah was also, according to 2Ki 23:31, the mother of Jehoahaz; he was, therefore, the full brother of the latter, and the step-brother of Jehoiakim (Jer 23:36). On 2Ki 24:20 see notes on 24:3. The author means to say that, as this king and the people persisted in their evil ways, the judgment which had long been threatened was executed in this reign. The special occasion of it was his revolt from Nebuchadnezzar who had put him upon the throne, and, according to 2Ch 36:13 and Eze 17:13, had taken an oath of fidelity from him. The year of this revolt cannot be accurately determined. At the commencement of his reign he sent an embassy to Babylon, as it seems, in order to bring about the release of the captives who had been carried away under Jehoiachin (Jer 29:3 sq.). In his fourth year he himself went thither with Seraiah, probably with the same intention, but in vain (Jer 51:59). Then came ambassadors from the neighboring peoples who wanted to unite with Zedekiah in a common effort to cast off the Babylonian yoke (Jer 27:3). False prophets encouraged him to agree to this (Jeremiah 28). This led him to send to Egypt that they might give him horses and much people (Eze 17:15). As the Chaldean army was before Jerusalem in Zedekiahs ninth year, the revolt must have taken place, at the latest, in his eighth year, but it probably took place in his seventh, or perhaps even earlier.

2Ki 25:1. And it came to pass in the ninth year, &c. These dates can be given thus accurately to the month and the day, because the Jews were accustomed during the exile to fast on the anniversary of these days of disaster (Zec 7:3; Zec 7:5; Zec 8:19). It is evident from 2Ki 25:6 that Nebuchadnezzar did not come to Jerusalem himself, but remained at Riblah (2Ki 23:33), and sent his army from thence against Jerusalem. According to Jer 34:7 they also besieged Lachish and Azekah, the only two strongholds remaining. The word cannot mean a wall (De Wette), for it stands in contrast with as something different (Eze 4:2; Eze 17:17; Eze 21:27). It is ordinarily derived from speculari, to observe, to watch, and is understood to mean a watch-tower, or, collectively, watch-towers (Hvernick on Eze 4:2; Gesenius, Keil), but , which does not refer to observation but to an encircling on all sides, does not fit this meaning. The Sept. translate it in Eze 4:2, by , a bulwark, a rampart, in Eze 17:17; Eze 21:27 by , a machine for throwing missiles, and this place they translate: ; the Vulg. has munitiones. Hitzig understands by it lines of circumvallation, and Thenius the outermost of the siege lines, built only of palisades, and intended to prevent the introduction of supplies, &c., but this last cannot be so accurately determined. We must, therefore, content ourselves with the less definite meaning, bulwark, or, siege-work. Vatablus: Machinam bellicam, qualisqualis fuerit.

2Ki 25:2. Unto the eleventh year, &c. The siege lasted in all one year five months and twenty-seven days, for the city was very strongly fortified (2Ch 32:5; 2Ch 33:14). This is conclusive against the assumption that a capture of the city is implied in 24:1 sq. According to Jer 37:5; Jer 37:11, the besieging army, or at least a part of it, raised the siege and marched against the Egyptian army which was coming to the help of the Jews. It would thus appear that the siege was interrupted for a time.Jeremiah gives the date in 2Ki 25:3 more accurately (see Jer 39:2; Jer 52:6): In the fourth month, on the ninth [day] of the month. The first words have been omitted by some accident in the version, in Kings, and they must be supplied. How severe the famine was, and what horrors came to pass as a consequence of it, may be seen from Lam 2:11-12; Lam 2:19; Lam 4:3-10 (Eze 5:10; Bar 2:3). See also Jer 37:21. The famine did not begin on the ninth of the fourth month, but had become so severe at that time that the people were no longer capable of making a strong resistance; so on that day the enemy was able to storm the city.

2Ki 25:4. And a breach was made in the city. This breach was on the north side, for, according to Jer 39:3, the leaders of the Chaldean army, when they came in, halted and seated themselves in the middle gate, that is, in the gate which was in the wall between the upper, southern city (Zion), and the lower northern city, and which led from one of these into the other. When the king learned of this he took to flight with his warriors by night. In the text before us not only is Zedekiah, king of Judah (Jer 39:4) omitted after , but also the predicate (Jer 39:4; Jer 52:7) is omitted after men of war. All the old versions supply at least one of these words. They fled towards the south, because the enemy had penetrated by the north side, and there was no hope of escaping that way, but even on this side they had to fight their way through, for the Chaldeans had invested the entire city (). The attempt derived its only hope of success from the darkness, and from the greater weakness of the besieging force on the south side.By the way of the gate between, &c. This gate, called the gate of the fountain (Neh 3:15), was at the southern end of the ravine between Ophel and Zion, the Tyropoion. At this point, inasmuch as it was the site of the pool of Siloam and there were cisterns to be protected, and inasmuch also as the formation of the ground made it a convenient place for the enemy to attack (Thenius), two walls had been built, between which was this gate (Sept.: , and in Jer 52:7 : . This double wall is also mentioned in Isa 22:11. The way of the gate is the way through that gate out of the city. It is not quite certain whether the kings garden was inside or outside of this double wall; Thenius assumes that it was outside (see Map of Jerusalem Before the Exile, appended to his commentary). It is said in Eze 12:12 : The prince shall bear upon his shoulder in the twilight, and shall go forth; they shall dig through the wall () to carry [him] out thereby. Here cannot be understood to refer to either of those walls, for he went through the gate; moreover it would have been impossible to break through such a wall in the night. We must therefore understand it of that wall which the enemy had built all around the city (2Ki 25:1), and which it was necessary to break through. The fugitives then took the way to the plain (), that is, to the plains or meadows through which the Jordan flows, and which were called the plain (Jos 11:2; Jos 12:3; 2Sa 2:29; 2Sa 4:7). Their intention was to cross the Jordan and escape, but they were overtaken near Jericho, six hours journey from Jerusalem.

2Ki 25:6. So they took the king, &c. On Riblah see notes on 2Ki 23:33. Nebuchadnezzar was not present at the storming of Jerusalem (Jer 39:3), he awaited the result in his camp (Thenius). Instead of the plurals and in 2Ki 25:7, we find in Jer 39:5; Jer 52:9 the singular with Nebuchadnezzar as the subject. Although the latter may be the more original reading, the sense is the same in either case, for Nebuchadnezzar certainly did not put Zedekiahs sons to death with his own hand; he appointed a tribunal which judged and executed them. Instead of the singular Jeremiah has, in the places quoted and elsewhere, the plural, . With it means, to deal with and decide a question of law. This trial cannot have occupied much time, for it was a matter of common notoriety that Zedekiah had broken his oath of allegiance and revolted. The sons of Zedekiah, not all his children, had fled with him. They also were regarded as rebels and put to death, in order to put an end to the dynasty. His daughters were taken away as captives according to Jerem. 41:20. As for Zedekiah himself, he was to suffer a painful punishment as long as he lived. His eyes were put out. This form of punishment was used by the Chaldeans and ancient Persians (Herod. 7:18). Princes are still disabled in this way in Persia when it is desired to deprive them of any prospect of the throne. A rod of silver (or of brass), heated glowing hot, is passed over the open eye (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 15). The Vulg. has oculos ejus effodit, and on Jer 52:11 : oculos eruit. It was also a customary mode of punishment in the Orient to pierce out the eyes (Ctes. Pers. 5). Plate No. 18 in Botta (Monum. de Nin.) represents a king who is in the act of piercing out with a lance the eyes of a captive of no ordinary rank who kneels before him (Thenius). See Cassel on Jdg 16:21. However the act of piercing out the eyes is not generally expressed by , but by , Jdg 16:21; 1Sa 11:2; Num 16:14.With fetters of brass, and double fetters at that, . He was doubly fettered hand and foot, and brought to Babylon. In Jer 52:11 the words follow: And put him in prison till the day of his death. The Sept. have: , evidently having in mind Jdg 16:21. The author of the Book of Kings may have thought that this statement was unnecessary, since every person who was in chains was put in the prison as a matter of course. According to Jer 39:6; Jer 52:10, All the nobles of Judah were put to death with the sons of Zedekiah, that is, those who had fled with him. There is no reason to regard this as a false feature of the story borrowed from 2Ki 25:21, as Thenius does.

[Supplementary Note on contemporaneous history. In the note on p. 247 we brought our notice of contemporaneous history down to the year 640, the year in which Josiah ascended the throne. The commotion of the next sixty years, during which Assyria ceased to be a nation, Egypt was humbled, and the Median and Babylonian empires advanced to the first place, amounted to an historical cataclysm. In the Bible we have references to these movements only when, and in so far as, they affected the fortunes of the Jewish people. This they did in the most important manner, and, in order to understand the influence of the neighboring nations on Judah at this time, it is necessary to have a comprehensive, if not exhaustive, knowledge of the historical movements which were in progress in Asia.

It should be distinctly understood that the history of the period now before us is very obscure. We have no historical inscriptions to guide us, and are thrown upon the authority of literary remains which are imperfect and inconsistent. Our chief authorities, Rawlinson and Lenormant (Sir H. Rawlinson and Oppert) differ very materially. It is therefore to be understood that what is here given is only conjectural and provisional.
The great question in dispute, on which the adjustment of the fragments of information which we possess into a smooth narrative depends, is as to the year in which Nineveh was taken, whether it was in 625 (Rawlinson), or in 606 (Lenormant). The weight of authority is in favor of the latter, though it is open to serious historical objections. It is, at present, impossible to bring this question to a final decision.
In 640 Asshur-edil-ilani (L.), or, Asshur-emidilin (R.) was on the throne of Assyria. His reign ended about 6265. Rawlinson, putting the fall of Nineveh at this date, identifies this king with the Saracus, or Assaracus, of Abydenus. Lenormant, putting the fall of Nineveh in 606, supposes that Saracus was another and the last king, who reigned from 625 to 606. The last king was far inferior to his ancestors. Under him the empire was unable to meet the attacks which fell upon it.

The Medes, whose first attack on Assyria, under Phraortes, we mentioned above (p. 247), were a hardy mountain people who now arose into prominence. Cyaxares, the successor of Phraortes, made elaborate preparations to renew the attempts at conquest towards the west. He was ready for the attack (Rawl.), or made it (Lenor.), either alone (R.) or in conjunction with the Chaldeans, under Nabopolassar (L.), either in 634 (R.) or in 625 (L.). This attack was interrupted by the appearance of new actors on the scene. A horde of barbarians from the north, Scythia, poured down upon the nations in the Euphrates valley. They were of the same origin as the Goths, Huns, Avari, and Vandals, who appeared in Europe early in the Christian era, and their behavior, whithersoever they came, was the same as that of the barbarians who entered Europe. They poured over Media, Assyria, and Babylonia, and spread westward into Syria and Palestine. On the borders of Egypt they found Psammetichus besieging Ashdod. He persuaded them by gifts to turn back, and thus checked their advance in this direction. Herodotus says that their sway lasted for nineteen years. It is difficult to tell what this means, for in some countries, Media for instance, the natives overcame them sooner than in others. They were not able to found any permanent authority in any country. They perished by luxury and vice, were slain, or employed as mercenaries. Jeremiah refers to them in Jer 6:22 sq.; Jer 8:16; Jer 9:10; Jer 5:15, and, in the 50th chap., where he foretells the destruction of Babylon, the Scythian invasion furnishes the colors of the picture in which he describes it. Rawlinson puts their invasion in 632; Lenormant in 625. Rawlinson supposes, that after the Scythian invasion had subsided, the Medes renewed the attack on Nineveh, and secured the alliance of Nabopolassar, in 625, when Nineveh was taken and destroyed.

In 610 Psammetichus died, and Necho succeeded on the throne of Egypt. Necho reigned from 610 to 595. He was young and ambitious, and he planned an expedition into Asia, no doubt, if Assyria had already fallen, with the intention of winning the western provinces for himself. He marched through Philistia and Samaria. Here Josiah of Judah marched out to meet him (2Ki 23:29). We do not need to seek far for a reason for Josiahs action. It may have been inspired, as is generally supposed, by a desire to manifest fidelity to his suzerain, Babylon (R.), but it is a more simple explanation to notice that, under the existing weakness of Assyria, Josiah had been able to exercise sovereignty over some portion of Samaria (2Ki 23:15 sq.). If the Babylonians were already the supreme power, they had not interfered with this. If Egypt conquered Samaria, it was at an end. Josiah, therefore, had a very natural and simple interest in opposing the Egyptian invasion. If Necho intended at this time to measure his strength with the Babylonians, he certainly desisted from that project. The words in 2Ch 35:21 throw no light on the party he intended to attack. There is ground here for believing that Nineveh had not yet fallen, and that the Babylonians had not yet displayed their power. Necho saw in the feebleness of Assyria an opportunity to conquer its western provinces, and the force which he had was probably only such an one as he considered necessary for this purpose. Josiah was not, therefore, as rash as we might at first suppose (cf. Ewald III. 7623d ed. He seems to think, however, that Necho may have taken Carchemish at this time, cf. ss. 7823). However, the Jewish king was killed in the battle, and his second son Jehoahaz was made king. Necho pursued his course of conquest with success for three months. On his return, he regarded Judah also, by virtue of his victory at Megiddo, as a conquered province, although he had declared at the outset that he had no hostile design against that country (2Ch 35:21). He refused to ratify the election of Jehoahaz, but took him (probably sent a detachment to bring him) from Jerusalem to the camp at Riblah (2Ki 23:33), where he put him in chains, and carried him captive to Egypt. He made Judah tributary. Jeremiah (22:10) calls Jehoahaz more worthy of pity in his captivity than his father in his death, and Ewald, with good reason, interprets the parable (Ezekiel 19, especially 2Ki 23:2-4) of Jehoiakim. Necho put the elder brother Eliakim on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:34). This was in 609 or 608. Necho at this time took Gaza (Jer 47:1), and remained sovereign over the western provinces for two or three years.

We come now to the year 606 in which Nineveh was taken according to Oppert, Lenormant, Ewald, and others. The historical features of this event, aside from the question of its date, are as follows. The king of Assyria sent to Babylon, as satrap, a general named Nabopolassar (Nebo-protects-my-son), probably an Assyrian. It is certain that, when the final attack was made, it was twofold, both from Media and from the south. Nabopolassar and Cyaxares formed an alliance which was cemented by the marriage of Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, with Amyitis, daughter of Cyaxares. Rawlinsons idea is that Nabopolassar was charged with the defence against the attack from the south, but turned traitor. This supposition is necessary since he does not think that the Chaldeans participated in the first attack. Lenormant supposes that Nabopolassar was sent to Babylon as satrap, that he matured plans of revolt, that he joined in the first attack, and that he employed the interval of nineteen years in establishing his independence. He also thinks that Nabopolassar was, in 607, an old and broken man, that he associated his son Nebuchadnezzar with himself on the throne in that year, and that, therefore, the capture of Nineveh is really to be reckoned among the exploits of that prince. He supposes that certain chronological discrepancies are to be accounted for by the fact that Nebuchadnezzar became joint ruler in 607, so that two starting-points for his reign were confused. (See 2Ki 25:8, and Jer 52:28-30.) The attack of the confederated Medes and Chaldeans was successful, and Saracus perished with his court and treasures in the downfall of the city.

Nebuchadnezzar now becomes the chief figure in the drama. He was a prince of extraordinary talents and energy, and he consolidated, if we may not say that he actually established, the Babylonian monarchy. Having destroyed Nineveh, his next task was to recover that portion of his new conquest which the Egyptians had held in possession for two or three years. In 605, the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 46:2), he met Necho, who came out to defend his possessions, at Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and totally defeated him. He pursued the Egyptians to the border of Egypt (2Ki 24:7), and no doubt intended to push on into that country, when news came to him (604) that his father was dead. He hastened to Babylon with a small escort through the nearer, but more dangerous, way of the desert. He met with no opposition in ascending the throne, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim of Judah (Jer 25:1).

In the haste of these movements, Judah had remained secure in its mountains. Nebuchadnezzars army marched to Egypt in two columns, one through Philistia and one through Perea (Lenormant). But Nebuchadnezzar soon returned to Palestine and Phnicia to complete the work of conquest. In 602 or 601 he made Jehoiakim tributary (2Ki 24:1) and took away certain hostages or captives. In 599 or 598 Jehoiakim planned a revolt (2Ki 24:1), relying on help from Egypt. Rawlinson thinks that the embassy mentioned in Jer 26:22 had for its object to form this alliance, and that the matter of Urijah was only a pretext. Nebuchadnezzar first incited the neighboring nations against him (2Ki 24:2), and then himself marched into Judah. Jehoiakim died at this time, and Jehoiachin, his son, succeeded (2Ki 24:8). He was not able to resist the Chaldeans, and surrendered at discretion (2Ki 24:12). He was taken away prisoner, with 10,000 other captives (2Ki 24:13-14), the most energetic and independent portion of the people. The city and temple were plundered, and Mattaniah, the youngest son of Josiah, was put upon the throne by Nebuchadnezzar, under the name of Zedekiah (24:17).

Lenormant justly says of Zedekiah that he was only a Babylonian satrap. A strong party urged him continually to revolt, but Jeremiah counselled patience and submission. In 595 the princes of the neighboring countries met at Jerusalem (Jer 27:3) to plan a concerted revolt, but Zedekiah was persuaded by Jeremiah to renounce this plan (Jeremiah 27.). He went to Babylon (in his fourth year, 594) to counteract suspicions of his fidelity which had been aroused (Jer 51:59). However, he again cherished similar plans, and entered into negotiations with Uaprahet (Uaphris, Apries. Hophra) of Egypt. The Chaldeans again invaded Judah in 590. The siege of Jerusalem began early in January, 589 (Lenorm.). During this siege the serfs were manumitted, that they might help in the defence (Jeremiah 34.). The Egyptians advanced to the relief of Jerusalem, the Chaldeans turned to meet the attack, and the hopes of the Jews revived so far that the freedmen were once more enslaved. This diversion, however, produced no effect. It is uncertain whether a battle was really fought and lost by the Egyptians (Josephus, Antiq. X. vii. 3), or whether they retreated without fighting at all. In 588 a breach was made and the Chaldeans entered the city (Jer 25:3-4). Zedekiah fled (Jer 25:4), hoping to break through the investing lines, but he was captured and taken to Riblah (Jer 25:6), where Nebuchadnezzar was encamped. His sons were slain before his eyes. He was then blinded and taken captive to Babylon. One month later (Jer 25:8; cf. Jer 25:3) Nebuzaradan was deputed to carry out the systematic destruction of Jerusalem, and deportation of the most influential of its population. This he did thoroughly, though not without some slight leniency (Jer 25:12-22). However, the fanaticism of Ishmael and his party destroyed the last hope of maintaining the Jewish nationality, even in the pitiful form in which the Chaldeans had yet spared it (Jer 25:25). The history of Judah, from this time on, is merged in that of the great world-monarchies.W. G. S.]

HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL

6 1. The author treats very curtly the history of the last four kings of Judah. In Chronicles we find a still more abbreviated account. He passes hastily over this part of the history of Judah, just as he did over the similar part of the history of Israel (see p. 162 sq.), for it is the twenty-three years of the death-agony of the nation (Ewald). Josiah was the last genuine theocratic king. With his death begins the end of the kingdom; the history of his four successors, three of whom were his sons and one his grandson, is nothing more than the story of this end. The author tells no more in regard to them than appears to him from his theocratic and pragmatic standpoint to be absolutely necessary. So he tells first what the attitude of each was towards Jehovah, that is, toward the covenant or the Mosaic law, and then so much of their history as pertains to the downfall of the kingdom, which was approaching step by step. We therefore learn rather what happened to them according to the counsel of God than what they themselves did. Essential additions to the history are contributed by Jeremiah, especially by the historical portions, but also by the prophetical discourses, though it is not always easy to determine which reign these latter belong to, nor what events they refer to. It is very remarkable that this great prophet, who certainly was an important personage during these last four reigns, and who is one of the most remarkable individuals mentioned in the Old Testament, is not mentioned or referred to at all in the historical book, perhaps for the reason that the acquaintance of the readers with the book of the prophet is taken for granted. [This is one reason for thinking that Jeremiah himself wrote the Books of Kings. See Introd. 1.W. G. S.]

2. The reign of king Jehoahaz, although it only lasted for three months, had important influence on the course of the history, inasmuch as it broke with Josiahs theocratic rgime, and introduced another policy which hastened on the downfall of the kingdom. All that Josiah had built up with such anxious care and labor fell in ruins in a few months. Although the Jehovah-worship was not formally abrogated again, yet the door was opened for all manner of heathen falsehood and corruption to re-enter, and no one of the following kings abandoned the new policy which was thus inaugurated. This is the heavy guilt which rests upon Jehoahaz. How he came to adopt this course we can only guess, since we have no explanation of it offered in the Scriptures. The notion of some of the old expositors, that he was seduced by his mother, is entirely without foundation, and is especially improbable as she came from the ancient priest-city Libnah, and so cannot certainly have been bred to idolatry. It is much more probable that the heathen-party, to which many persons of rank and influence belonged, but which had been repressed under Josiah, arose once more after his death, and sought to regain its power. He either brought them over to his side or sought to win them by concessions. It does indeed seem probable, from the course which Necho adopted towards him, that he continued to be hostile to Egypt (Ewald), but the text nowhere states that he resisted unworthy proposals of the Egyptian king. Niemeyer (Character der Bibel V. s. 105) says of him: When compared with his elder brothers and successors, he seems to have been superior to them in many respects. One passage in Jeremiah would almost lead us to the opinion that the people longed for his return from Egypt. Umbreit also remarks on Jer 22:11 sq.: He seems, during his reign of three months, to have made himself very much beloved. But it by no means follows, because the people passed over his elder brothers to make him king, that he was in any way better than they, for he certainly did not fulfil any hopes which may have been formed in regard to him, and Josephus (Antiq. X. v. 2), who certainly would not contradict the general verdict in regard to him which had been crystallized in tradition, calls him . As for the text, Jer 22:10-12, in which he is called Shallum, it certainly cannot mean that Shallum deserved to be lamented more than the model king, Josiah, who walked in the way of his father David, and turned neither to the right hand nor to the left, whereas Jehoahaz followed in the ways of Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon (2Ki 22:2; 2Ki 23:32). The prophet there threatens the house of David (2Ki 25:1) with destruction, because it has abandoned the covenant of Jehovah (2Ki 25:5-9). He says that one king has already been carried away captive out of his land,the land of promise,that he will die and be buried in a foreign land (a great calamity and disgrace, according to Israelitish notions), and that another will be cast out before the city like a dead animal and find no burial at all. There is, therefore, no syllable here of desire and longing on the part of the people for the return of Jehoahaz as one who was better than the rest. Why should the people long for the return of a king who had disappointed all their hopes and expectations?

3. Josephus says (Antiq. X. v. 2) of king Jehoiakim: , , . The correctness of this criticism appears especially from the passages in Jeremiah which serve as supplements to the history before us, Jer 22:13-19; Jer 26:20-24; Jer 36:20-32. The idol-worship which Jehoahaz had tolerated once more grew and spread with great rapidity under Jehoiakim. All the abominations which had existed under Manasseh reappeared. Ewald and Vaihinger infer from Eze 8:7-13 that he added to the Asiatic forms of idolatry which had existed under Manasseh, by introducing also the Egyptian cultus, but the reference in that passage is to the worship of Thammuz (Adonis), a well-known deity of Western Asia, the chief seat of whose worship was the ancient Phnician city of Byblus, and to whose cultus belong the representations of worms and unclean animals on the walls (2Ki 25:10.See Hvernick on Ezek. s. 98 and 108). Moreover, the question may be raised whether this cultus was introduced under Jehoiakim, or not until the reign of Zedekiah. However that may be, there is no hint of any Egyptian cultus under Jehoiakim, although he was a vassal of Egypt, and in fact there is no hint at all of any Egyptian forms of idolatry among the Hebrews. Jehoiakim was the tool of the heathen party; he not only did not listen to the prophets, he hated and persecuted them. He caused the prophet Urijah, who had fled from him to Egypt, to be brought back from thence, to be put to death, and then his corpse to be shamefully handled (Jer 26:20-24). Jeremiah barely escaped death (Jer 36:26). 2Ki 24:3-4 also shows that Jehoiakim shed much innocent blood. He had also a passion for building, and he caused expensive structures to be erected unjustly, and without paying wages to the laborers. [Jer 22:13 sq.] He exacted the tribute which Necho had imposed upon him from the people instead of using the royal treasures for this purpose. Even after the resources of the country were exhausted he continued his exactions so that the courageous prophet rebuked him: Thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence to do it (Jer 22:17). Therefore the prophet warns him that he will not be lamented nor buried, but that, in spite of all his royal grandeur and glory, he will be dragged forth and cast upon the field like a dead ass. No doubt he early showed what sort of a disposition he had, and it is not strange that the people, after Josiahs death, passed him over and made his brother king. He was a tyrant who was forced upon the nation by a victorious enemy, through whom it was punished for its apostasy. His reign formed a part of the divine judgment which had already begun to fall.

4. King Jehoiachin is placed before us by both the historical narratives (2Ki 24:9; 2Ch 36:9) as just like the three other kings as regards his attitude towards Jehovah. It is simply said of him without restriction: He did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, like to all that his father had done. The only thing further which is related in regard to him is that, when the Babylonian army appeared before Jerusalem to besiege it, he went out and surrendered himself, begging for mercy. Josephus (Antiq. X. vii. 1) regards this as a praiseworthy action. He says: ; that the king had a solemn promise from the generals whom Nebuchadnezzar had sent that no harm should happen to him or to the city, but that this promise was broken, for Nebuchadnezzar had given orders that all who were in the city should be taken captive and brought into his presence. Niemeyer also says (Charact. d. B. V. s. 107): Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, was undeniably a better king than his father. He does that which wisdom and humanity require under the circumstances. He desists from the active prosecution of a revolt which could only result in greater cruelty from the enemy, and greater exhaustion of the land, which was already thoroughly worn out. He must have been regarded, even in his captivity, as a man who deserved great respect (Jer 52:31). Similarly Ewald (Gesch. III. s. 734) says: This prince was obliged to yield, in religious matters, to the prevailing depravity, but he did not lack good features of character which served to excite good hopes of him. There was a greater feeling of happiness under him than under his father, and there was great lamentation when he was obliged, at an early age, to go into captivity. Probably the touching Psalms 42, 43, , 84 are from his hand. Vai-hinger also (Herzog, Real-Encyc. VI. s. 787) agrees with this general opinion: Although he had not reigned in the spirit of the Jehovah-religion, yet there continued to be among the people a longing for his return. The false prophets especially nourished this hope (Jer 28:4). These favorable opinions, however, are not at all well founded. From his sudden surrender of the city we may rather infer that he was weak and cowardly than anything else. [It should be noticed, however, that this is just what Jeremiah urged Zedekiah to do afterwards, viz., to yield to the Babylonians and sue for mercy (Jer 37:17 sq., cf. also Jer 37:2). Jehoiachin, by surrendering, seems to have saved the city from sack and pillage and burning, which was its fate after Zedekiahs resistance. We cannot condemn Jehoiachin for pusillanimity in surrendering at discretion, and Zedekiah for obstinacy in resisting to the end. See next section. The surrender is as much a sign of wisdom as of weakness.W. G. S.] There is no support in this text nor in Jeremiah for what Josephus adds in regard to the promise which had been given him and was broken. The words of the prophet (Jer 22:24-30), where he pronounces the divine oracle, come in here with peculiar significance: As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah [Jehoiachin], the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence! And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country where ye were not born, and there shall ye die, but to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. Is [then, do ye ask] this man Coniah a despised, broken, idol? Is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? Wherefore are they cast out, he, and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O! earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. This stern condemnation by Jehovah cannot rest upon any other foundation than the fact that Jehoiachin had done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, like to all that his father had done. It would have been a very unjust condemnation, if Jehoiachin had been a man deserving of the highest respect, and if, by virtue of his good traits, he had been superior to his brothers and his uncle, or had belonged to the better portion of the nation. The comparison to a signet ring, which has been so often interpreted to Jehoiachins advantage, does not mean, if he were as dear to me as such a ring, nevertheless I would cast him away. Only those are dear to Jehovah who walk in His ways, and such he does not cast away. The meaning rather is, as is shown by the tearing off from the hand, this: however firmly he supposes that, as a king [of the House of David], he is held by me, even like the signet on my hand, nevertheless I will cast him away on account of his own sins and the sins of the people. When the false prophet Hananiah (Jer 28:5 sq.) foretells that Jehovah will bring back all the vessels of the house of Jehovah, and king Jehoiachin, and all who are captive with him, and will break the yoke of the king of Babylon, this does not express any especial longing for the return of this king, but only a general desire for deliverance from the Babylonian yoke, and the restoration of the kingdom with its independent dynasty. On the other hand it is generally understood, and with far more apparent reason, that the young lion, Eze 19:5 sq., represents Jehoiachin but this also is impossible; because all that is there implied in regard to him cannot possibly have taken place within three months (Schmieder on that passage). In the abbreviated name Coniah (see the Exeg. notes on 2Ki 24:8), which is there used, many old expositors, such as Grotius and Lightfoot, and also Hengstenberg and Schmieder, have seen an intention to figure forth to the king his approaching doom: The future is put first in order by cutting off the to cut off Lope: a Schoniah with J. a God-will-confirm without the will (Hengstenberg). Not to speak of any other objection to this, it is enough that the abbreviated form Coniah is used instead of Jeconiah not only in prophetical but also in historical passages (Jer 37:1), where there is no possible intention to signify the cutting off of hope.

[Bhr seems to allow his judgment of Jehoiachin to be too much controlled by the standing formula that he did that which was evil, &c. This formula covered many grades of evil, and no violence is done to the general justice of this verdict upon him, if we recognize the fact that he was not one of the worst among the bad. Ewald is justified in saying; The king meant no harm, but he was negligent in his duties. He did not look forward to the future with good judgment. He was a tool of the nobles, and he was far too weak for the bitter crisis in which he was called to reign. Stanley also gives a fair estimate of the king and of the popular feeling in regard to him: With straining eyes the Jewish people and prophets still hung on the hope that their lost prince would be speedily restored to them. The gate through which he left the city was walled up like that by which the last Moorish king left Grenada, and was long known as the gate of Jeconiah. From his captivity as from a decisive era the subsequent years of the history were reckoned (Eze 1:2; Eze 8:1; Eze 24:1; Eze 26:1; Eze 29:1; Eze 31:1 [2Ki 25:27]. The tidings were treasured up with a mournful pleasure, that, in the distant Babylon, where, with his royal mother (Jer 22:26; 2Ki 24:15), he was to end his days, after many years of imprisonment, the curse of childlessness, pronounced upon him by the prophet (Jer 22:30), was removed; and that, as he grew to mans estate, a race of no less than eight sons were born to him, by whom the royal race of Judah was carried on (1Ch 3:17-18; cf. Susan. 14); and yet more, that he had been kindly treated by the successor of his captor (2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34); that he took precedence of all of the subject kings at the table of the Babylonian monarch; that his prison garments and his prison fare were changed to something like his former state. More than one sacred legendenshrined in the sacred books of many an ancient Christian Churchtells how he, with the other captives, sat on the banks of the Euphrates (Bar 1:3-4), and shed bitter tears as they heard the messages of their brethren in Palestine; or how he dwelt in a sumptuous house and fair gardens, with his beautiful wife, Susannah, more honorable than all others (Susannah i.iv.).W. G. S.]

5. The account of the eleven years reign of Zedekiah only states how that reign came to an end, for besides the standing formula that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, it contains only the remark that he revolted from the king of Babylon. We obtain a more complete picture of this reign from the descriptions and historical accounts which are preserved in the book of Jeremiah, and also to some extent in the book of Ezekiel. As concerns his attitude towards Jehovah and the law of Moses, he does not seem to have been himself devoted to idolatry, but he did not oppose it any more than his brother Jehoiakim had done. On the contrary, heathenism and immorality rather increased and spread during his reign. The stone was rolling; it could not be stayed any more. The class whose especial duty it was to oppose this tendency, namely, the priests and prophets, sank during this time lower and lower (see Jeremiah 23.). Then, too, the revolt of Zedekiah from Nebuchadnezzar was of a very different kind from that of Hezekiah from Sennacherib (see notes on Jer 18:7), nay, it was even worse than that of his brother Jehoiakim from Pharaoh-Necho, for he not only owed to Nebuchadnezzar his crown and his throne (as Jehoiakim had owed his to Pharaoh-Necho), but he had also sworn an oath of allegiance to him, as is expressly stated in the brief account, 2Ch 36:13. This oath he broke in a frivolous way without any sufficient reason. The prophet Ezekiel declares that this oath-breaking was a great sin, not only against him to whom it was sworn, but also against him by whom it was sworn, Jehovah, and he even gives this as the reason for the ruin of the king and of the nation (Eze 17:18-20): Seeing he despised the oath by breaking the covenant, when lo! he had given his hand, and hath done all these things, he shall not escape. Therefore thus saith the Lord God, As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, even it will I recompense upon his own head. And I will spread my net upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his trespasses that he hath trespassed against me. He does not appear in a much better light according to some facts which Jeremiah mentions. During the siege of Jerusalem he entered into a solemn covenant with all the people that every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free, that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. The princes and the people agreed to this and manumitted the serfs or slaves. But when it was heard that the Egyptian army was coming to help them, and they thought that they would not need the freed people any more, they broke the covenant and reduced them once more to slavery. This led the prophet to declare: Therefore, thus saith the Lord; Ye have not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor: behold I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine, and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth And Zedekiah king of Judah and his princes will I give into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life, and into the hand of the king of Babylons army, which are gone up from you. Behold, I will command, saith the Lord, and cause them to return to this city; and they shall fight against it and take it and burn it with fire, and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without an inhabitant (Jer 34:8-22). What is narrated in Jeremiah 37-38 is still more significant. At that time of great anxiety and distress the king sent messengers with this request: Pray for us to Jehovah! then, however, he allowed the officers to seize Jeremiah, maltreat him, and cast him into prison, because they were angry at his threats. Not until some time afterwards did he send for Jeremiah, though secretly, and ask of him an oracle of the Lord. Even yet he did not set him free, but only granted him a somewhat less severe imprisonment. Then, when the prophet repeatedly foretold the victory of the Chaldeans, the officers and chiefs demanded his death, and the king replied: Behold he is in your hand; for the king is not he that can do anything against you. Then they lowered him into a dungeon in which there was no water, indeed, but slime, into which he sank, and where he would have perished wretchedly, if he had not been rescued through the efforts of an Ethiopian, Ebedmelech. Even yet, however, he was held as a prisoner. Still again the king sought a secret interview with him, but did not obey his counsel to give himself up, because he feared that he should be despised and maltreated by those Jews who had deserted to the Chaldeans. He commanded the prophet to keep the interview a secret, and especially not to let the princes know of it. When finally the Chaldeans penetrated into the lower city, he took flight by night with his immediate attendants from the opposite side of the city, but was soon caught by the Chaldeans, and brought before Nebuchadnezzar, who caused him to be blinded, and his sons to be put to death. From this entire story we see what was the chief feature in Zedekiahs character: Weakness, and weakness of the saddest kind (Niemeyer). Instead of ruling as king, he allows himself to be controlled by those who stand nearest to him; he cannot do anything against them. [Yet it would not be fair to overlook the fact that a powerful party of nobles, in a besieged city, where excitement and confusion and anxiety reigned, might make a strong king powerless to resist a policy on which they were determined. The party of the princes seems to have been possessed by that fanatical patriotism which not unfrequently takes possession of men under such circumstances, and drives them to heroic folly or foolish heroism. This passion appeared among the Jews in every crisis of their history. In this case it pushed the nation on to its fate, and though Zedekiah was a weak king, he might have been a strong one and not have been able to stem this tide.W. G. S.] He has good inclinations, but he never attains to what is good. He demands an oracle of God but in secret, and, when he receives it, he does not obey it. His weakness of character makes him vacillating, false to his word and oath, unjust and pitiless, cowardly and despondent, and finally leads him into misery. We have here another example which shows that weakness and want of character are the very gravest faults, nay, even a vice, in a ruler. Josephus (Antiq. X. vii. 2) justly says of Zedekiah: . , .

6. Zedekiahs end was the end of the royal house of David and of the Israelitish monarchy. This dynasty had remained on the throne for nearly 500 years, while, in the seceded kingdom of the ten tribes, within a period of 250 years, nine dynasties of nineteen kings reigned, of which each one dethroned and extirpated the preceding one. What a wonder it is to see one dynasty endure through almost five entire centuries, and that too in the ancient times when dynasties usually had but brief duration, and to see this dynasty, in the midst of perils and changes, form a centre around which the nation always formed, so that when it perished at last, it perished only in the downfall of the nation itself. Such a kingdom might fall into grievous error for a time, but in the long run it must be brought back by the example of its great hero and founder David, and by the wealth of experience which it had won in its undisturbed development, to the eternal fundamentals of all true religion, and all genuine life (Ewald, Gesch. III. s. 419). This wonder, however, of the uninterrupted existence of the dynasty of David does not rest upon human will or power, but upon the promise which was given to David (2Sa 7:8 sq.): And thy house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee; thy throne shall be established forever (2Sa 7:16). The premise on which this promise was based was the idea that the Old Testament theocratic monarchy was realized in David. This monarchy is, as it were, realized in him, and he is not only the physical ancestor of his family, but the model for all his successors, according to their fidelity to which their reigns are estimated and judged (1Ki 11:38; 1Ki 15:3; 1Ki 15:11; 2Ki 14:3; 2Ki 16:2; 2Ki 18:3; 2Ki 22:2). God sustains the monarchy in their hands for Davids sake, even when they do not deserve it, for their own (1Ki 11:12; 1Ki 13:32; 1Ki 15:4; 2Ki 8:19). When he went the way of all the earth he left as a bequest to his son the following words: Be strong and show thyself a man, and keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself: That the Lord may continue his word, which he spake concerning me, saying, If thy children take heed to their way, to walk before me in truth, with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail thee, said he, a man on the throne of Israel (1Ki 2:2-4). When, however, after Josiahs death, four kings in succession abandoned the way of David, and apostasy became a fixed and permanent tradition, the monarchy ceased to be what it was its calling and purpose to be; it was necessarily doomed to perish. When the traditions of evil are maintained, or at least tolerated, then the monarchy suffers a transformation. Kings become incapable of executing the duties of their office, and a divine judgment becomes inevitable. So it was with the sons of Josiah, whose fate is a warning beacon on the horizon of history (Vilmar). But, in spite of the inevitable doom of the nation, the promise to David was fulfilled in its integrity. Although the external authority of the house of David ceased with Zedekiah, yet from the time of his fall the preparation went on, all the more surely, for the coming of that Son of David who was to be a king over the house of David forever, and whose kingdom should have no end (Luk 1:33). The place of the light of the house of David, which had been extinguished (1Ki 11:36; 2Ki 8:19), was taken, when the time was fulfilled, by the true light which illumines the whole world (Joh 1:9), and which will not be extinguished to all eternity. The last king who sat upon the throne of David, and who falsely called himself [The righteousness of God], served to point forward, in the Providence of God, and according to the words of the prophet, to the coming king and shepherd of his people, whose name should be called: , The Lord our Righteousness (Jer 23:6).

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See the above paragraphs and compare the additional information afforded by the passages above quoted from Jeremiah.

2Ki 23:31 to 2Ki 25:7. The Four Last Kings of Judah. (a) The way in which they all walked. (They all abandoned the living God and His law, though they had the best model and example in their ancestor. They did not listen to the warnings and exhortations of the prophets, but followed their own lusts. Instead of being good shepherds of their people, they led them into deeper and deeper corruption.) (b) The end to which they all came. (They all learned what misery comes of abandoning the Lord, Jer 2:19. Two of them reigned for only three months each; their glory was like the grass, which in the morning groweth up, but in the evening is cut down, dried up, and withered. One of them was forced to go to Egypt, where he died, and another to go to Babylon, where he remained a captive for thirty-seven years. Two of them died miserably: one was dragged to death and his corpse was thrown out like that of a dead animal; the other was forced to see his sons slain before his eyes, then he was blinded and ended his days in a prison. The godless, even though they be princes, perish utterly, Psa 73:19. The judgments of God are true and righteous, Rev 16:7; Psa 145:17.)Kyburz: We are surprised that Jehoiakim did not take warning by Jehoahaz, and that Jehoiachin and Zedekiah did not take warning by Jehoiakim, but that all made themselves abominable to God by the same sin; but how many great families and races have we seen since then come to a fearful end, without taking warning by their fate. On the contrary, we have made ourselves guilty in his sight with the same or greater sins.A dynasty in which apostasy has become hereditary and traditional has no blessing or happiness; it must sooner or later perish. The words of Psa 89:14 : Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne, apply also to an earthly throne. A throne or a government which lacks this habitation [more correctly, stronghold] has no sure foundation. It rocks and reels and finally falls. This is shown by the history of these four kings, all of whom departed from righteousness and the law of God, and were guided in their rule only by political considerations. They became the sport of ambitious conquerors.There can be no greater disgrace or humiliation for a country than that foreigners should set up or depose rulers for it according to their whim.

2Ki 23:31 sq. The sons want of loyalty to the law of God tore down in three months what the fathers zeal had built up by thirty-one years of anxious labor. How often a son squanders in a short time what a father has collected by years of careful toil.What a responsibility falls upon the ruler who opens the door again for the return of the evils which a former government has earnestly labored to shut out.

2Ki 23:34. Two brothers stand in hostile relations to each other. One deposes the other. They are both sons of the same pious father, but they resemble him in nothing.Jehoiakim and Zedekiah each receive a new name when they ascend the throne. What is the use, however, of changing the name when the character is not changed, or of taking on a name to which the life does not correspond?A throne which is bought with money won by exactions is an abomination in the sight of God. Jehoiakim does not contribute anything from his own treasures, but exacts all from his subjects. He builds great houses and lives in abundance and luxury, but does not give to the laborers the wages which they have so well earned. This is the way of tyrants, but they receive their reward from him who recompenses each according to his works (Jer 22:15-19). Avarice is the root of evil, even among the great and rich; it brings them into temptation, 1Ti 6:9.2Ki 24:1. To-day the mighty king of Egypt makes Jehoiakim his vassal, to-morrow the still more mighty king of Babylon; such is the fate of princes who put their trust in an arm of flesh, and turn away from the Lord instead of calling after him: He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in him will I trust (Psa 91:2).

2Ki 23:2. Wrt. Summ.: It is not a mere chance when an armed enemy invades a country; they are sent by God, without whom not one could set a foot therein. It is a punishment for sin. Therefore let no man take courage in sin because there is profound peace. Peace is never so firm that God cannot put an end to it and send war.He revolted. He who cannot bend under the mighty hand of God will not submit to the human powers in subjection to which he has been placed by God. Resistance, however, is vain, for God resisteth the proud.Kyburz: Hear, ye kings and judges of the earth! God demands that ye shall humble yourselves before His messengers. David did this before Nathan. Do not think that your majesty is thereby diminished; God can exalt again those who humble themselves before him. But, if ye do not do this, God will do to you as he did to Jehoiakim and Zedekiah.The word of the Lord, which He spake to Jehoiakim by His prophet, the king threw into the fire and thought that he had thus reduced it to naught (Jer 36:23), but he was brought to the bitter experience that the word of the Lord cannot be burned up, but is, and remains to all eternity, true and sure.

2Ki 23:3-4. The sin of Manasseh was not visited on his descendants in such a way that they could say: The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the childrens teeth are set on edge (Jer 31:29), for The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father (Eze 18:20), but the punishment fell upon Judah because it had made itself a participant in the crime of Manasseh, and, like him, had shed innocent blood (Jer 26:20-23; see also Eze 33:25 sq.).

2Ki 23:7. Easy won, easy lost. This has always been the fortune of conquerors. What one has won by robbery and force another mightier takes from him. The Lord in heaven makes the great small, and the rich poor (1Sa 2:7; Psa 75:7).

2Ki 23:8-16. Osiander: As long as the people of God does not truly repent it has little cause to rejoice that one or another tyrant is removed, for a worse one may follow.Wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together (Mat 24:28). A nation which is in decay attracts the conquerors, who do not quit it until it is torn to pieces.Starke: There is always misery and danger where there is war, therefore let us pray to be preserved from war and bloodshed.

2Ki 23:12. Instead of calling upon God, Jehoiachin surrenders himself at once and asks for mercy. He who does not trust in God soon falls into despondency. Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi.

2Ki 23:14-16. Notice Gods mercy and longsuffering even in his judgments. He still allows the kingdom to stand, and turns the heart of the enemy so that he does not yet make an utter end of it (Eze 18:23; Eze 18:32; see notes on 2Ki 25:21).

2Ki 24:17 to 2Ki 25:7. Zedekiah, the last king on Davids throne. See Historical 5. Roos: Zedekiah is an example of a man who, in spite of some good traits, finally perishes because he never can attain to victory over the world and over sin. He listened unmoved to Jer 27:12 sq. and 34:2 sq. He made an agreement with the people to keep a year of manumission (Jer 34:8). He desired that Jeremiah should pray to the Lord for him and for his people (Jer 37:3). He rescued Jeremiah from a fearful dungeon into which he had been cast without the kings authority, asked of him secretly a divine oracle, and caused him to be brought into an endurable prison (Jer 37:17 sq.). He saved him once more from a terrible prison and asked once more privately for the divine oracle (Jeremiah 38). Yet in the midst of all this he remained a slave of sin. He asked and listened, but did not obey. His purposes had no endurance or energy. He was a king whom his nobles had succeeded in overpowering. He feared them more than God. He had no courage to trust Gods word and he feared where there was no reason (Jer 38:19 sq.). On the other hand he allowed himself to be persuaded by his counsellors and nobles (Jer 38:22). He hoped for miracles such as had been performed in early times, particularly in the time of Hezekiah (Jer 21:2), although he had no promises of God to serve as a ground for such hope. He trusted in the strength of the fortification of Jerusalem (Jer 21:13), and did not believe what Jeremiah foretold in regard to the destruction of this city.

2Ki 24:20. Zedekiah broke his oath for the sake of earthly gain and honor. Be not deceived, God will not be mocked. He who calls upon God and then fails of his word mocks at Him who can ruin soul and body in hell. All the misery and woe which befell Zedekiah came from his perjury (Eze 17:18 sq.). Pfaff: We must keep faith even with unbelievers and enemies (Jos 9:19).A prince who breaks his own oath cannot complain when his subjects break their oath of allegiance to him.

2Ki 25:1 sq. Starke: When the rod does not avail, God sends the sword (Eze 21:13-14).

2Ki 25:3. Cramer: God often punishes loathing of His word by physical hunger (Lam 4:10).

2Ki 25:4-6. Wrt. Summ.: When God means to punish a sinner no wall or weapon avails to protect him (Jer 46:6).Starke: If we will not take that road to escape which God has given us we cannot escape at all (Hos. 13:19; Jer 2:17).

2Ki 25:7. Starke: Many parents, by their godless behavior, bring their children into temporal and eternal ruin. Such children will some day have just cause to cry out against their parents (Sir 41:10).A punishment which is deserved must be inflicted upon the just condemnation of the proper authority, but even the mightiest earthly power has no right to torture a convict. The civil authority is indeed an avenger to punish the guilty, and it does not carry the sword in vain, but it ceases to be Gods servant when it becomes bloodthirsty and delights in pain.

Footnotes:

[1]2Ki 23:33. On the keri see remarks under Exegetical.

[2]2Ki 24:3. [ here has peculiar force. It means in or throughout all that he did, infecting all according to a certain measure. Whatever he did there was a certain measure of wickedness in it according to its character. The somewhat subtle force of the particle led to variants. One codes has , Sept. and Syr. . The reading in the text is correct (Thenius).W. G. S.]

[3]2Ki 24:10. The keri is to be preferred.Bhr. [The chetib is sing. The keri is a grammatical correction. The sing, may have been written with the mind fixed on Nebuchadnezzar. This point has importance for the question whether he accompanied the expedition from the outset. Cf2 Kings 24:11.

[4]2 Kings25:3. [The statement that it was the fourth month is here imported into the text by the translators from Jeremiah, who gives it in both places; Jeremiah 3 and Jeremiah 39.

[5]2 Kings25:4. [ is singular, and our version supplies the king as the subject. It is more likely that it is a case of the indefinite subject one (Fr. on; Germ. man). The army went, or, as we are obliged to translate, they went. The kings presence in the train is implied and assumed. In Jer 52:7 we find , and in Jer 39:4, the sing. , but there the king is mentioned in the context.W. G. S.]

[6] [Genealogical Table of the Last Kings of Judah.Sovereigns in small capitals. the numbers designate the order of succession on the throne.W.G.S]

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

CONTENTS

Jerusalem is again besieged. Zedekiah is taken, his sons slain and his eyes put out. The close of the chapter relates that Jehoiachin, who had been long captive in Babylon, was brought out of prison by the kindness of the king, and set at his table.

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

As we read in the foregoing chapter that Jerusalem was taken, and here that it was besieged, we should remember in order to have a clear apprehension of the history, that though Jerusalem had been conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, yet it was not totally subdued as a kingdom, because the conqueror appointed a king to govern it. But here we find a total ruin. And what made the approach and siege of Jerusalem now yet more terrible was, God’s judgments were upon it. A famine joined with the sword to avenge God’s quarrel with his people for their sin. Alas! to what a state will sin reduce any and every man! I wish the Reader, while attending to the history of the total overthrow of Jerusalem, would read the prophecy of Jeremiah, and especially the book of Lamentations, all of which relate to this occasion. It should seem, from what Jeremiah told Zedekiah, that he had it in commission from the Lord to point out yet a method of deliverance, but Zedekiah rejected the counsel of God, as sinners still do against their own souls. See Jer 37 ; Jer 38 ; Jer 39 .

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

2Ki 25

1. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of that month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

2. And the city was besieged until the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. [The siege lasted one year, five months, and twenty-seven days.]

3. And on the ninth day of the fourth month the famine prevailed [reached a climax] in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land.

4. And the city was broken up [a breach was made in the walls by battering-rams, such as are depicted in the Assyrian sculptures], and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king’s garden: (now the Chaldees were against the city round about [the city was completely invested]:) and the king went the way toward the plain [the Arabah, or valley of the Jordan].

5. And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him.

6. So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him. [Nebuchadnezzar was not present at the storming of Jerusalem.]

7. And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes [a Babylonian punishment] of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass [literally, with the double brass], and carried him to Babylon [the blinding of Zedekiah need not have been done by the conqueror himself].

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 Nebuzar-adan [Nebo gave seed], captain of the guard [chief of executioners], a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:

9. And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king’s house [which were in the upper city], and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man’s house burnt he with fire.

10. And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about.

11. Now 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 [the rank and file of the fighting men], did Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carry away.

12. But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen [ploughmen].

13. And the pillars of brass [understand copper throughout] that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brasen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon.

14. And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, took they away.

15. And the firepans [snuff-dishes], and the bowls, and such things as were of gold, in gold, and of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away.

16. The 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.

17. The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and the chapiter upon it was brass: and the height of the chapiter three cubits; and the wreathen [lattice] work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass: and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work.

18. And the captain of the guard took Seraiah [probably the grandson of Hilkiah] the chief [high] priest, and Zephaniah the second priest [probably the high priest’s deputy], and the three keepers of the door [threshold]:

19. And out of the city [of David] he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the king’s presence, which were found in the city, and the principal scribe of the host, which mustered [enrolled the names of such persons as were bound to serve in the army] the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city:

20. And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah:

21. And the king of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their land.

22. 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 [one of Josiah’s princes], the son of Shaphan, ruler.

23. And when all the captains of the armies [who now came out of their hiding], they and their 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.

24. And Gedaliah sware to them, and to their men, and said unto them, Fear not to be the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be well with you.

25. But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal [probably suggests the motive], came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah [at a friendly meal in the governor’s own house], that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah [soldiers left to support his authority].

26. And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt [and took Jeremiah with them, Jer 43:6 ]: for they were afraid of the Chaldees.

27. And 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 [Man of 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 [gave him precedence over the other captive kings];

28. And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon;

29. And changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life.

30. And his allowance [besides his own sustenance at the royal table, Jehoiachin had a daily allowance from the treasury] was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life. [“The author thus leaves the seed of David with a comforting thought an anticipation of the dawn that was soon to break,… promising an ultimate restoration of the seed of Abraham to God’s grace and favour.”]

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XIX

THE DOWNFALL OF JUDAH AND JERUSALEM

2Ki 23:30-25:30 ; 2Ch 36:1-23

We take up now the downfall of Judah and Jerusalem. The causes which led to this downfall are almost identical with the causes which led to the fall of Samaria and the Northern Kingdom: the idolatry and wickedness of the people, their departure from the worship of Jehovah, their apparent determination to pay no attention to the words of the prophets, the conspiracy of the last king, Hoshea, with Egypt and his revolt against the king of Assyria. These were the causes remote and near which led to the fall of Samaria. The same causes operated in bringing about the fall of Judah and Jerusalem: the wickedness, the perverseness, the determination and incorrigibility of the people their refusal to give heed to the voice of the prophets, especially Jeremiah, the conspiracy of the last king with Egypt to form an alliance, and his attempt to throw off the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. These are the remote and near causes which brought about the destruction of the Southern Kingdom.

Let us look at the situation at the death of Josiah. That sad event occurred in the year 608 B.C. It was a death blow to the hopes of the prophets and the prophetic party and all the righteous ones of Judah. It was a death blow to the hopes of the nation, and the sadness and mourning that resulted from the death of Josiah is suggested to us by Zec 12:11 . Judah never forgot the death of this good king. Zechariah, prophesying of the times of the restoration and messianic age, when all Israel would repent and mourn for their sins, says, “In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.” The mourning of all Israel in the future when it shall repent of its sins and be restored is compared to the mourning of Judah at the death of Josiah.

Now let us glance at the political horizon as well. The great empire of Assyria had reached the climax of its conquests, and its oppressions, and was not hastening to its end. The Babylonian Empire had risen; they had formed a league with the Median Empire, and the two combined, with the help of many other small nations, had at last concentrated their energies upon old Nineveh, and it was soon to be destroyed.

Zep 2:13-14 gives a distinct prophecy of the destruction of Nineveh, the capital of the great Assyrian Empire. Zephaniah lived probably in the time of Josiah, possibly earlier. Let us read what he says in his prophecy: “And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness. And herds shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations: both the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the capitals thereof; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the cedar work.”

The entire prophecy of Nahum is on this one subject the downfall of Nineveh. Nahum is a poet, who gives a vivid description of the siege and fall of Nineveh. The world rejoiced when old Nineveh was destroyed. That occurred about 607 or 606 B.C.

Now looking more closely at Judah and Jerusalem, our first point is the Egyptian supremacy in Judah. I have called attention to the successes of Pharaohnecho, king of Egypt, and noted that it was to hinder his advance north that Josiah came out against him and was slain. Pharaohnecho pursued his victorious career north as far as the land of Hamath and conquered that country, and extended his kingdom as far north as the Euphrates River, thus subjecting all Syria to his sway and establishing his headquarters at Riblah in the valley of Hamath.

Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, was put on the throne by the people, doubtless because of his popularity. He had a reign of only three months. During these three months he was under tribute to Pharaohnecoh who had conquered all this country, and he made him prisoner and carried him away to Egypt. His older brother, Jehoiakim, was put upon the throne by Pharaoh. Jehoahaz had a brief reign and a very wicked one. His end is unspeakably sad. Jer 22:10-12 gives an account of him.

Jeremiah at this time was a prophet of Judah and Jerusalem, and he was very active. Here is what he says about the end of Jehoahaz: “Weep not for the dead [that means Josiah], neither bemoan him; but weep sore for him that goeth away [Jehoahaz] ; for he shall return no more, nor see his native country. For thus saith Jehovah touching Shallum [another name for Jehoahaz] the son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of Josiah his father, and who went forth out of this place: He shall not return thither any more; but in the place whither they have led him captive there he shall die, and he shall see this land no more.”

In Eze 19:3-8 we have a striking statement also. Ezekiel was in Babylon prophesying to the exiles. He says, “And she brought up one of her whelps [Judah and Jerusalem represented as a lioness]: he became a young lion, and he learned to catch the prey; he devoured men, . . .” It is Ezekiel’s description of the capture of Jehoahaz, a young lion that Pharaoh caught and took away to Egypt.

Jehoiakim, two or three years his senior, was placed upon the throne by Pharaoh-necho, paid him tribute doubtless, and reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. He was just the opposite of his father, King Josiah, in almost every particular. It seems remarkable that such good kings as Hezekiah and Josiah should have such bad sons, utterly reprobate sons, &a Manasseh and Jehoiakim, but we see that even today.

Nebuchadnezzar, the great Babylonian, rose up in the year 608 B.C. Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, and the Medes destroyed Nineveh and left her such an utter ruin that the very place of her existence was soon forgotten. It was completely overwhelmed and devastated by the Babylonians and the Medes, who for centuries had been looking for a chance to get a blow at the ferocious Assyrians.

Nabopolassar was in the East undertaking that great work, and his son Nebuchadnezzar was sent to the West to check the advance of the Egyptian king. We have already stated that Pharaohnecho had extended his empire to the Euphrates River, and now he was ready to go farther. Nebuchadnezzar was sent with a large army to check him. They met near Carchemish, 605 B.C., and here one of the great decisive battles of the world was fought. We find an account of this in Jer 46 , beginning with the second verse. It was the greatest event of that time: “Against Egypt, came the army of Pharaohnecho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah.”

Our next point is the supremacy of Babylon. The result, of course, was that the army of Nebuchadnezzar swept down in hot pursuit of the fleeing Egyptians and all the country was transferred into the hands of the Babylonians again. At once Jehoiakim began to pay tribute. Every nation in this region was compelled to pay heavy tribute to Nebuchadnezzar, the invincible head of the Babylonian army. Thus the allegiance of Judah and Jerusalem was transferred, at it where, in a moment from Egypt to Babylon. Now at that time there occurred a raid of the Babylonians upon Judah and Jerusalem and evidently many of the nobles and princes of the people were taken away. Dan 1:1 shows that in this raid upon Judah and Jerusalem Daniel with others was among those that were taken to Babylon: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.” Then it goes on with the story of Daniel and his three friends. This is one of the first deportations leading up to the final downfall. Jer 52:28 is a reference probably to the same deportation by Nebuchadnezzar: “This is the people whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty.” That may refer to the first one or it may possibly refer to a later one, we cannot be positive as to the chronology.

The next thing we note about Jehoiakim is that he rebels against the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps he felt that he could make an alliance with Egypt, that old shame which Isaiah denounced, and which was one of the main things that caused the downfall of Samaria. Jehoiakim was evidently conspiring with Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar was in the far east engaged in his conquests; Jehoiakim, led on by his nobles and princes, thought he could free himself again from the galling yoke of Babylon and in spite of all Jeremiah’s entreaties he was determined to do so. In Jer 36 there is a little story of the prophecies which Jeremiah wrote and which were read in the presence of Jehoiakim as he was sitting in his winter palace before an open fire. When the roll was read to him, he took his penknife and cut it in pieces and threw it into the fire. Nearly all of those present with him seemed to approve of his action; only two or three are said to have begged him not to do it. This is the character of Jehoiakim and his attitude toward Jeremiah. In Jer 22:13-19 we have Jeremiah’s own description of Jehoiakim; also a reference to Jehoiakim in Jer 26:20-23 .

All this indicates Jehoiakim’s character, bold and incorrigibly defiant of God’s word and of every principle of right and truth. The result we find in 2Ki 24:2-4 : “And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by the hand of his servants the prophets.” They did not destroy it utterly, but they carried away a good many captives and much spoil. Jehoiakim died in the year 598 B.C., and the manner of his death is a mystery. There is some difficulty in reconciling the Bible accounts. In 2Ch 36:6 we find: “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon.” Jeremiah said that he should be cast out, drawn forth out of the city and buried as a beast. In Jer 36:30 we also have a statement similar: “Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah: He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.” The explanation possibly is that Nebuchadnezzar found him to be such a traitor and such a wretch and villain that he would not take him to Babylon, but had him slain and his body cast forth as refuse out of the city of Jerusalem.

In the next place we have the brief reign of Jehoiachin. Judah and Jerusalem are still under the yoke of Babylon, but the people rise up and put Jehoiachin on the throne, a boy only eighteen years old, and he reigns but three months. Evidently Nebuchadnezzar found something false or treacherous about him; so he comes to the city and besieges it. Jehoiachin surrenders the city, with all his family, and is taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar and carried in chains to Babylon; there lodged in the palace prison spending the rest of his life in captivity. At last the king of Babylon brings him out from his dungeon, lifts up his head, speaks kindly to him, and gives him a place among the other kings, tributary to Babylon.

Now comes the reign of Zedekiah, last of the kings of Judah. He is made king by Nebuchadnezzar and at the same time there is a great deportation of treasures and of nobles and of artisans from Jerusalem. This is the second deportation, and the most important one of this period. Treasures all the treasures of the house of the Lord and the king’s house at Jerusalem all the princes and mighty men, craftsmen and smiths, all the artisans, the best and most skillful minds of Jerusalem, were taken and there was left only the poor and laboring classes. Nebuchadnezzar took away all these because he had a great deal of building to do in his own land, completing the walls of Babylon, and other general work, irrigating the lands of the country, etc. But there is another object in it also, viz: With all the best blood gone, Jerusalem could not offer much resistance.

Afterward Zedekiah rebels, doubtless because he had some hope of a league with Egypt and that he might throw off the yoke of Babylon. Jer 27:12 ; Jer 27:17 gives Jeremiah’s advice to Zedekiah and all the other small nations telling them in substance: “You keep on yourselves the yoke of Babylon, for that is the only thing that will save your kingdom from destruction.” But Zedekiah did not heed Jeremiah any more than Jehoiakim did.

The result is just what we might expect. Nebuchadnezzar sets his army in motion, and in a few years the armies of Nebuchadnezzar are again surrounding the city and this time he means business. Jeremiah pleads with Zedekiah to surrender and take upon himself the yoke of Babylon but the influence of the princes that surround the weak Zedekiah counteracts all the influence of Jeremiah and he goes out on his final rebellion. We find that discussed in Jeremiah 36-37.

But now a ray of hope dawns upon the people of Jerusalem; the siege has been on some time. They hear that the king of Egypt, at last, is coming up to help them. The siege is raised, Nebuchadnezzar moves his army away from Jerusalem in order to meet the Egyptians, but he very soon defeats the Egyptian army and again the walls of Jerusalem are encompassed with his hosts, and Jeremiah (Jer 37:5-11 ) gives what the prophet says about it at the time. The siege was raised, but he warns them against false hopes: “For though ye had smitten the whole army of the Chaldeans that fight against you, and there remained but wounded men among them, yet should they rise up every man in his tent, and burn this city with fire.” “The doom is inevitable, if you carry out your principle of rebellion.” Zedekiah refuses the advice absolutely and for eighteen months Jerusalem endures the horrors of a siege. The fourth chapter of the book of Lamentations describes this. It speaks about the pitiful mother boiling her own children, and those who have been brought up in scarlet as embracing the dunghills to find something to eat, the nobleman’s skin is blackened, going about like a walking skeleton, the babes crying after the mothers’ breasts, and the people perishing.

After eighteen months they try to escape by breaking through, and Zedekiah and his army flee down into the valley of the Jordan and are overtaken by the Chaldeans; he is captured and his army scattered. He is brought before Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah’s last vision is his sons slaughtered before his eyes, and then (according to the Assyrians) he is laid upon his back, a short spear driven through each eye, and Zedekiah’s day becomes night, and he sees no more in this world. He is taken to Babylon and there held a prisoner.

Nebuchadnezzar makes a thorough work of the destruction of Jerusalem. He sends his captain, Nebuzaradan, and destroys the entire city, burning up everything that would burn, throwing down everything that can be thrown down, and the best of the people: the priests, the scribes, old and young, young men and maidens, are slain. All these nobles who had been. Zedekiah’s advisers in his intrigues with Egypt are slain. They deserved it. Had it not been for them, Jeremiah might have influenced Zedekiah to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar, and thus saved the city and the people. All the treasurers were taken — everything that was worth anything and what could not be taken was broken to pieces. The description given in 2Ki 25:13-21 .

In connection with that event a large number of the best people of Jerusalem are again deported to Babylon and only the poor are left in the land that they may keep and dress the vineyards. This is the third deportation to Babylon; so the exile from Judah and Jerusalem was a process extending over about twenty years, altogether.

In the meantime, what happens to Jeremiah? Jer 40:1-6 , we have an account of the captain of the Babylonians, who took Jeremiah in chains, but he remembered the good services rendered Babylon by Jeremiah in trying to persuade Zedekiah to surrender to Babylon. So he gave Jeremiah the choice of going with him as a prisoner to Babylon where he would be well treated, or remaining at Jerusalem with the remnant of poor people left there. He remained with God’s people in his own land.

Next we have the governorship of Gedaliah. Jeremiah had prophesied that the captivity would last only seventy years, and he wrote the captives at Babylon a letter telling them what to do during that period, advising them to remain there and settle down and make the very best of it because seventy years was the appointed time for remaining in captivity. Gedaliah was made governor of the almost completely depopulated land. In a few months he was murdered by one of the Jewish princes that had survived, and others were murdered with him who were loyal to Babylon, and Ishmael and his friends gathered together to take advice. Jeremiah advises them to remain in the land and if they were faithful and true even yet, they would be blessed, but they paid no attention to Jeremiah, fled to Egypt taking Jeremiah with them.

That forty or more years of preaching by Jeremiah was without apparent success, but he stayed with it to the end. Down in Egypt they still worshiped idols and burnt incense to the queen of heaven in spite of all that Jeremiah could do, as is found in Jeremiah 43-44 and at last, according to tradition, the people became so incensed against him that they rose up and stoned him to death. Tradition says that such was the end of Jeremiah and it is quite probable. A picture of Jerusalem is found in Lamentations 1-3. What a picture of the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem! There is nothing superior to it in all literature.

How many deportations of Israel to the Far East were there altogether? The first great deportation was that of Tiglathpileser when he removed all the inhabitants east of the Jordan. The next one was that of Tiglathpileser when he carried away the inhabitants of the northern part of the Northern Kingdom, and the next was the deportation of Sargon after he had captured Samaria; the next one was that of Sennacherib when he came down in the reign of Hezekiah and swept all Judah and carried away two hundred thousand or more inhabitants. Then one was in the time when Daniel was taken away. The next one was in the time of Jehoiachin, and the last one recorded in Kings and Chronicles was at the end of the reign of Zedekiah. So we may reckon that there were several deportations of the Jewish people to the Far East; to Assyria, Babylon, Persia, etc. Thus more than a quarter of a million of Jews were deported to various places in central Asia, and some of their descendants, perhaps, are there yet.

The Exile, as we have said, was a process rather than an event. The people were brought into Babylon and there put to use in serving. They helped Nebuchadnezzar build his cities, his great treasuries, they helped to dig canals, as mentioned in Psa 137 : “By the rivers [or canals] of Babylon, we sat down and wept.” They helped to irrigate that vast plain between the two rivers.

This captivity did several things for Israel:

1. It permanently cured the nation of its idolatries. I mean that part of the nation that returned after the captivity and built up the Jewish nation at the period of the restoration. The vast multitude that remained in the East adhered to their idolatries.

2. It spiritualized religion. No Temple, no altar, no priesthood, no sacrifices, no holy of holies, no atonement! They were thrown upon their own individual responsibility and individual relation to God, and in this period we have the rise of what we call individualism in religion. We find that discussed at length by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This is a period when mankind found that it could do without the externals of religion and made it an affair of the heart only, something new in the history of the world.

3. It made the problem of suffering an acute and real one; they were suffering because of their father’s sins, and complained about it: “In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own sin, every man that eateth sour grapes, his own teeth shall be set on edge.” “The soul that sinneth it shall surely die.”

4. It enlarged their conception of God. We find the noblest and highest and loftiest conception of God in Isaiah 40-66. These were written to meet the needs of the people in this trying period. God is pictured as the God of the world, the God of history, and the God of nations; God is pictured as raising up Cyrus as his own servant in order that he might conquer and subdue Babylon and let Israel go free.

5. It gave a truer conception of the mission of Israel to the world. Here we have the rise of the idea of the Suffering Servant of God, as the Servant suffering for the sins of Israel. Here we have the conception of Israel as being the means of bringing all the world to a knowledge of God.

The seventy years close. In the closing verses of 2 Chronicles it refers to Cyrus releasing the captives at Babylon, enabling them to return to rebuild their Temple and to restore their nation.

QUESTIONS

1. What was the religious conditions of Judah at the death of Josiah?

2. What was the political situation?

3. Who succeeded Josiah and how was he made king?

4. What was his character?

5. How was he deposed, what became of him, who succeeded him, how was he made king and what was his character?

6. What was Pharaohnecoh’s relation to Judah and who severed this relation?

7. Give an account of Jehoiakim’s rebellion and death.

8. Who succeeded Jehoiakim, what was his character and end?

9. Who was the last king of Judah and how was he made king?

10. Describe the first great deportation, stating who, what, and where carried.

11. What was Zedekiah’s character, what were his efforts to free himself and what results?

12. What reason here assigned for the ruin of Judah and Jerusalem?

13. Describe the siege of Jerusalem and Zedekiah’s captivity.

14. Describe the final overthrow of Jerusalem.

15. What disposition did they make of the nobles?

16. Give a list of the treasures taken by the Chaldeans.

17. What disposition did they make of the residue of the people?

18. Is this the last deportation? If not, what?

19. What was the length of the captivity and what determined it?

20. Did they carry all the people into captivity? If not, what provision was made for them?

21. What became of Gedaliah and what was the result?

22. What became of Jehoiachin?

23. How did these people get back to their land and when?

24. What prophet foretold this event and where do we find his prophecies?

25. What was the significance of the Exile, and what the several things it did for Israel?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

2Ki 25:1 And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth [day] of the month, [that] Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

Ver. 1. In the tenth month, the tenth day of the month. ] This was revealed to Ezekiel in Babylon. Eze 24:1 And although this day of the tenth month was by the law appointed for a day of expiation or atonement, Lev 16:29-31 yet now “an end was come, the end was come, it watched against them, behold, it was come, an evil, an only evil was come, was come,” as Ezekiel hath it. Eze 7:5-6 This the poor captives afterward bewailed in their anniversary fast on this day kept. Zec 8:19

And they built forts against it round about. ] Of the greatness of this army environing so great a city, see Jer 34:1 .

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

2 Kings

THE END

2Ki 25:1 – 2Ki 25:12 .

Eighteen months of long-drawn-out misery and daily increasing famine preceded the fall of the doomed city. The siege was a blockade. No assaults by the enemy, nor sorties by the inhabitants, are narrated, but the former grimly and watchfully drew their net closer, and the latter sat still in their despair. The passionless tone of the narrative here is very remarkable. Not a word escapes the writer to show his feelings, though he is telling his country’s fall. We must turn to Lamentations for sighs and groans. There we have the emotions of devout hearts; here we have the calm record of God’s judgment. It is all one long sentence, for in the Hebrew each verse begins with ‘and,’ clause heaped on clause, as if each were a footstep of the destroying angel in his slow, irresistible march.

The narrative falls into two principal parts-the fate of the king and that of the city. It is unnecessary to dwell on the details. The confusion of counsels, the party strife, the fierce hatred of God’s prophet, the agony of famine, are all suppressed here, but painted with terrible vividness in the Book of Jeremiah. At last the fatal day came. On the north side a breach was made in the wall, and through it the fierce besiegers poured-the ‘princes of the king of Babylon,’ with their idolatrous and barbarous names, ‘came in, and sat in the middle gate.’ It was night. The sudden appearance of the conquerors in the heart of the city shot panic into the feeble king and his ‘men of war’ who had never struck one blow for deliverance; and they hurried under cover of darkness, and hidden between two walls, down the ravine to the king’s garden, once the scene of pleasure, but waste now, and thence, as best they could, round or over Olivet to the road to Jericho. The king’s flight by night had been foretold by Ezekiel far away in captivity Eze 12:12; and the same prophet received on that very day a divine message announcing the fall of the city, and bidding him ‘write thee the name of the day, even of this selfsame day,’ as that on which the king of Babylon ‘drew close unto Jerusalem’ Eze 24:1 et seq..

Down the rocky road went the flying host, with ‘their shaftless, broken bows’ closely followed by the avenging foe with ‘red pursuing spear.’ Where Israel had first set foot on its inheritance, the last king of David’s line was captured and his monarchy shattered. The scene of the first victory, when Jericho fell before unarmed men trusting in God, was the scene of the last defeat. The spot where the covenant was renewed, and the reproach of Israel rolled away, was the spot where the broken covenant was finally avenged and abrogated. The end came back to the beginning, and the cradle was the coffin.

Away up to Riblah, in the far north, under the shadow of Lebanon, the captive was dragged to meet the conqueror. The name of each is a profession of belief. The one means ‘Jehovah is righteousness’; the other, ‘Nebo, protect the crown.’ The idol seemed to have overcome, but the defeat of the unbelieving confessor of the true God at the hands of the idolater is really the victory of the righteousness which the name celebrated and the bearer of the name insulted. His murdered sons were the last sight which he saw before he was blinded, according to the ferocious practice of the East. It was ingenuity of cruelty to let him see for so long, and then to give him that as the last thing seen, and therefore often remembered. Note how the enigma of Ezekiel’s prophecy Eze 12:13 and its apparent contradiction of Jeremiah’s Jer 32:4 ; Jer 34:3 are reconciled, and learn how easily the fact, when it comes, clears the riddles of prophecy, and how easily, probably, the whole facts, if we knew them, would clear the difficulties of Scripture history. The blinded king was harmless, but according to Jewish tradition, was set to work in a mill though that is probably only an application of Samson’s story, and according to Jeremiah Jer 52:11, was kept in prison till his death. So ended the monarchy of Judah.

The fate of the city was not settled for a month, during which, no doubt, there was much consultation at Riblah whether to garrison or destroy it. The king of Babylon did not go in person, but despatched a force commanded by a high officer, to burn palace, Temple, the more important houses the poorer people would probably be lodged in huts not worth burning, and to raze the fortifications. In accordance with the practice of the great Eastern despotisms, deportation followed victory-a clever though cruel device for securing conquests. But some were left behind; for the land, if deserted, would have fallen out of cultivation, and been profitless to Babylon. The bulk of the people of Jerusalem, the fugitives who had joined the invaders during the siege, and the mass of the general population, were carried off, in such a long string of misery as we may still see on the monuments, and a handful left behind, too poor to plot, and stirred to diligence by necessity. So ended the possession by Israel of its promised inheritance.

Now this fall of Jerusalem is like an object-lesson to teach everlasting truth as to the retributive providence of God. What does it say?

It declares plainly what brings down God’s judgments. The terms on which Israel prospered and held its land were obedience to God’s law. We cannot directly apply the principles of God’s government of it to modern nations. The present analogue of Israel is the Church, not the nation. But when all deductions have been made, it is still true that a nation’s religious attitude is a most potent factor in its prosperous development. It is not accidental that, on the whole, stagnant Europe and America are Roman Catholic, and the progressive parts Protestant. Nor was it causes independent of religion that scattered a decaying Christianity in the lands of the Eastern Church before the onslaught of wild Arabs, who, at all events, did believe in Allah. So there are abundant lessons for politics and sociology in the story of Jerusalem’s fall.

But these lessons have direct application to the individual and to the Christian Church. All departure from God is ruin. We slay ourselves by forsaking Him, and every sinner is a suicide. We live under a moral government, and in a system of things so knit together as that even here every transgression receives its just recompense-if not visibly and palpably in outward circumstances, yet really and punctually in effects on mind and heart, which are more solemn and awful. ‘Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.’ Sin and sorrow are root and fruit.

Especially does that crash of Jerusalem’s fall thunder the lesson to all churches that their life and prosperity are inseparably connected with faithful obedience and turning away from all worldliness, which is idolatry. They stand in the place that was made empty by Israel’s later fall. Our very privileges call us to beware. ‘Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.’ That great seven-branched candlestick was removed out of its place, and all that is left of it is its sculptured image among the spoils on the triumphal arch to its captor. Other lesser candlesticks have been removed from their places, and Turkish oppression brings night where Sardis and Laodicea once gave a feeble light. The warning is needed to-day; for worldliness is rampant in the Church. ‘If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.’ The fall of Jerusalem is not merely a tragic story from the past. It is a revelation, for the present, of the everlasting truth, that the professing people of God deserve and receive the sorest chastisement, if they turn again to folly.

Further, we learn the method of present retribution. Nebuchadnezzar knew nothing of the purposes which he fulfilled. ‘He meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so.’ He was but the ‘axe’ with which God hewed. Therefore, though he was God’s tool, he was also responsible, and would be punished even for performing God’s ‘whole work upon Jerusalem,’ because of ‘the glory of his high looks.’ The retribution of disobedience, so far as that retribution is outward, needs no ‘miracle.’ The ordinary operations of Providence amply suffice to bring it. If God wills to sting, He will ‘hiss for the fly,’ and it will come. The ferocity and ambition of a grim and bloody despot, impelled by vainglory and lust of cruel conquest, do God’s work, and yet the doing is sin. The world is full of God’s instruments, and He sends punishments by the ordinary play of motives and circumstances, which we best understand when we see behind all His mighty hand and sovereign will. The short-sighted view of history says ‘Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem B.C. so and so,’ and then discourses about the tendencies of which Babylonia was exponent and creature. The deeper view says, God smote the disobedient city, as He had said, and Nebuchadnezzar was ‘the rod of His anger.’

Again, we learn the Divine reluctance to smite. More than four hundred years had passed since Solomon began idolatry, and steadily, through all that time, a stream of prophecy of varying force and width had flowed, while smaller disasters had confirmed the prophets’ voices. ‘Rising up early and sending’ his servants, God had been in earnest in seeking to save Israel from itself. Men said then, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’ and mocked His warnings and would none of His reproof; but at last the hour struck and the crash came. ‘As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord! when Thou awakest, Thou shalt despise their image.’ His judgment seems to slumber, but its eyes are open, and it remains inactive, that His long-suffering may have free scope. As long as His gaze can discern the possibility of repentance, He will not strike; and when that is hopeless, He will not delay. The explanation of the marvellous tolerance of evil which sometimes tries faith and always evokes wonder, lies in the great words, which might well be written over the chair of every teacher of history: ‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward.’ Alas, that that divine patience should ever be twisted into the ground of indurated disobedience! ‘Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.’

God’s reluctance to punish is no reason for doubting that He will. Judgment is His ‘strange work,’ less congenial, if we may so paraphrase that strong word of the prophet’ s, than pure mercy, but it will be done nevertheless. The tears over Jerusalem that witnessed Christ’s sorrow did not blind the eyes like a flame of fire, nor stay the outstretched hand of the Judge, when the time of her final fall came. The longer the delay, the worse the ruin. The more protracted the respite and the fuller it has been of entreaties to return, the more terrible the punishment. ‘Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: towards them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

And. Note the Figure of speech Polysyndeton in verses: 2Ki 25:1-7, to emphasize every detail.

it came to pass. Compare 2Ch 36:11-13 and Jer 52. The prophecy of 2Ki chapters 39-44 is the Divine comment on the history.

ninth year, &c. The day revealed to Ezekiel in exile (Eze 24:1). Compare Jer 39:1.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2Ki 25:1

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The rebellion was easily quelled, and Zedekiah was captured and taken to Babylon. His fate is tragic and awful. With eyes put out, and bound in fetters, he was carried to the court of his conqueror as the type and symbol of the people who had rebelled against God and been broken in pieces. A poor remnant still remained in the land over whom Gedaliah was appointed governor for a brief period. After his murder, the remnant fled to Egypt, and thus the nation called to peculiar position of honor, became a people scattered and peeled, losing all their privileges because of their failure to fulfil responsibility.

On the human side the record ends in tragic and disastrous failure. To those whose eyes are fixed on the eternal Throne it is certain that the divine purpose must be accomplished. Into long years of servitude and suffering these people have passed, still to be watched over by their one and only King, and, according to the covenant of grace, by these very conditions are prepared for co-operation in the ultimate movements of the overruling God.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

the Captivity Made Complete

2Ki 25:1-12

As the final catastrophe approaches, the historian becomes more minute in his dates, marking the month and the day. From Eze 24:1 we gather that on the very day when the foe made his appearance before Jerusalem, the fact was revealed to Ezekiel in Babylon, and the fate of the city made clear. Jeremiah besought Zedekiah to submit, but to no purpose, Jer 38:17. The siege lasted eighteen months, and its calamities may be gathered from Lam 2:20-21; Lam 4:3-20. Finally famine triumphed, Lam 4:8; Lam 4:10; Eze 5:10. A third of the population perished of hunger and plague, Eze 5:12.

Such is the divine judgment upon sin. God pleads long with man, but if man will not turn, then God whets His sword, and becomes terrible in His retribution. Amid all this catastrophe, however, we recall the tears of the book of Lamentations, like those of Jesus afterward. There is that in God which sorrows as He chastises, and causes Him to say, How shall I make thee as Admah, and set thee as Zeboim? Deu 29:23; Hos 11:8. Notice how, in putting out the eyes of Zedekiah, two prophecies which appeared to be contradictory were reconciled and fulfilled, Jer 32:5; Jer 34:3; and Eze 12:13.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Jehoiachin

(Jehovah will establish)

(2Ki 24:8-17)

Contemporary Prophets: Jeremiah; Zephaniah; Ezekiel.

He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle.-Job 12:18

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he I began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mothers name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done (2Ki 24:8, 9). 2Ch 36:9 makes him eight years old at the beginning of his reign, instead of eighteen, as here: so in LXX and Vulg. But some Hebrew MSS., Syriac, and Arabic, read eighteen in Chronicles; so eight must be an error of transcription. All the internal evidence is in favor of eighteen. See Jer 22:28-30; Eze 19:7.

His character was no different from that of his two predecessors. It is the same sad, unvarying record: He did that which was evil. How the godly must have longed .for that King mentioned by Isaiah, who should reign in righteousness! They little knew, or even suspected, perhaps, all that their nation would have to suffer, and the long, weary centuries-aye, millenniums-that would have to wear themselves away before that day of righteousness and peace should come. But there was something about even this wicked king that could give them hope-his name, Jehovah will establish. They might not know the time; the fact they were assured of. And so they could with patience wait for it.

Nehushta, his mothers name, means copper. It refers to anything of copper, whether a copper coin, or a copper mirror or fetters: and both she and her son, with all his family and retinue, were carried captive to Babylon. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his [Nebuchadnezzars] reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the kings house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the kings mother, and the kings wives (wives, confirming the reading eighteen against eight}, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. This was all as the Lord said through His prophet Jeremiah (Jer 20:5). Heaven and earth will pass away and perish, but not one word of God.

The temple was despoiled of its remaining treasures. A few years before the king of Babylon had carried away the solid and smaller vessels (2Ch 36:7). On this occasion he (lit.) cut the gold off the larger plated vessels-the ark, the altar of incense, the show-bread table, etc. There is no contradiction here, or any where in Scripture, for the Scripture cannot be broken. The kings mother would be the queen mother mentioned in Jer 13:18.

The Babylonian captivity dates from Jehoiachins reign. He never returned from his captivity. There he spent thirty-six years in prison until the death of Nebuchadnezzar in his eighty-third, or eighty-fourth year, after a reign of forty-three years. His son Evil-merodach succeeded him on the throne. This son had once been himself shut up in prison by his father, where he probably made the acquaintance of the royal Hebrew captive. He was not like the ungrateful butler who, when out of prison, forgat Joseph; he remembered his old prison companion. And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison, and spake kindly unto him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; and changed his prison garments: and he did continually eat bread before him all the days of his life. And for his diet there was a continual diet given him of the king of Babylon, every day a portion until the day of his death, all the days of his life (Jer 52:31-34).

He was not the first king of Davids house to be held a prisoner there. Some time before, his fathers great-grandfather, Manasseh, was brought a prisoner, and there, in his affliction he sought and found the Lord. Whether Jehoiachin ever did so, we cannot say. His name (as Jechonias) is the last of the kings of Judah, mentioned in the list of Matthew, chap. 1. The next is Jesus who is called Christ, anointed King, not of Israel or the Jews only, but of the nations also (Rev 15:3, marg.)

Jeremiah said of Jehoiakim, (Jehoiachins father) He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David (Jer 36:30). The word sit here means to firmly sit,or dwell; and Jehoiachins short three months reign was not that surely. And Zedekiah, Jehoiachins successor, was Jehoiakims brother, not his son.

Though, like his father, he did evil in the sight of the Lord Jehoiachin appears to have been a favorite with the populace. Is this man Coniah13 a despised broken idol? (or, vase) ironically inquired the prophet. But he immediately adds, Is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure?-which is really what he was in Gods eyes. Wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they knew not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah(Jer 22:28-30). Childless here does not mean without descendants (for the prophecy itself mentions his seed) but no direct lineal heir to the throne (Fausset). Mat 1:12 shows conclusively that he had descendants (Jechonias begat Salathiel), as does also 1Ch 3:17 (The sons of Jeconiah; Assir, etc.). The prophecy probably refers to his uncles succeeding him to the throne instead of his son Assir-his first-born, probably; or it may have been a prophecy of Assirs premature death; and this may be why Assir is not mentioned in the genealogy in Matthew. Anyway, God made no mistake. He speaks, and it is done; He commands, and it stands fast. And the word of our God shall stand forever.

13 In 1 Clnon. 3:17 Jehoiachin is given as Jeconiah, of which Coniah is an abbreviation.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

3. The Siege of Jerusalem and Judahs Complete Overthrow

CHAPTER 25

1. The last siege and complete overthrow (2Ki 25:1-21; 2Ch 36:17-20)

2. Gedaliah (2Ki 25:22-26)

3. Jehoiachins captivity and release (2Ki 25:27-30)

Zedekiahs rebellion was a great offence. He had sworn in Jehovahs name to be loyal to Nebuchadnezzar (2Ch 36:13; Eze 17:13). We find more light thrown upon this king and his rebellion in the book of Jeremiah. Ambassadors from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon came to Jerusalem to see Zedekiah (Jer. 27). A combined revolution was probably contemplated. Zedekiah sent at the same time a message to Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon (Jer 29:3); the prophet Jeremiah used this opportunity to send a God-given communication to the exiles in Babylon (Jer 29:1, etc.). The news of Zedekiahs schemes must have reached the captives, for they expected an early return. (The prophet Ezekiel was especially used to warn against these false hopes. See annotations on Ezekiel.) False prophets, Satans instruments, gave them their lying messages. Prominent among them was Hananiah who received his deserved punishment for his lying words (Jer. 28). Once more the city was besieged. A great famine prevailed. What happened in the doomed city and Jeremiahs great ministry as well as suffering may be learned from his prophecies. Consult especially the following passages: Jer. 21:1-2; 37:3; 34:2-6; 38. Jeremiah charged with treacherous designs had been cast into a dungeon, but was later delivered out of the miry pit and brought before the king, who declared himself willing to follow Jeremiahs advice. What followed we give from Edersheims Bible History:

Meantime the siege was continuing, without hope of relief. Tyre suffered straits similar to those of Jerusalem, while Ammon, Moab, Edom and the Philistines had not only withdrawn from the alliance, but were waiting to share in the spoil of Judah (Ezek. 25). At length a gleam of hope appeared. An Egyptian army, under their King Hophra, the grandson of Necho, advanced through Phoenicia, and obliged the Chaldeans to raise the siege of Jerusalem (Jer 37:5-7). The exultation and reaction in Jerusalem may be imagined–and it was probably in consequence of it that Jeremiah, who still predicted calamity, was cast into prison (Jer 37:4). But the relief of Jerusalem was brief. The Egyptian army had to retire, and the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was resumed, and that under even more disadvantageous circumstances to the besieged.

To the other calamities that of famine was now added (2Ki 25:3). Of the horrors of that time Jeremiah has left a record in the Book of Lamentations (comp. 1:19, 2:11, 12, 20; 4:3-10). The last resistance was soon overcome. On the ninth day of the fourth month (Tammuz), in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the enemy gained possession of the northern suburb (2Ki 25:4; Jer 39:2-3; Jer 52:6-7). Before the middle gate the Babylonian captains held a council of war (Jer 39:2-3). Then the king and all the regular army sought safety in flight during the darkness of the night (Jer 39:4). As the Chaldeans held the northern part of the city, they fled southwards. Between the two walls, through the Tyropoeon, then out of the fountain-gate, and through the kings garden, they made haste to gain the Jordan.

But their flight could not remain unobserved. They were pursued and overtaken in the plains of Jericho. The soldiers dispersed in various directions. But the king himself and his household were taken captives, and carried to the headquarters at Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar himself was at the time. Here Zedekiah was formally arraigned and sentence given against him. His daughters were set free, but his sons were slain before him. It was the last sight the king saw. His eyes were put out; he was bound hand and feet with double fetters of brass, and so carried to Babylon. There he died in ward (Jer 52:11).

The remainder of this mournful tale is soon told. After the flight and capture of the king, the city could not long hold out. A month later, and on the seventh day of the fifth month (Ab) Nebuzar-adan (Nebo gave posterity) penetrated into the city. The temple was set on fire, as well as the kings palace. The whole city was reduced to ruins and ashes, and the walls which had defended it were broken down (2Ki 25:9-10). After three days the work of destruction was completed; and ever afterwards was the 10th (9th) of Ab mourned as the fatal day of Jerusalems fall (Jer 52:12; Zec 7:3; Zec 7:5; Zec 8:19). The rest of the people left in the city, and those who had previously passed to the enemy, together with the remnant of the multitude, were carried away (2Ki 25:11). We can scarcely be mistaken in regarding these captives as the chief part of the non-combatant population of Jerusalem and Judah.

Jeremiahs history and how he was found in prison when Jerusalem fell we shall learn from his book.

The administration of the conquered country was then entrusted by Nebuchadnezzar to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam (2Ki 22:12; Jer 26:24). Gedaliah dwelt on Mizpah. He held his office only two months and was murdered by Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah (Jer 40:8-16; Jer 41:1-9).

Jehoiachins release needs no further comment. In the second book of Chronicles we shall follow again this mournful history. The seventy year captivity was on. The Word of the LORD through Jeremiah that the land should enjoy her Sabbaths, for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill three score and ten years (2Ch 36:21).

We add the words of another:

Again is the land keeping Sabbath, And again is it stillness unto God, till His voice shall waken land and people, Whose are land and people, dominion and peace: till He shall come who is alike the goal and the fulfillment of all past history and prophecy–a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

tenth

i.e. January.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

am 3414, bc 590

in the ninth: This according to the computation of Archbishop Usher, was on Thursday, January 30th, am 3414, which was a sabbatical year; wherein they proclaimed liberty to their servants, according to the law, but soon enthralled them again – see Jer 34:8-10. 2Ch 36:17-21, Jer 34:2, Jer 34:3-6, Jer 39:1-10, Jer 52:4, Jer 52:5-11, Eze 24:1, Eze 24:2-14

Nebuchadnezzar: 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:10, 1Ch 6:15, Jer 27:8, Jer 32:28, Jer 43:10, Jer 51:34, Eze 26:7, Nebuchadrezzar, Dan 4:1-18

pitched: Isa 29:3, Jer 32:24, Eze 4:1-8, Eze 21:22-24, Luk 19:43, Luk 19:44

Reciprocal: Deu 28:52 – General 1Ki 16:17 – besieged Tirzah 2Ki 6:24 – gathered 2Ki 17:5 – three years 2Ki 22:16 – all the words Ezr 4:15 – for which Ezr 5:12 – into the hand Jer 1:3 – unto the end Jer 4:7 – lion Jer 4:17 – keepers Jer 6:3 – they shall Jer 21:2 – for Jer 32:1 – in the Jer 34:1 – when Lam 1:17 – commanded Eze 4:6 – forty days Eze 21:14 – let the Eze 21:23 – but Eze 23:23 – Babylonians Eze 40:1 – after Mic 5:1 – he hath

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Ki 25:1. Nebuchadnezzar came, and all his host, against Jerusalem To chastise Zedekiah for his rebellion and perjury: for, contrary to the solemn oath he had taken, he had been contriving and endeavoring to revolt from the king of Babylon, and shake off his yoke. They built forts against it round about To keep all supplies of men and provisions from entering into the city, and that from thence, by such arts of war as they then had, they might batter the walls, shoot arrows, and throw darts or stones into it. Formerly Jerusalem was compassed with the favour of God as with a shield, but now their defence is departed from them, and their enemies surround them on every side. The siege lasted two years. At first the besieging army retired for fear of the king of Egypt, who came to help Zedekiah; and then Jeremiah endeavoured to get out of the city, to go into the land of Benjamin, but was hindered, seized, and imprisoned, Jer 37:11. The Chaldeans, finding that Pharaoh was not so powerful as they at first supposed, soon returned, as Jeremiah had foretold they would, with a resolution not to quit the siege till they had made themselves masters of the place.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Ki 25:18. Seraiah, the father of Ezra, was put to death with the nobles for rebellion; but many of those who thus suffered had also made a false covenant with the Lord; and their sins found them out. Jer 34:18.

REFLECTIONS.

Standing now on the ruins of a burned and desecrated temple, what is the history of the Hebrew nation for nine hundred years, since the emancipation from Egypt, but a sea of troubles. After the intervals of sunshine and calm, storms more furious seem to arise in succession. It commenced and closed in a state of captivity; its condition from first to last, corresponded to its obedience or disobedience to the principles on which it was first founded. A state in which the Almighty, the great Creator, vouchsafed to become their supreme governor and king; and as such, both showed himself present by a visible appearance, and gave them counsels by a divine voice, intelligible to their hearing, or by men raised up on purpose, and wholly actuated by his extraordinary influence. This is the great distinguishing characteristic of the Jewish state: the more we consider it the more we shall be astonished, and the more shall we be affected by it. Considered in this light, the history of the old testament will no longer appear merely a relation of the transactions of a worthless people, in which we have no concern, but as the oracles of God, in which we are most intimately concerned as men, and without which a chaos of darkness with regard to God would for ever remain. To know nothing of God but from the appearance of things, to have no knowledge of his ever having made himself known to men, or taken any account of them, would be a miserable state of darkness: nor would even the new testament afford us all the satisfaction we might wish on this head; for we should naturally cast our reflections on the ages past, and be staggered that God should, as it were just now, reveal himself to men, when the many ages before had never heard of any such thing. Our doubts and scruples would arise at this inexplicable difficulty; we should think it strange that the Creator and Sovereign of the world, if indeed the nature of things permitted it, and he was disposed to make himself known to men, should so long have left his world without manifesting himself in it. But by the sacred writings of the old testament all these doubts are removed. We learn from them, that ever since man was placed on the earth, God hath from time to time shown his majesty to man, and declared his right as the universal Creator and Lord. The scriptures of the old testament embrace a series of historical facts relative to this important point. And not this only, but to put it still more beyond doubt, and that it might not rest solely upon the single testimony of individuals, or transitory appearances, the holy scriptures inform us that God selected a whole nation, and appeared visible among them for many ages, by a shechinah or visible glory, which was such as plainly indicated it to be the symbol of the divine presence. This too was supported by wonderful facts attending the presence of this shechinah, and such declarations were audibly made from it as more and more confirmed the truth, that it was indeed the representative of the Lord, the Sovereign of the universe. For so were the affairs of this people, among whom God placed this visible symbol of his presence, ordered; so did things happen, that the presence of the true God residing among men, and taking account of the things of the earth, was thereby made known to the ends of the world, and his name went forth into all the earth.

In a word, in the various occurrences of the Jewish state, Gods sovereign superintendance over mankind, together with his unbounded power over all things, was fully manifested. So wonderful is the series of facts, so placed are the prophecies relating to them, so surpassing all human power the wondrous things recorded, so plain, regular, and with such apparent marks of truth, the relation also corroborated by the existence of the same people to this very day, still separated from all others, that we could scarce be more affected, nor scarce be more convinced of Gods unbounded power, and of his ordering the affairs of the earth, by having the divine shechinah with us and seeing a series of miracles, than we may be by attentively and seriously perusing the records of the Jewish state in the writings of the old testament.

If we only cast back our reflections on what we have read in the foregoing page; what a series of wonderful events lie before us. The formation of the earth, the creation of man, the appearance of God to him in the early ages of the world, the destruction and renovation of the earth, the evident demonstration that human nature may be removed into another state, by the translation of Enoch; the calling of Abraham from his kindred and country to preserve him from idolatry, and thereby to keep alive the knowledge of the true God in the world, and the right worship of him. The promise given to Abraham that his seed should inherit a particular country pointed out to him, in which he had not then so much as a single foot of property, though they were first to be strangers without any inheritance, and serve other people for four hundred years. The exact accomplishment of these remarkable particulars, the settling of the descendants of Abraham in that very country which had been declared to him for their inheritance four hundred years before; their perfect establishment therein, and the glory they arrived to; the many great signs and wonders which were done amongst them, the prophets that were raised up, mighty in deed and in word, and evidently actuated by more than human influence. The prosperity and adversity of the state, from first to last, through a succession of ages, exactly corresponding to what had been promised and threatened at the first settling of it, according to their obedience or disobedience; their entire removal out of the land into captivity, exactly agreeing with the prophetic denunciation declared long before; and their surprising restoration to their own land again, as exactly agreeing to prophetic promises, if they would repent and turn again to the Lord. When we attentively consider all these particulars, we cannot but be struck with admiration and reverence at the greatness of the things, and feel as it were that the hand of God was in them; and that the holy scriptures are indeed the authentic records of Gods dealings with the children of men, and his manifestations to them.

It deserves farther to be remarked, that before the fall of the Jewish state, when ten parts out of twelve were no more to be a people, or return into their own land, that God was pleased to raise up two prophets, endued with a most extraordinary power, Elijah and Elisha, whose acts are recorded in the foregoing books. It seems highly consistent with the most consummate wisdom, that at a time when the house of Israel was diverging into the grossest idolatry, and the house of Judah following their example, that some great effort should be made if possible to reclaim and save them, or at least to inculcate the most important truths; which though not having an immediate influence, did perhaps afterwards keep alive the remembrance of the true God, and inspire notions of the greatest importance. In the days of Elijah and Elisha we find miracles were multiplied: they were exerted frequently, and upon many occasions, to testify the unbounded power of God, but in particular that he could raise men from the dead. Thus both Elijah and Elisha seem to have been brought into such circumstances by providence, as to give them occasion to restore the dead to life. This, with the wonderful translation of Elijah, and the dead man restored to life by the touch of Elishas bones, could not but in some degree inculcate the important truth, that the human nature might be translated to a happier state in the heavens. It is not improbable that at this time, the hopes of being restored to life after death were almost entirely extinguished, and the memory of Enochs translation nearly effaced. It was therefore highly necessary that the hopes of human nature should again be raised with respect to this important point; and therefore these two prophets were enabled to raise the dead, and one of them was taken up alive into heaven. How long the memory of these great things was retained by the ten tribes in the countries they were carried into we know not; but it is highly probable they might reflect upon them with more attention than they had done in their own country, and by this means propagate these important truths in all the countries where they were carried to. This we know, that the captivity of Judah, which seemed as it were to put an end to all Gods purposes in his election of the Hebrew nation, was the means of not only fixing them for ever after, more steadily in the worship, but also of spreading the knowledge, of Him and his almighty power through a great part of the world.

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

2Ki 24:18 to 2Ki 25:7. Zedekiah. Destruction of Temple and City.This event is related more fully in Jeremiah. Zedekiah seems to have been well-meaning but weak, and inclined to favour Jeremiah when not hindered by his nobles. The siege of Jerusalem, which lasted nearly two years (2Ki 25:1-4), is more fully related in Jer 37:1 to Jer 39:7.

2Ki 24:6. and they gave judgement upon him: Zedekiahs offence was intriguing with Egypt and breaking his treaty with Nebuchadrezzar (Eze 17:15).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

THE TOTAL CAPTIVITY OF JUDAH

(vv.1-21)

In the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Jerusalem, building a wall around it. Jeremiah told Zedekiah, by the word of the Lord, that if he would surrender to the king of Babylon, he would live and the city would not be burned with fire, but if he would not surrender the city would be burned and he (Zedekiah) would not escape (Jer 38:17-18), but because of Zedekiah’s fear of the Jews he would not surrender.

The siege continued for one and a half years, till the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (v.2). Their supply of food was exhausted (v.3) and also at that time the city was broken through. But instead of surrendering to the king of Babylon, all the men of war and Zedekiah sought to escape at night by way of a gate between two walls (v.4). How did they expect to escape when the army of the Chaldeans surrounded the city? At least, Zedekiah and his sons were caught, though others of his men were scattered from him (v.5).

Zedekiah, being captured, was taken to Riblah where his sons were killed before his eyes, then his own eyes were put out (v.7). How solemn a judgment for a king of Judah! But it is typical of Israel’s eyes being blinded at the present time because of unbelief (Rom 11:7-8), a spiritual blindness that has continued through history from the time of their dispersal among the Gentiles.

Nebuchadnezzar seems to have had no more hope that Judah would be subject to him, so he had Nebuzaradan. his servant go to Jerusalem and burn the house of the Lord, the king’s house and all the houses of the officials (v.9). He realised the Jews must have no centre of gathering, and thus the temple, so magnificently built in the time of Solomon, was destroyed by fire. What is there in Christendom that would answer to this? God’s true Centre in the Church is Christ Himself. But is this realised today in the professing church? Rather, Satan has succeeded in blotting out the clear recognition of Christ as God’s one Centre, with the resulting confusion of many sects and denominations striving against each other.

Besides this the army of the Chaldeans broke down the walls of Jerusalem all around, so that the city would have no protection from marauders (v.10). Thus today, in the professing church, the wall of separation has been broken down, so that unbelievers have easily come in to work havoc.

Also, the rest of the people in the city, as well as those who surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar, were carried away captive to Babylon (v.11). The devastation was complete, and since that time there has not been another king of Israel, though Herod, an Edomite, was called king in Mat 2:1 and another Herod followed him (Act 12:1). These were not of Israel, but were mere vassals of Caesar.

However, the captain of the guard left some of the poor of the land as vinedressers and farmers. It is possible, since they had taken so many away captive, that they brought some aliens in to replace them, as was the case among the ten tribes when they were so decimated by the King of Assyria (ch.17:24), but no mention is made of this here.

Evidently verses 13-17 refer to what took place before Nebuzaradan burned the temple. The bronze pillars and the bronze sea were broken in pieces to be taken to Babylon. Besides this the firepans, basins and things of solid gold and solid silver were also taken (vv.14-15). The bronze of the many articles was so great in quantity as to be beyond measure (v.16). All these things were God’s property and are symbolical of what can only be properly appropriated by faith, but in being taken to Babylon, (which means ‘confusion”), they were placed in connection with idol worship. Today also false religion has appropriated for itself what really belongs to God and uses it for its own unholy profit.

Verse 19 then Lists a number of men whom the captain of the guard found in the City, Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the second priest, three doorkeepers, an officer in charge of the men of war, five men of the king’s close associates, the chief recruiting officer of the army and sixty others who were found in the city. Nebuzaradan took all of these captive and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah (v.20). None of them were allowed to live, but all were put to death by Nebuchadnezzar’s order (v.21). This completed the captivity of Judah and the desolation of Jerusalem.

Though no king was allowed to rule over Judah, it was necessary that some form of government should be kept in control of the country, so Nebuzaradan appointed a man who was a descendant of the kings, Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, to be governor of the people who were left in the land (v.22).

When it became known that Gedaliah had been appointed as Governor, officers of the armies and their men who had scattered from Judah came to Mizpah, where Gedaliah resided. Among these were some prominent men, specially Ishmael and Johanan (v.23). Gedaliah was purposed to remain in the land and to be subject to the king of Babylon, and he took an oath to this affect before these men, requiring them also to serve Nebuchadnezzar. This was the wise thing to do, for God had brought them down and rebellion would have been rebellion against God. Thus too in Christendom, because of the sad failure in testimony, God has allowed confusion (the meaning of Babylon) to take possession of the church publicly, and it is only right that we bow to the shame of our confusion, not expecting ever to return to the bright Pentecostal days of the Church.

This is a principle that is too frequently ignored, or even refused, by believers of the present day, for it is popular to accept the world’s attitude that we should fight for our own rights. Therefore those who realise they should bow to the government of God are considered weaklings. Some proudly think that by their heroic efforts they are going to bring in another Pentecost, and in fighting for this cause, they will sadly persuade themselves they are really accomplishing something when their work is manifestly only a poor imitation of the early days of the Church.

It is important to consider that Gedaliah required an oath from the number of prominent men who came to him, that they would dwell in the land and serve the king of Babylon. It was God who had put them in that position because of Judah’s previous guilt, and faith could only bow to it.

Jer 40:1-16; Jer 41:1-18 furnishes an enlarged history of events at this time, a passage well worth considering if we are to have our thoughts rightly formed. Johanan, whose name means “Jehovah is gracious giver” had clear discernment that Ishmael was a traitor and had come with the intention of killing Gedaliah. He warned Gedaliah against Ishmael, but Gedaliah did not believe him. Gedaliah, being governor, symbolises the government of God, and Johanan, God’s grace. Ishmael reminds us of the son of the bondwoman, Hagar (Gen 16:1-16), and he pictures the legal covenant (Gal 4:21-25). Can legal minded men be depended on to be subject to God’s government? No indeed! If one claims to be keeping the law, he deceives himself and he will not hesitate to deceive others too. In fact, like Ishmael, he will destroy true government. Johanan (grace) was a true friend of government (Gedaliah), but sadly Gedaliah was deceived by Ishmael, who could agree to a covenant then very soon break it and murder the governor he had come to serve!

In the seventh month, just two months after Jerusalem had been burned (vv.8-9), Ishmael came with ten men (reminding us of the ten commandments) and killed Gedaliah and those who were with him, at Mizpah (v.25). This murder took place immediately after Ishmael had deceitfully eaten with Gedaliah (Jer 41:1-2). In fact, on the second day after this happened, there were 80 men who came from Shechem, Shiloh and Samaria with desire to meet with Gedaliah. Ishmael met them, weeping, and guided them into the city, where Ishmael and his men killed them except for ten men who bribed Ishmael to let them live (Jer 41:4-7).

Verse 26 (of 2Ki 25:1-30) speaks of all those people who had come to Gedaliah deciding to go to Egypt because of fear of the Chaldeans, or Babylonians. Again, Jeremiah furnishes more information about this. Johanan and others with him asked Jeremiah to enquire of the Lord as to what they ought to do now that Gedaliah was gone (Jer 42:1-3). This should not have been difficult, for they had accepted the oath of Gedaliah to remain in the land. Now they told Jeremiah that whatever the Lord said, they would obey. However, when Jeremiah told them the Lord clearly declared that they would be blessed if they remained in the land under the domination of Babylon, he also told them they had been hypocritical in saying they would obey the Lord, for they had already decided they would go to Egypt and were only hoping that God would confirm this. Therefore they would suffer more in Egypt than they expected to in Israel (Jer 42:52). The result was that they did just what Jeremiah told them they would, yet accused him of speaking falsely in the name of the Lord (Jer 43:1-3).

JEHOIACHIN RELEASED, BUT NOT RESTORED

(v.27-30)

Jehoiachin (Coniah) remained a captive for 37 years in Babylon, and then a new king, Evil-Merodach, decided to release him, speaking kindly to him and giving him a place of dignity above other kings who had evidently been also brought to Babylon (vv.27-28). We are not told why he showed this favour to Jehoiachin, but this is a striking picture of grace shown to one who has long been in shame and disrepute. Is it not a foreshadowing of the eventual recovery of the nation Israel from their long history of disobedience to God? This was not because Jehoiachin was worthy of grace, but rather that the grace was solely from the kindness of the king of Babylon, just as Israel will be brought back from misery and bondage by the sovereign work of God in grace toward them.

No longer did Jehoiachin wear prison garments, but was given provision of food “before the king” all the days of his life. Thus he was a subject of both mercy and grace, for mercy is compassion shown to one in need, while grace freely gives abundant provision to satisfy every need and much more. A regular allowance was given him for each day as long as he lived. He was not restored to his place as king of Judah, nor will any men of Coniah’s descendants ever reign as king, but they will rejoice in recognising the Lord Jesus as the true King of all Israel and they will be greatly blessed all the days of their life.

We have surely seen in these books of Kings the clear proof that no man is worthy to hold authority over men. This is not only true of the many kings who were ungodly and rebellious, but also of those who were the most faithful and devoted. In fact, not one of all the kings of Judah and of Israel enjoyed a really bright end to his reign. Contrast this with the brightness of the end of Paul’s history (2Ti 4:6-8), a lowly servant of God in prison! Only the Lord Jesus is worthy of supreme authority, He who is “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

Thus, though the books of the kings are full of sorrow and failure, they end with a bright promise of great blessing for Israel. How good indeed is our great God!

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

25:1 And it came to pass in the {a} ninth year of his reign, in the {b} tenth month, in the tenth [day] of the month, [that] Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.

(a) That is, of Zedekiah.

(b) Which the Hebrews call Teber, and it contains part of December and part of January.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

20

ZEDEKIAH, THE LAST KING OF JUDAH

B.C. 597-586

2Ki 24:18-20; 2Ki 25:1-7

“Quand ce grand Dieu a choisi quelquun pour etre linstrument de ses desseins rien narrete le cours, en enchaine, ou il aveugle, ou il dompte tout ce qui est capable de resistance.”

– BOSSUET, “Oraison funebre de Henriette Marie.”

WHEN Jehoiachin was carried captive to Babylon, never to return, his uncle Mattaniah (“Jehovahs gift”), the third son of Josiah, was put by Nebuchadrezzar in his place. In solemn ratification of the new kings authority, the Babylonian conqueror sanctioned the change of his name to Zedekiah (“Jehovahs righteousness”). He was twenty-one at his accession, and he reigned eleven years.

“Behold,” writes Ezekiel, “the King of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and took the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and brought them to him to Babylon; and he took of the seed royal” (i.e., Zedekiah), “and made a covenant with him; he also brought him under an oath: and took away the mighty of the land, that the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his covenant it might stand.” {Eze 17:12-14}

Perhaps by this covenant Zechariah meant to emphasize the meaning of his name, and to show that he would reign in righteousness.

The prophet at the beginning of the chapter describes Nebuchadrezzar and Jehoiachin in “a riddle.”

“A great eagle,” he says, “with great wings and long pinions; full of feathers, which had divers colors, came unto Lebanon, and took the top of the cedar” (Jehoiachin): “he cropped off the topmost of the young twigs thereof, and carried it into a land of traffic; he set it in a city of merchants. He took also of the seed of the land” (Zedekiah), “and planted it in a fruitful soil; he placed it beside great waters, he set it as a willow tree. And it grew, and became a spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned towards him, and the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought forth branches, and shot forth sprigs.” {Eze 17:1-6}

The words refer to the first three years of Zedekiahs reign, and they imply, consistently with the views of the prophets, that, if the weak king had been content with the lowly eminence to which God had called him, and if he had kept his oath and covenant with Babylon, all might yet have been well with him and his land. At first it seemed likely to be so; for Zedekiah wished to be faithful to Jehovah. He made a covenant with all the people to set free their Hebrew slaves. Alas! it was very short-lived. Self-sacrifice cost something, and the princes soon took back the discarded bond-servants. {Jer 34:8-11} What made this conduct the more shocking was that their covenant to obey the law had been made in the most solemn manner by “cutting a calf in twain, and passing between the severed halves.” But the weak king was perfectly powerless in the hands of his tyrannous aristocracy.

The exiles in Babylon were now the best and most important section of the nation. Jeremiah compares them to good figs; while the remnant at Jerusalem were bad and withered. He and Ezekiel raised their voices, as in strophe and antistrophe, for the teaching alike of the exiles and of the remnant left at Jerusalem, for whom the exiles were bidden to entreat God in prayer. Zedekiah himself made at least one journey northward, either voluntarily or under summons, to renew his oath and reassure Nebuchadrezzar of his fidelity. He was accompanied by Seraiah, the brother of Baruch, who was privately entrusted by Jeremiah with a prophecy of the fall of Babylon, which he was to fling into the midst of the Euphrates.

The last King of Judah seems to have been weak rather than wicked. He was a reed shaken by the wind. He yielded to the influence of the last person who argued with him; and he seems to have dreaded above all things the personal ridicule, danger, and opposition which it was his duty to have defied. Yet we cannot withhold from him our deep sympathy: for he was born in terrible times-to witness the death-throes of his countrys agony, and to share in them. It was no longer a question of independence, but only of the choice of servitudes. Judah was like a silly and trembling sheep between two huge beasts of prey.

Only thus can we account for the strange apostasies-“the abominations of the heathen”-with which he permitted the Temple to be polluted; and for the ill-treatment which he allowed to be inflicted on Jeremiah and other prophets, to whom in his heart he felt inclined to listen.

What these abominations were we read with amazement in the eighth chapter of Ezekiel. The prophet is carried in vision to Jerusalem, and there he sees the Asherah-“the image which provoketh to jealousy”-which had so often been erected and destroyed and re-erected. Then through a secret door he sees creeping things, and abominable beasts, and the idol blocks of the House of Israel portrayed upon the wall, while several elders of Israel stood before them and adored, with censers in their hands-among whom he must specially have grieved to see Jaazaneiah, the son of Shaphan, flattering himself, as did his followers, that in that dark chamber Jehovah saw them not. Next at the northern gate he sees Zions daughters weeping for Tammuz, or Adonis. Once more, in the inner court of the Temple, between the porch and the altar, he sees about twenty-five men with their backs to the altar, and their faces to the east; and they worshipped the sun towards the east; and, lo! they put the vine branch to their nose. Were not these crimes sufficient to evoke the wrath of Jehovah, and to alienate His ear from prayers offered by such polluted worshippers? Egypt, Assyria. Syria, Chaldaea, all contributed their idolatrous elements to the detestable syncretism; and the king and the priests ignored, permitted, or connived at it. {Eze 16:15-34} This must surely be answered for. How could it have been otherwise? The king and the priests were the official guardians of the Temple, and these aberrations could not have gone on without their cognizance. There was another party of sheer formalists, headed by men like the priest Pashur, who thought to make talismans of rites and shibboleths, but had no sincerity of heart-religion {Jer 7:4; Jer 8:8; Jer 31:33; Jer 7:34} To these, too, Jeremiah was utterly opposed. In his opinion Josiahs reformation had failed. Neither Ark, nor Temple, nor sacrifice were anything in the world to him in comparison with true religion. All the prophets with scarcely one exception are anti-ritualists; but none more decidedly so than the prophet-priest. His name is associated in tradition with the hiding of the Ark, and a belief in its ultimate restoration; yet to Jeremiah, apart from the moral and spiritual truths of which it was the material symbol, the Ark was no better than a wooden chest. His message from Jehovah is, “I will give you pastors according to My heart and they shall say no more, The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind; neither shall they remember it; neither shall they miss it; neither shall it be made any more.” {Jer 3:15-16} Doom followed the guilt and folly of king, priests, and people. If political wisdom were insufficient to show Zedekiah that the necessities of the case were an indication of Gods will, he had the warnings of the prophets constantly ringing in his ears, and the assurance that he must remain faithful to Nebuchadrezzar. But he was in fear of his own princes and courtiers. A combined embassy reached him from the kings of Edom, Ammon, Moab, Tyre, and Sidon, urging him to join in a league against Babylon. {Jer 27:3} This embassy was supported by a powerful party in Jerusalem. Their solicitations were rendered more plausible by the recent accession (B.C. 590) of the young and vigorous Pharaoh Hophrah-the Apries of Herodotus- to the throne of Egypt, and by the recrudescence of that incurable disease of Hebrew politics, a confidence in the idle promises of Egypt to supply the confederacy with men and horses. In vain did Jeremiah and Ezekiel uplift their warning voices. The blind confidence of the king and of the nobles was sustained by the flattering visions and promises of false prophets, prominent among whom was a certain Hananiah, the son of Azur, of Gibeon, “the prophet.” To indicate the futility of the contemplated rebellion, Jeremiah had made “thongs and poles” with yokes, and had sent them to the kings, whose embassy had reached Jerusalem, with a message of the most emphatic distinctness, that Nebuchadrezzar was Gods appointed servant, and that they must serve him till Gods own appointed time. If they obeyed this intimation, they would be left undisturbed in their own lands; if they disobeyed it, they would be scourged into absolute submission by the sword, the famine, and the pestilence. Jeremiah delivered the same oracle to his own king.

The warning was rendered unavailing by the conduct of Hananiah. He prophesied that within two full years God would break the yoke of the King of Babylon; and that the captive Jeconiah, and the nobles, and the vessels of the House of the Lord would be brought back. Jeremiah, by way of an acted parable, had worn round his neck one of his own yokes. Hananiah, in the Temple, snatched it off, broke it to pieces, and said, “So will I break the yoke of Nebuchadrezzar from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years.”

We can imagine the delight, the applause, the enthusiasm with which the assembled people listened to these bold predictions. Hananiah argued with them, so to speak, in shorthand, for he appealed to their desires and to their prejudices. It is always the tendency of nations to say to their prophets, “Say not unto us hard things: speak smooth things; prophesy deceits.”

Against Hananiah personally there seems to have been no charge, except that in listening to the lying spirit of his own desires he could not hear the true message of God. But he did not stand alone. Among the children of the captivity, his promises were echoed by two downright false prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah, the son of Maaseiah, who prophesied lies in Gods name. They were men of evil life, and a fearful fate overtook them. Their words against Babylon came to the ears of Nebuchadrezzar, and they were “roasted in the fire,” so that the horror of their end passed into a proverb and a curse. {Jer 29:21-23} Truly God fed these false prophets with wormwood, and gave them poisonous water to drink. {Jer 23:9-32}

After the action of Hananiah, Jeremiah went home stricken and ashamed: apparently he never again uttered a public discourse in the Temple. It took him by surprise; and he was for the moment, perhaps, daunted by the plausive echo of the multitude to the lying prophet. But when he got home the answer of Jehovah came: “Go and tell Hananiah, Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou hast made for them yokes of iron. I have put a yoke of iron on the necks of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadrezzar. Hear now, Hananiah, The Lord hath not sent thee: thou makest this people to trust in a lie. Behold, this year thou shalt die, because thou hast spoken revolt against the Lord. What hath the chaff to do with the wheat? saith the Lord.” {Jer 28:13-16; Jer 23:28}

Two months after Hananiah lay dead, and mens minds were filled with fear. They saw that Gods word was indeed as a fire to burn, and as a hammer to dash in pieces. {Jer 23:29} But meanwhile Zedekiah had been over-persuaded to take the course which the true prophets had forbidden. Misled by the false prophets and mincing prophetesses whom Ezekiel denounced, {Eze 13:1-23} who daubed mens walls with whitened plaster, he had sent an embassy to Pharaoh Hophrah, asking for an army of infantry and cavalry to support his rebellion from Assyria. {Eze 17:15} In the eyes of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the crime did not only consist in defying the exhortations of those whom Zedekiah knew to be Jehovahs accredited messengers, in mitigation of this offence he might have pleaded the extreme difficulty of discriminating the truth amid the ceaseless babble of false pretenders. But, on the other hand, he had broken the solemn oath which he had taken to Nebuchadrezzar in the name of God, and the sacred covenant which he seems to have twice ratified with him. {2Ch 36:13; Jer 52:3} This it was which raised the indignation of the faithful, and led Ezekiel to prophesy:-

“Shall he prosper? Shall he escape that doeth such things? Or shall he break the covenant and be believed? As I live, saith the Lord God, surely in the place where the king dwelleth that made him king, Whose oath he despised and whose covenant he broke, Even with him in the midst of Babylon, shall he die.” { Eze 17:15-16; Eze 28:19}

Sad close for a dynasty which had now lasted for nearly five centuries!

As for Pharaoh, he too was an eagle, as Nebuchadrezzar was-a great eagle with great wings and many feathers, but not so great. The trailing vine of Judah bent her roots towards him, but it should wither in the furrows when the east wind touched it. {Eze 17:7-10}

The result of Zedekiahs alliance with Egypt was the intermission of his yearly tribute to Assyria; and at last, in the ninth year of Zedekiah, Nebuchadrezzar was aroused to put down this Palestinian revolt, supported as it was by the vague magnificence of Egypt. Jeremiah had said, “Pharaoh, the King of Egypt, is but a noise [or desolation]: he hath passed the time appointed.” {Jer 46:17}

This was about the year 589. In 598 Nebuchadrezzar had carried Jehoachin into captivity, and ever since then some of his forces had been engaged in the vain effort to capture Tyre, which still, after a ten years siege, drew its supplies from the sea, and remained impregnable on her island rock. He did not choose to raise this long-continued siege by diverting the troops to beleaguer so strong a fortress as Jerusalem, and therefore he came in person from Babylon.

In Eze 21:20-24 we have a singular and vivid glimpse of his march. On his way he came to a spot where two roads branched off before him. One led to Rabbath, the capital of Ammon, on the east of Jordan; the other to Jerusalem, on the west. Which road should he take? Personally, it was a matter of indifference; so he threw the burden of responsibility upon his gods by leaving the decision to the result of belomancy. Taking in his hand a sheaf of brightened arrows, he held them upright, and decided to take the route indicated by the fall of the greater number of arrows. He confirmed his uncertainty by consulting teraphim, and by hepatoscopy-i.e., by examining the liver of slain victims. Rabbath and the Ammonites were not to be spared, but it was upon the covenant-breaking king and city that the vengeance was to fall. {Eze 21:28-32} And this is what the prophet has to say to Zedekiah:-

“And thou, O deadly-wounded wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose day is come in the time of the iniquity of the end; thus saith the Lord God, Remove the miter, and take off the crown. This shall be not thus. Exalt the low, and abase that which is high. An overthrow, overthrow, overthrow, will I make it: this also shall be no more, until He come whose right it is: and I will give it Him.”

So (B.C. 587) Jerusalem was delivered over to siege, even as Ezekiel had sketched upon a tile. {Eze 4:1-3} It was to be assailed in the old Assyrian manner-as we see it represented in the British Musemn bas-relief, where Sennacherib is portrayed in the act of besieging Lachish-with forts, mounds, and battering-rams; and Ezekiel had also been bidden to put up an iron plate between him and his pictured city to represent the mantelet from behind which the archers shot.

In this dread crisis Zedekiah sent Zephaniah, the son of Maaseiah, the priest, and Jehueal, to Jeremiah, entreating his prayers for the city, {Jer 37:3} for he had not yet been put in prison. Doubtless he prayed, and at first it looked as if deliverance would come. Pharaoh Hophrah put in motion the Egyptian army with its Carian mercenaries and Soudanese Negroes, and Nebuchadrezzar was sufficiently alarmed to raise the siege and go to meet the Egyptians. The hopes of the people probably rose high, though multitudes seized the opportunity to fly to the mountains. {Eze 7:16} The circumstances closely resembled those under which Sennacherib had raised the siege of Jerusalem to go to meet Tirhakah the Ethiopian; and perhaps there were some, and the king among them, who looked that such a wonder might be vouchsafed to him through the prayers of Jeremiah as had been vouchsafed to Hezekiah through the prayers of Isaiah. Not for a moment did Jeremiah encourage these vain hopes. To Zephaniah, as to an earlier deputation from the king, when he sent Pashur with him to inquire of the prophet, Jeremiah returned a remorseless answer. It is too late. Pharaoh shall be defeated; even if the Chaldaean army were smitten, “its wounded soldiers would suffice to besiege and burn Jerusalem, and take into captivity the miserable inhabitants after they had suffered the worst horrors of a besieged city.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary