Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 22:10
Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: [but] weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country.
10 12. See introd. summary to section. After Josiah’s death at the battle of Megiddo (b.c. 608), Jehoahaz, though not the eldest son (see Intr. pp. xiv. f.), was chosen to succeed him, but after three months was dethroned by Pharaoh-necoh, and carried off to Egypt, where he died (2Ki 23:33 ff.). The passage was evidently written very soon after the dethronement.
This is the first of the passages which treat consecutively of the three immediate predecessors of Zedekiah. The sense of the passage is that even the fate of Josiah, who at any rate reigned in prosperity and uprightness for more than thirty years, was preferable to that of his successor. Jer 22:10 is in inah metre, while 11 and 12 are not metrical. For this reason, and because their contents would be superfluous information to contemporaries, Du. and Co. consider them a later addition.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the two foregoing prophecies Jeremiah stated the general principle on which depend the rise and downfall of kings and nations. He now adds for Zedekiahs warning the history of three thrones which were not established.
The first is that of Shallum the successor of Josiah, who probably took the name of Jehoahaz on his accession (see the marginal references notes).
Jer 22:10
The dead – i. e., Josiah 2Ch 35:25.
That goeth away – Rather, that is gone away.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Jer 22:10-11
Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him.
The prophet and the exile
I. The dead, probably Josiah, for whom a long mourning was kept (2Ch 35:24; Zec 12:11). Shallum is Jehoahaz (2Ki 23:33).
II. The chapter, even the text, suggests the picture of the disappointment of the prophet and the sympathy of the prophets.
1. Jeremiah had begun to work when a better time seemed to dawn (Jer 1:2). His hopes had been baffled, his words neglected, by the guilt that scorns to be forgiven. Could human lot be more sad than thus to foresee the coming ruin, and to be helpless to avert it?
2. The true prophet, in spite of the peoples sin, sympathises with them (1Sa 12:20-22). The Prophet of prophets did so. The kings captivity was only a type and foretaste of that of the nation.
III. The love of ones country is freely recognised in scripture (Psa 137:1-9; Psa 102:1-28). National life is an ordinance of nature. National as real as home affections. The sorrows and joys which they bring are alike used for our discipline by Him who knows whereof we are made.
IV. The captivities, terrible as they were, served good ends.
1. To wean the people from idolatry.
2. To draw them nearer to God. All affliction used aright does so.
3. To turn the people more to prayer, which seems to have become more common after the Babylonian captivity (Isa 66:1-2; Dan 6:10; Dan 9:3; Dan 9:19).
V. The dead are in the hands of God, beyond our reach. Weep rather for those who are living, torn away from the city of God.
1. Those who have been ensnared by their own sins and carelessness.
2. Those who are brought up in vice through circumstances of birth. Slaves of worse than Egyptian bondage (Joh 8:34).
3. Those of our own countrymen who, from duty or circumstances, are in foreign lands, and away from outward tokens of the Church. But should we merely mourn for these, and do nothing for them?
VI. Jeremiah a forerunner of the Lord, and a type of His servants in witnessing to the truth, and in the endurance of persecution and disappointment of hope. (B. Moffett, M. A.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 10. Weep ye not for the dead] Josiah, dead in consequence of the wound he had received at Megiddo, in a battle with Pharaoh-necho, king of Egypt; but he died in peace with God.
But weep sore for him that goeth away] Namely, Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, called below Shallum, whom Pharaoh-necho had carried captive into Egypt from which it was prophesied he should never return, 2Kg 23:30-34. He was called Shallum before he ascended the throne, and Jehoahaz afterwards; so his brother Eliakim changed his name to Jehoiakim, and Mattaniah to Zedekiah.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Weep not for Josiah your dead prince, for whom there was a great mourning, 2Ch 35:25, mentioned Zec 12:11. Josiah is happy, you need not trouble yourselves for him; but weep for Jehoahaz, who is to go, or is gone, into captivity: Jehoahaz was set up upon his fathers death by the people, 2Ki 23:30; 2Ch 36:1, but, Jer 22:3, put down within three months, and carried into Egypt, Jer 22:4, where he died, 2Ki 23:34; so as he no more returned into Judah. The participle being in the present tense, inclineth me to think that this prophecy was long before that in the former chapter, soon after the death of Josiah, upon the peoples setting up of Jehoahaz in his stead, or presently after he was carried away. Some interpret this of the people that were dead, and those that were going into captivity; but the next verse makes it the more probable that it is to be understood of Josiah and Jehoahaz.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10, 11. Weep . . . not forthatis, not so much for Josiah, who was taken away by death from the evilto come (2Ki 22:20; Isa 57:1);as for Shallum or Jehoahaz, his son (2Ki23:30), who, after a three months’ reign, was carried off byPharaoh-necho into Egypt, never to see his native land again (2Ki23:31-34). Dying saints are justly to be envied, while livingsinners are to be pitied. The allusion is to the great weeping of thepeople at the death of Josiah, and on each anniversary of it, inwhich Jeremiah himself took a prominent part (2Ch 35:24;2Ch 35:25). The name “Shallum”is here given in irony to Jehoahaz, who reigned but three months; asif he were a second Shallum, son of Jabesh, who reigned only onemonth in Samaria (2Ki 15:13;2Ch 36:1-4). Shallum means”retribution,” a name of no good omen to him [GROTIUS];originally the people called him Shallom, indicative of peaceand prosperity. But Jeremiah applies it in irony. 1Ch3:15, calls Shallum the fourth son of Josiah. The peopleraised him to the throne before his brother Eliakim or Jehoiakim,though the latter was the older (2Ki 23:31;2Ki 23:36; 2Ch 36:1);perhaps on account of Jehoiakim’s extravagance (Jer 22:13;Jer 22:15). Jehoiakim was put inShallum’s (Jehoahaz’) stead by Pharaoh-necho. Jeconiah, his son,succeeded. Zedekiah (Mattaniah), uncle of Jeconiah, and brother ofJehoiakim and Jehoahaz, was last of all raised to the throne byNebuchadnezzar.
He shall not returnThepeople perhaps entertained hopes of Shallum’s return from Egypt, inwhich case they would replace him on the throne, and thereby freethemselves from the oppressive taxes imposed by Jehoiakim.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him,…. Not Jehoiakim, as Jarchi and Kimchi; but King Josiah, slain by Pharaohnecho; who, being a pious prince, a good king, and very useful, and much beloved by his people, great lamentation was made for him by them, and by the prophet also; but now he exhorts them to cease weeping, or at least not to weep so much for him, it being well with him, and he taken away from evil to come; and especially since they had other and worse things to lament; see 2Ch 35:24;
[but] weep sore for him that goeth away: or, “in weeping weep” f: weep bitterly, and in good earnest; there is reason for it; for him that was about to go, or was gone out of his own land, even Jehoahaz or Shallum, after mentioned, who reigned but three months, and was put into bonds by Pharaohnecho king of Egypt, and carried by him thither,
2Ch 36:4;
for he shall return no more, nor see his native country; for he died in Egypt, 2Ki 23:34; Jarchi interprets the dead, in the first clause, of Jehoiakim, who died before the gate, when they had bound him to carry him captive, 2Ch 36:6; “and him that goeth away”, of Jeconiah and Zedekiah, who were both carried captive; and so Kimchi; but the former interpretation is best. Some understand this not of particular persons, but of the people in general; signifying that they were more happy that were dead, and less to be lamented, than those that were alive, and would be carried captive, and never see their own country any more; see Ec 4:2; but particular persons seem manifestly designed.
f “deplorate deplorando”, Schmidt; “flete flendo”, Pagninus, Montanus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
On Jehoahaz. – Jer 22:10. “Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him; weep rather for him that is gone away, for he shall no more return and see the land of his birth. Jer 22:11. For thus saith Jahveh concerning Shallum, the son of Josiah king of Judah, who became king in his father Josiah’s stead, and who went forth from this place: He shall not return thither more; Jer 22:12. but in the place whither they have carried hi captive, there shall he die and see this land no more.” The clause: weep not for the dead, with which the prophecy on Shallum is begun, shows that the mourning for King Josiah was kept up and was still heartily felt amongst the people ( 2Ch 35:24.), and that the circumstances of his death were still fresh in their memory. without the article, although Josiah, slain in battle at Megiddo, is meant, because there was no design particularly to define the person. Him that goes or is gone away. He, again, is defined and called Shallum. This Shallum, who became king in his father Josiah’s place, can be none other than Josiah’s successor, who is called Joahaz in 2Ki 23:30., 2Ch 36:1; as was seen by Chrysost. and Aben-Ezra, and, since Grotius, by most commentators. The only question is, why he should here be called Shallum. According to Frc. Junius, Hitz., and Graf, Jeremiah compares Joahaz on account of his short reign with Shallum in Israel, who reigned but one month (2Ki 15:13), and ironically calls him Shallum, as Jezebel called Jehu, Zimri murderer of his lord, 2Ki 9:31. This explanation is unquestionably erroneous, since irony of such a sort is inconsistent with what Jeremiah says of Shallum. More plausible seems Hgstb.’s opinion, Christ. ii. p. 401, that Jeremiah gives Joahaz the name Shallum, i.e., the requited (cf. , 1Ch 6:13, = , 1Ch 9:11), as nomen reale , to mark him out as the man the Lord had punished for the evil of his doings. But this conjecture too is overthrown by the fact, that in the genealogy of the kings of Judah, 1Ch 3:15, we find among the four sons of Josiah the name instead of Joahaz. Now this name cannot have come there from the present passage, for the genealogies of Chronicles are derived from old family registers. That this is so in the case of Josiah’s sons, appears from the mention there of a fourth, Johanan, over and above the three known to history, of whom we hear nothing more. In the genealogical tables persons are universally mentioned by their own proper names, not according to “renamings” or surnames, except in the case that these have received the currency and value of historical names, as e.g., Israel for Jacob. On the ground of the genealogical table 1 Chron 3 we must accordingly hold that Joahaz was properly called Shallum, and that probably at his accession he assumed the name , “Jahveh sustains, holds.” But Jeremiah might still have used the name Shallum in preference to the assumed Joahaz, because the former had verified itself in that king’s fate. With Jer 22:11 and Jer 22:12, cf. 2Ki 23:33-35. – The brief saying in regard to Joahaz forms the transition from the general censure of the wicked rulers of Judah who brought on the ruin of the kingdom, to the special predictions concerning the ungodly kings Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, in whose time the judgment burst forth. In counselling not to weep for the dead king (Josiah), but for the departed one (Joahaz), Jeremiah does not mean merely to bewail the lot of the king carried prisoner to Egypt, but to foreshadow the misery that awaits the whole people. From this point of view Calv. well says: si lugenda est urbis hujus clades, potius lugendi sunt qui manebunt superstites quam qui morientur. Mors enim erit quasi requies, erit portus ad finienda omnia mala: Vita autem longior nihil aliud erit quam continua miseriarum series ; and further, that in the words: he shall no more return and see the land of his birth, Jeremiah shows: exilium fore quasi tabem, quae paulatim consumat miseros Judaeos. Ita mors fuisset illis dulcior longe, quam sic diu cruciari et nihil habere relaxationis . In the lot of the two kings the people had to recognise what was in store for itself.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Doom of Shallum and Jehoiakim. | B. C. 590. |
10 Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country. 11 For thus saith the LORD touching Shallum the son of Josiah king of Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah his father, which went forth out of this place; He shall not return thither any more: 12 But he shall die in the place whither they have led him captive, and shall see this land no more. 13 Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work; 14 That saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth him out windows; and it is cieled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. 15 Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? 16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the LORD. 17 But 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. 18 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah; They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! 19 He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.
Kings, though they are gods to us, are men to God, and shall die like men; so it appears in these verses, where we have a sentence of death passed upon two kings who reigned successively in Jerusalem, two brothers, and both the ungracious sons of a very pious father.
I. Here is the doom of Shallum, who doubtless is the same with Jehoahaz, for he is that son of Josiah king of Judah who reigned in the stead of Josiah his father (v. 11), which Jehoahaz did by the act of the people, who made him king though he was not the eldest son, 2Ki 23:30; 2Ch 36:1. Among the sons of Josiah (1 Chron. iii. 15) there is one Shallum mentioned, and not Jehoahaz. Perhaps the people preferred him before his elder brother because they thought him a more active daring young man, and fitter to rule; but God soon showed them the folly of their injustice, and that it could not prosper, for within three months the king of Egypt came upon him, deposed him, and carried him away prisoner into Egypt, as God had threatened, Deut. xxviii. 68. It does not appear that any of the people were taken into captivity with him. We have the story 2Ki 23:34; 2Ch 36:4. Now here, 1. The people are directed to lament him rather than his father Josiah: “Weep not for the dead, weep not any more for Josiah.” Jeremiah had been himself a true mourner for him, and had stirred up the people to mourn for him (2 Chron. xxxv. 25): yet now he will have them go out of mourning for him, though it was but three months after his death, and to turn their tears into another channel. They must weep sorely for Jehoahaz, who had gone into Egypt; not that there was any great loss of him to the public, as there was of his father, but that his case was much more deplorable. Josiah went to the grave in peace and honour, was prevented from seeing the evil to come in this world and removed to see the good to come in the other world; and therefore, Weep not for him, but for his unhappy son, who is likely to live and die in disgrace and misery, a wretched captive. Note, Dying saints may be justly envied, while living sinners are justly pitied. And so dismal perhaps the prospect of the times may be that tears even for a Josiah, even for a Jesus, must be restrained, that they may be reserved for ourselves and for our children, Luke xxiii. 28. 2. The reason given is because he shall never return out of captivity, as he and his people expected, but shall die there. They were loth to believe this, therefore it is repeated here again and again, He shall return no more, v. 10. He shall never have the pleasure of seeing his native country, but shall have the continual grief of hearing of the desolations of it. He has gone forth out of this place, and shall never return, v. 11. He shall die in the place whither they have led him captive, v. 12. This came of his forsaking the good example of his father, and usurping the right of his elder brother. In Ezekiel’s lamentation for the princes of Israel this Jehoahaz is represented as a young lion, that soon learned to catch the prey, but was taken, and brought in chains to Egypt, and was long expected to return, but in vain. See Ezek. xix. 3-5.
II. Here is the doom of Jehoiakim, who succeeded him. Whether he had any better right to the crown than Shallum we know not; for, though he was older than his predecessor, there seems to be another son of Josiah, older than he, called Johanan, 1 Chron. iii. 15. But this we know he ruled no better, and fared no better at last. Here we have,
1. His sins faithfully reproved. It is not fit for a private person to say to a king, Thou art wicked; but a prophet, who has a message from God, betrays his trust if he does not deliver it, be it ever so unpleasing, even to kings themselves. Jehoiakim is not here charged with idolatry, and probably he had not yet put Urijah the prophet to death (as we find afterwards he did, Jer 26:22; Jer 26:23), for then he would have been told of it here; but the crimes for which he is here reproved are, (1.) Pride and affection of pomp and splendour; as if all the business of a king were to look great, and to do good were to be the least of his care. He must build himself a stately palace, a wide house, and large chambers, v. 14. He must have windows cut out after the newest fashion, perhaps like sash-windows with us. The rooms must be ceiled with cedar, the richest sort of wood. His house must be as well-roofed and wainscoted as the temple itself, or else it will not please him, 1Ki 6:15; 1Ki 6:16. Nay, it must exceed that, for it must be painted with minium, or vermilion, which dyes red, or, as some read it, with indigo, which dyes blue. No doubt it is lawful for princes and great men to build, and beautify, and furnish their houses so as is agreeable to their dignity; but he that knows what is in man knew that Jehoiakim did this in the pride of his heart, which makes that to be sinful, exceedingly sinful, which is in itself lawful. Those therefore that are enlarging their houses, and making them more sumptuous, have need to look well to the frame of their own spirits in the doing of it, and carefully to watch against all the workings of vain-glory. But that which was particularly amiss in Jehoiakim’s case was that he did this when he could not but perceive, both by the word of God and by his providence, that divine judgments were breaking in upon him. He reigned his first three years by the permission and allowance of the king of Egypt, and all the rest by the permission and allowance of the king of Babylon; and yet he that was no better than a viceroy will covet to vie with the greatest monarchs in building and furniture. Observe how peremptory he is in this resolution: “I will build myself a wide house; I am resolved I will, whoever advises me to the contrary.” Note, It is the common folly of those that are sinking in their estates to covet to make a fair show. Many have unhumbled hearts under humbling providences, and look most haughty when God is bringing them down. This is striving with our Maker. (2.) Carnal security and confidence in his wealth, depending upon the continuance of his prosperity, as if his mountain now stood so strong that it could never be moved. He thought he must reign without any disturbance or interruption because he had enclosed himself in cedar (v. 15), as if that were too fine to be assaulted and too strong to be broken through, and as if God himself could not, for pity, give up such a stately house as that to be burned. Thus when Christ spoke of the destruction of the temple his disciples came to him, to show him what a magnificent structure it was, Mat 23:38; Mat 24:1. Note, Those wretchedly deceive themselves who think their present prosperity is a lasting security, and dream of reigning because they are enclosed in cedar. It is but in his own conceit that the rich man’s wealth is his strong city. (3.) Some think he is here charged with sacrilege, and robbing the house of God to beautify and adorn his own house. He cuts him out my windows (so it is in the margin), which some understand as if he had taken windows out of the temple to put into his own palace and then painted them (as it follows) with vermilion, that it might not be discovered, but might look of a piece with his own buildings. Note, Those cheat themselves, and ruin themselves at last, who think to enrich themselves by robbing God and his house; and, however they may disguise it, God discovers it. (4.) He is here charged with extortion and oppression, violence and injustice. He built his house by unrighteousness, with money unjustly got and materials which were not honestly come by, and perhaps upon ground obtained as Ahab obtained Naboth’s vineyard. And, because he went beyond what he could afford, he defrauded his workmen of their wages, which is one of the sins that cries in the ears of the Lord of hosts, Jam. v. 4. God takes notice of the wrong done by the greatest of men to their poor servants and labourers, and will repay those, in justice, that will not in justice pay those whom they employ, but use their neighbour’s service without wages. Observe, The greatest of men must look upon the meanest as their neighbours, and be just to them accordingly, and love them as themselves. Jehoiakim was oppressive, not only in his buildings, but in the administration of his government. He did not do justice, made no conscience of shedding innocent blood, when it was to serve the purposes of his ambition, avarice, and revenge. He was all for oppression and violence, not to threaten it only, but to do it; and, when he was set upon any act of injustice, nothing should stop him, but he would go through with it. And that which was at the bottom of all was covetousness, that love of money which is the root of all evil. Thy eyes and thy heart are not but for covetousness; they were for that, and nothing else. Observe, In covetousness the heart walks after the eyes: it is therefore called the lust of the eye,1Jn 2:16; Job 31:7. It is setting the eyes upon that which is not, Prov. xxiii. 5. The eyes and the heart are then for covetousness when the aims and affections are wholly set upon the wealth of this world; and, where they are so, the temptation is strong to murder, oppression, and all manner of violence and villany. (5.) That which aggravated all his sins was that he was the son of a good father, who had left him a good example, if he would but have followed it (Jer 22:15; Jer 22:16): Did not thy father eat and drink? When Jehoiakim enlarged and enlightened his house it is probable that he spoke scornfully of his father for contenting himself with such a mean and inconvenient dwelling, below the grandeur of a sovereign prince, and ridiculed him as one that had a dull fancy, a low spirit, and could not find in his heart to lay out his money, nor cared for what was fashionable; that should not serve him which served his father: but God, by the prophet, tells him that his father, though he had not the spirit of building, was a man of an excellent spirit, a better man than he, and did better for himself and his family. Those children that despise their parents’ old fashions commonly come short of their real excellences. Jeremiah tells him, [1.] That he was directed to do his duty by his father’s practice: He did judgment and justice; he never did wrong to any of his subjects, never oppressed them, nor put any hardship upon them, but was careful to preserve all their just rights and properties. Nay, he not only did not abuse his power for the support of wrong, but he used it for the maintaining of right. He judged the cause of the poor and needy, was ready to hear the cause of the meanest of his subjects and do them justice. Note, The care of magistrates must be, not to support their grandeur and take their ease, but to do good, not only not to oppress the poor themselves, but to defend those that are oppressed. [2.] That he was encouraged to do his duty by his father’s prosperity. First, God accepted him: “Was not this to know me, saith the Lord? Did he not hereby make it to appear that he rightly knew his God, and worshipped him, and consequently was known and owned of him?” Note, The right knowledge of God consists in doing our duty, particularly that which is the duty of our place and station in the world. Secondly, He himself had the comfort of it: Did he not eat and drink soberly and cheerfully, so as to fit himself for his business, for strength and not for drunkenness? Eccl. x. 17. He did eat, and drink, and do judgment; he did not (as perhaps Jehoiakim and his princes did) drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of the afflicted, Prov. xxxi. 5. He did eat and drink; that is, God blessed him with great plenty, and he had the comfortable enjoyment of it himself and gave handsome entertainments to his friends, was very hospitable and very charitable. It was Jehoiakim’s pride that he had built a fine house, but Josiah’s true praise that he kept a good house. Many times those have least in them of true generosity that have the greatest affection for pomp and grandeur; for, to support the extravagant expense of that, hospitality, bounty to the poor, yea, and justice itself, will be pinched. It is better to live with Josiah in an old-fashioned house, and do good, than live with Jehoiakim in a stately house, and leave debts unpaid. Josiah did justice and judgment, and then it was well with him, v. 15, and it is repeated again, v. 16. He lived very comfortably; his own subjects, and all his neighbours, respected him; and whatever he put his hand to prospered. Note, While we do well we may expect it will be well with us. This Jehoiakim knew, that his father found the way of duty to be the way of comfort, and yet he would not tread in his steps. Note, It should engage us to keep up religion in our day that our godly parents kept it up in theirs and recommended it to us from their own experience of the benefit of it. They told us that they had found the promises which godliness has of the life that now is made good to them, and that religion and piety are friendly to outward prosperity. So that we are inexcusable if we turn aside from that good way.
2. Here we have Jehoiakim’s doom faithfully read, Jer 22:18; Jer 22:19. We may suppose that it was in the utmost peril of his own life that Jeremiah here foretold the shameful death of Jehoiakim; but thus saith the Lord concerning him, and therefore thus saith he. (1.) He shall die unlamented; he shall make himself so odious by his oppression and cruelty that all about him shall be glad to part with him, and none shall do him the honour of dropping one tear for him, whereas his father, who did judgment and justice, was universally lamented; and it is promised to Zedekiah that he should be lamented at his death, for he conducted himself better than Jehoiakim had done, ch. xxxiv. 5. His relations shall not lament him, no, not with the common expressions of grief used at the funeral of the meanest, where they cried, Ah, my brother! or, Ah, sister! His subjects shall not lament him, nor cry out, as they used to do at the graves of their princes, Ah, lord! or Ah his glory! It is sad for any to live so that, when they die, none will be sorry to part with them. Nay, (2.) He shall lie unburied. This is worse than the former. Even those that have no tears to grace the funerals of the dead with would willingly have them buried out of their sight; but Jehoiakim shall be buried with the burial of an ass, that is, he shall have no burial at all, but his dead body shall be cast into a ditch or upon a dunghill; it shall be drawn, or dragged, ignominiously, and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. It is said, in the story of Jehoiakim (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6), that Nebuchadnezzar bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon, and (Ezek. xix. 9) that he was brought in chains to the king of Babylon. But it is probable that he died a prisoner, before he was carried away to Babylon as was intended; perhaps he died for grief, or, in the pride of his heart, hastened his own end, and, for that reason, was denied a decent burial, as self-murderers usually are with us. Josephus says that Nebuchadnezzar slew him at Jerusalem, and left his body thus exposed, somewhere at a great distance from the gates of Jerusalem. And it is said (2 Kings xxiv. 6) he slept with his fathers. When he built himself a stately house, no doubt he designed himself a stately sepulchre; but see how he was disappointed. Note, Those that are lifted up with great pride are commonly reserved for some great disgrace in life or death.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Vs. 10-12: CONCERNING THE DESTINY OF SHALLUM (609 B.C.)
1. JEHOAHAZ was the throne name of this son of king Josiah who succeeded his father on the throne in Jerusalem.
a. Josiah (a good king) was slain by Pharaoh Necho at the battle of Megiddo, 609 B.C., (2Ki 23:29).
b. Shallum followed his father to the throne – evidently with the support of Egypt.
2. His reign in Jerusalem was very brief; after only 3 months he was deposed and taken captive to Egypt, where he died, (2Ki 23:31 -35; 2Ch 36:4).
3. Judah was not to weep for the dead – evidently referring to young king Josiah (2Ki 22:20; Isa 57:1), who had been slain in battle; his end was not nearly so tragic as that which would befall his son.
4. They were, rather, to weep for Shallum (Jehoahaz) who was being taken, in humiliation, to Egypt – never to return to his own land, (vs. 11-12; comp. Jer 44:14).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
They explain this verse of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah, but I consider it rather a general declaration, for the Prophet wished briefly to shew how miserable would be the condition of the people, as it would be better and more desirable at once to die than to protract life in continual languor. Of the kings he wilt afterwards speak, but reason compels us to extend these words to the whole people.
When a people flee away, being not able to resist their enemies, they may look for a restoration. In that case all dread death more than exile and all other calamities which are endured in this life, for they who remain alive may somehow emerge from their ills and troubles, or at least they may have them alleviated; but death cuts off all hopes. But the Prophet says here that death would be better than exile; and why? Because it would have been better at once to die than to protract a life of misery, weariness, and reproach, and at last to be destroyed. By saying, then, Weep ye not for the dead, nor bewail him, (43) it is the same as though he had said, “If the destruction of this city be lamented, much more ought they to be lamented who shall remain alive than those who shall die, for death will be as it were a rest, it will be a harbor to end all evils; but life will be nothing else than a continual succession of miseries.” We hence conclude that this ought not to be confined to the two kings, but viewed as declared generally of the whole people. (44)
It follows, For he shall return no more, that he may see the land of his nativity He shews that exile would be a sort of infection that would gradually consume the miserable Jews. Thus death would have been far better for them than to be in this manner long tormented and to have no relaxation. He then takes away the hope of a return, that he might shew that their exile would be as it were a dying languor, corroding them as a worm, so that to die a hundred times would have been more desirable than to remain in such a hard and miserable bondage. It now follows:
(43) Literally, “nor nod for him.” They were not to shake the head for him in sign of sorrow. There was a shaking of the head in scorn or derision as well as in condolence or sympathy. See Jer 18:16. — Ed.
(44) The Versions and the Targum seem to favor this view of Calvin, as they render the participle, “going away,” in the present tense, as in our version. The verse, then, is as follows, —
Weep ye not for the dead, nor bewail him; Weep, weep for him who goeth away; For he will not return any more, And see the land of his nativity.
The repetition of the verb “weep” is emphatical. Our version, “weep sore,” is the Arab. The Sept. and the Targ. take it as an instance of what often occurs in Hebrew, a participle joined to a verb to enhance its force; but it is not so here, the two verbs are in the imperative mood. But it may be that there is here, as many think, a direct allusion to Josiah, who was dead, and was much lamented, and to Shallum, who was taken captive and carried into Egypt, where he died. In that case we ought to render the second line thus, —
Weep, weep for him who has gone away.
The Hebrew participle may often be rendered in the past tense; and so it is rendered here by Gataker, Venema, and Blayney. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
C. Oracles Concerning Specific Kings Jer. 22:10-30
Three separate oracles concerning specific kings have been gathered together in Jer. 22:10-30. Here Jeremiah speaks of the future of Jehoahaz (Jer. 22:10-12), the folly of Jehoiakim (Jer. 22:13-23) and the fate of Jehoiachin (Jer. 22:24-30).
1. The future of Jehoahaz (Jer. 22:10-12)
TRANSLATION
(10) Do not weep for the dead nor bewail him! Weep bitterly for the one who goes away; for he shall never again see the land of his birth. (11) For thus says the LORD concerning Shallum son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of Josiah his father, who went out from this place: He shall no more return! (12) For in the place where they took him captive, there shall he die and this land he shall not see again.
COMMENTS
After the untimely death of the godly king Josiah at the pass of Megiddo in 609 B.C., the people of the land selected his son Jehoahaz to occupy the throne of Judah. Jehoahaz had reigned but three months when Pharaoh Necho summoned him to Riblah, put him in chains, and deported him to Egypt (2Ki. 23:30 ff.). Jeremiahs oracle must have been delivered shortly after the deportation of Jehoahaz.
The death of Josiah was bitterly lamented. Even Jeremiah himself joined in the lamentation for this righteous man (2Ch. 35:25). But as far as Jeremiah was concerned, tears were more appropriate for Jehoahaz than for Josiah. By his premature death Josiah would be delivered from the horrors of those final years of Judahs history. But Jehoahaz would live out his life as a captive in a foreign land (Jer. 22:10). Though some people apparently believed that Jehoahaz would shortly return from Egypt to reclaim his throne, Jeremiah knows that this will not be the case. He shall not return, cries the prophet. He will never see this land again (Jer. 22:11-12). That Shallum here is identical with the Jehoahaz of II Kings is made clear by 1Ch. 3:15. Shallum was his given name; Jehoahaz was his throne name.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(10) Weep ye not for the dead.With this verse begins the detailed review of the three previous reigns, the prophecies being reproduced as they were actually delivered. The dead for whom men are not to weep is Josiah, for whom Jeremiah had himself composed a solemn dirge, which seems from 2Ch. 35:25 to have been repeated on the anniversary of his death.
For him that goeth away.This is obviously Jehoahaz, the son and successor of Josiah, who was deposed by Pharaoh-nechoh, and carried into Egypt (2Ki. 23:31-34; 2Ch. 36:2-4). The latter passage shows that he was younger than his successor, Jehoiakim, by two years. The doom of the exile who was to return no more was a fitter subject for lamentation than the death of the righteous king who died a warriors death (2Ki. 23:29), and was thus taken away from the evil to come.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THREE KINGS SHALLUM, JEHOIAKIM, AND CONIAH, Jer 22:10-30.
10. Weep ye not for the dead The noble king Josiah, slain in battle; but rather weep for his still more unfortunate son, who goeth away into captivity. In this reference to Jehoahaz is foreshadowed the misery which awaits the whole people.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Inadequacy of Jehoahaz ( Jer 22:10-12 ).
When Josiah was killed seeking to prevent the Egyptians from going to the aid of the Assyrians, the Egyptians were for a while rampant, controlling the whole area as far as Carchemish, and from there Pharaoh Necoh sent for Jehoahaz, whose other name was Shallum (1Ch 3:15), in order that he might submit to Egypt and pay tribute. But as far as Pharaoh was concerned Judah had proved themselves to be hostile and thus Jehoahaz was then despatched to Egypt as a hostage, while Jehoiakim, a far less able man, was appointed king. Jehoahaz was the youngest son of Josiah, and the initial choice of him as king by the elders of Judah suggests that he was seen as the most capable of the brothers to cope with a difficult time. We may understand then that there may have been those who, while he was in Egypt, began to give him the equivalent of Messiahship status, and to look for his return, possibly at the head of an Egyptian army.
Jeremiah puts the shutters down on such an idea straight away. This would appear to have been not too long after Josiah’s death, for he calls on his compatriots not to weep for ‘the dead’ (Josiah), but to weep for the one who has gone away and will never return (Jehoahaz).
Jer 22:10
“Weep you not for the dead, nor bemoan him,
But weep bitterly for him who goes away,
For he will return no more,
Nor see his native country.”
Jeremiah’s message is straightforward. Josiah is dead and the weeping for him must now be seen as over. For what they should now be weeping bitterly for is the missing Jehoahaz. And the reason why they should weep bitterly for him is because he has gone away and will never return to his native country, leaving the country in the unworthy hands of Jehoiakim..
Jer 22:11-12
‘For thus says YHWH touching Shallum 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 there any more,
But in the place where they have led him captive,
There will he die,
And he will see this land no more.”
For this was what YHWH had told him ‘concerning Shallum’. Shallum was apparently his given name at birth (1Ch 3:15) while Jehoahaz was probably his throne name. But Shallum had ‘gone forth out of this place’ to parley with Pharaoh at Carchemish (he would have had little choice in the matter). And there he was made a captive and carried off to Egypt as a hostage. And it is confirmed again, this time by YHWH, that he would die in Egypt and see his native land no more. Thus any hopes that people had in him should be forgotten.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Inadequacy Of All The Current Sons Of David To Deliver Judah ( Jer 22:10-30 ).
Having dealt with Zedekiah, Nebuchadrezzar’a appointee, in the opening passage of the subsection, and having shown that in his day he was rejected by YHWH, Jeremiah now deals with the remaining three possible ‘sons of David’, those genuinely appointed by the people and their princes. There appears to have been some excitement in the air as hopes were placed, first in the absent Jehoahaz (Shallum) in Egypt, and then in Jehoiachin in Babylon, to say nothing of Jehoiakim who was for a time on the throne. Could one of these be the expected son of David who would deliver his people from the Babylonians? Such expectation might help to explain what spurred on Jehoiakim’s mad rebellion at the instigation of Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt. Jeremiah, however, dismisses them one by one.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Prophecies Relating to Shallum, Jehoikim, and Jehoiachin
v. 10. Weep ye not for the dead, v. 11. For thus saith the Lord touching Shallum, v. 12. but he shall die in the place whither they have led him captive, and shall see this land no more. v. 13. Woe unto him, v. 14. that saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, v. 15. Shalt thou reign because thou closest thyself in cedar? v. 16. He Judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him. Was not this to know Me? saith the Lord.
v. 17. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, v. 18. Therefore, thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, v. 19. He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem, v. 20. Go up to Lebanon, v. 21. I spake unto thee in thy prosperity, v. 22. The wind shall eat up all thy pastors, v. 23. O inhabitant of Lebanon, that makest thy nest in the cedars, v. 24. As I live, saith the Lord, though Coniah, v. 25. And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, v. 26. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, v. 27. But to the land whereunto they, v. 28. Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? v. 29. O earth, earth, earth, v. 30. Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man childless,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Jer 22:10-12. Weep ye not for the dead “Weep not for Josiah, for he is buried in peace, and taken away from the evil to come; but rather lament his successor Jehoahaz (who is here called Shallum), whom Pharaoh Necho hath carried captive into Egypt, whence he shall never return.” It is not easy to conjecture why he is called Shallum. Some suppose, that this name was given him by way of reproach, because of the shortness of his reign, in which he resembled king Shallum, mentioned 2 Kings 13 as Jeconiah is called Coniah by way of contempt, Jer 22:24.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
B. PROPHECY RELATING TO THE PERSON OF SHALLUM
Jer 22:10-12
10Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him:
Weep, weep rather for him that goeth away;
For never shall he return, nor see his native land.
11For thus saith Jehovah concerning Shallum,
The son of Josiah, the king of Judah, who reigned instead of his father,
And who is gone away from this place:
He will not return thither.
12For in the place whither they have carried him captive he will die,
And will see this land no more.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
That these words were really spoken at the historical epoch to which they correspond (therefore neither earlier nor later) is felt if we weigh the terrible violence of the suffering, which, notwithstanding its brevity, is expressed in it. Jeremiah could speak thus only when it was necessary to give expression, anda corrective, to the universal mourning at the loss of the noble king Josiah, which was as it were repeated in their horror at the captivity of his successor. Three months after his fathers death (2Ki 23:31-34), Jehoahaz was taken by Pharaoh Necho as a prisoner to Egypt. The sorrow was still lively at the death of his father. Now came this new misfortune. Many might hope for Jehoahaz: he is still young, he will survive and return. Jeremiah cuts off these hopes. There is more cause, he says, to mourn for Jehoahaz than for Josiah. The dead is more fortunate than the living. He intimates that he will perish miserably in captivity. This utterance is one of the oldest in the book.
Jer 22:10-12. Weep ye not this land no more. The absence of the article with may possibly be ascribed to the freedom which Jeremiah allows himself in the use of the article. Comp. rems. on Jer 3:2; Jer 6:16; Jer 14:18; Jer 17:19 (Chethibh). It is however also possible that , dead, may not express so definite a thought as , going away, because the dead are mourned in general, but those who go away only when their departure is such as it was in this concrete case, which is indicated by the definite article. On the subject-matter comp. Jer 8:3.Concerning Shallum. after Verbis dicendioraudiendi = of, concerning: Gen 20:2; 1Sa 4:19; 2Ki 19:9; 2Ki 19:32, etc. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., S. 227.It is beyond a doubt that this Shallum is Jehoahaz, the son of that Josiah who fell at Megiddo (2Ki 23:29), but it is uncertain why he is here named Shallum. The passage 1Ch 3:15, where four sons of Josiah are named (Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah and Shallum), is not clear and seems to have derived the name of Shallum from the present passage. Disregarding this, two views are before us. According to the former it is assumed that the Shallum named here had really another name, as cases of double names were, as is well-known, not uncommon among the Jews, especially in this period. (Comp. Uzziah-Azariah, Eliakim-Jehoiakim, Mattaniah-Zedekiah. Comp. Simonis, Onomast., p. Jeremiah 20 : Movers, Chronik, S. 156 sqq.: Thenius, on 2Ki 14:21). But only the possibility of Jehoahaz and Shallum being the same, not the actual case, is admitted. According to the other view the name Shallum is a nomen reale (Hengstenberg) i. e. a symbolical name. The ancients (Jerome and many of the older Rabbins) have taken the word in the sense of consummatio, completio, referring it to the destruction of the kingdom, and understanding by Shallum either Zedekiah or Jehoiakim. This explanation is however contrary to the clear purport of Jer 22:10. may mean recompense (so Gesenius), recompenser (Fuerst, comp. ), and to whom it is, recompensed (Hengstenberg). But in none of these meanings will the word exactly suit as a prophetic name. Recompenser is certainly not appropriate. But recompense and to whom it is recompensed are such general ideas, that the name might be ascribed as well to any other wicked king, who was visited by the divine judgment. The turn also, that the name may have been given per analogiam, in remembrance of the Israelitish Shallum, who reigned only a month (2Ki 15:13) is not satisfactory. For then it must first have been evident that every king in general, whose reign was numbered by months, was called Shallum. Why otherwise should Jehoahaz only be so named, since Jehoiachin also reigned only three months? It is thus seen that both these modes of explanation have difficulties. I should decide in preference for the former, in the sense that Jeremiah, of the two names borne by the immediate successor of Josiah, retained the earlier, as the simple personal name, without regard to its meaning, since the other, the royal name (, Jehovah holds, sustains) contradicted the historical, as also Jeremiah never calls the successor of Jehoiakim Jehoiachin, but only by his original personal name of Jeconiah or Coniah. Comp. Jer 22:24.King of Judah is in apposition to Shallum, since it was only this name which needed further definition.Who reigned, etc. Jehoahaz, although the younger son (comp. 2Ki 23:31 with 36), was raised to the throne by the people (Jer 22:30), his elder brother Eliakim being passed over, and the rights of the primogeniture disregarded, most probably on account of Eliakims character, which Jeremiah afterwards portrays in such dark colors. Eliakim does not seem to have submitted with a good will. He threw himself into the arms of the Egyptians. By the favor of Pharaoh Necho he became king in his brothers place, which position however he had to purchase by a tribute, which was very oppressive to the people (2Ki 23:33-35) In Riblah Jehoahaz was taken prisoner, whether enticed thither, or in some other way, must remain undecided. He was then taken to Egypt and from that time nothing more is known of him. Comp. 2Ch 36:1 sqq.; Eze 19:3-4.On Pharaoh Necho comp. the Encyclopdias.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On Jer 21:2. King Zedekiah sends word to Jeremiah, that the Lord is to do according to all His miracles, that Nebuchadnezzar may withdraw. A demand rather cavalierly made in such evil circumstances. But the noble are so unfortunate! It is indeed as though it only depended on them to arrange matters with God; as if He were only waiting for them, as if it were a point of honor not to be over-hasty, but first to await a little extremity . It is a very necessary observance for a servant of the Lord, that he try his superiors, whether there is any trace remaining in them of having been once baptized, well brought up and instructed in the fear of the Lord. If he observe anything of this kind, he must insist upon it and especially not allow them to deal too familiarly with the Judge of all the earth, but plainly demonstrate to them their insufficiency and nothingness, if they measure themselves by Him. Though Zedekiah had spoken so superficially, Jeremiah answered him without hesitation, definitely and positively, and accustomed him to a different manner of dealing with the Lord. Zinzendorf. When the ungodly desire Gods help, they commonly appeal not to His saving power to heal them, but to His miraculous power to save them, while they persist in their impenitence. Starke.
2. On Jer 21:8. It is pure grace on the part of God, when He leaves to man the choice between the good and the evil; not that it is permitted him to choose the evil, but that he may choose freely the good, which he is under obligation to do, Deu 30:19. Starke. God lays before us the way of life and the way of death. The way of life is however always contrary to human reason, and that on which it sees merely death and shame. If thou wilt save thyself thou must leave the false Jerusalem, fallen under the judgment, and seek thy life where there seems to be only death. He who would save his life must lose it, and he who devotes it for the sake of the truth will save it. Diedrich.
3. On Jer 21:11-14. To be such a king is to be an abomination to the Lord, and severe judgment will follow. God appoints magistrates for His service and for the use of men; he who only seeks his own enjoyment in office, is lost. Jerusalem, situated on rocks in the midst of a plain, looks secure; but against God neither rocks avail nor aught else. The fire will break out even in them, and consume all around, together with the forest of cedar-houses in the city. The corruption is seated within, and therefore proceeds from within outwards, so that nothing of the former stock can remain. What shall a government do which no longer bears the sword of justice? What shall a church do which is no longer founded on Gods truth as its only power? Diedrich. Comp. moreover on the whole of Jeremiah 24. the extended moral reflections of Cyrillus Alex. . . Lib. I.
4. On Jer 22:1. Jeremiah is to deliver a sermon at court, in which he reminds the king of his office of magistrate, in which he is to administer justice to every man. Cramer.
It was no easy task for Jeremiah to go into the lions den and deliver such an uncourtly message to him. We are reminded of the prophet Jonah. But Jeremiah did not flee as he did.
5. On Jer 22:1-3. [But we ought the more carefully to notice this passage, that we may learn to strengthen ourselves against bad examples, lest the impiety of men should overturn our faith; when we see in Gods church things in such disorder, that those who glory in the name of God are become like robbers, we must beware lest we become on this account alienated from true religion. We must, indeed, desert such monsters, but we must take care lest Gods word, through mens wickedness, should lose its value in our esteem. We ought then to remember the admonition of Christ, to hear the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in Moses seat (Mat 23:2). Calvin.S. R. A.]
6. On Jer 22:10. [Dying saints may be justly envied, while living sinners are justly pitied. And so dismal perhaps the prospect of the times may be, that tears even for a Josiah, even for a Jesus, must be restrained, that they may be reserved for ourselves and our children (Luk 23:28). Henry.S. R. A.]
Nequaquam gentilis plangendus est atque Judus, qui in ecclesia non fuerunt et simul mortui sunt, de quibus Salvator dicit: dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos (Mat 8:22). Sed eos plange, qui per scelera atque peccata egrediuntur de ecclesia et nolunt ultra reverti ad earn damnatione vitiorum. Hieron. Epist. 46 ad Rusticam. Nolite flere mortuum, sed plorate raptorem avarum, pecuni sitientem et inexplebilem auri cupidinem. Cur mortuos inutiliter ploramus? Eos ploremus, qui in melius mutari possunt. Basilius Seleucensis. Comp. Basil, Magn. Homil. 4 de Gratiarum actione post dimid.Ghislerus.
7. On Jer 22:6-9. God does not spare even the authorities. For though He has said that they are gods, when they do not rightly administer their office they must die like men (Psa 82:6) No cedars are too high for God, no splendor too mighty; He can destroy all at once, and overturn, and overturn, and overturn. Eze 21:27, Cramer.
Another passage from which it is seen how perverse and unjustifiable is the illusion that Gods election is a surety against His anger, and a permit to any wilfulness. The individual representatives of the objects of divine election should never forget that God can march over their carcases, and the ruins of their glory, to the fulfilment of His promise, and that He can rebuild on a higher stage, what He has destroyed on a lower. Comp. remarks on Jer 22:24.
8. On Jer 22:13-19. It is blasphemy to imagine that God will be frre et compagnon to all princes as such, and that He has a predilection for them as of His own kind. Does He not say to his majesty the king of Judah, with whom, in respect of the eminence of his dynasty and throne no other prince of earth could compare, that he should be buried like an ass, dragged and cast out before the gates of Jerusalem? This Jehoiakim was however an aristocrat, a heartless, selfish tyrant, who for his own pleasure trampled divine and human rights under foot. If such things were done in the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
He who builds his house with other peoples property, collects stones for his grave. Cramer.
9. On Jer 22:14. [It was a proof of luxury when men began to indulge in superfluities. In old times the windows were small; for use only was regarded by frugal men; but afterwards a sort of madness possessed the minds of many, so that they sought to be suspended as it were in the air. And hence they began to have wider windows. The thing in itself, as I have said, is not what God condemns; but we must ever remember, that men never go to excesses in external things, except when their hearts are infected with pride, so that they do not regard what is useful, what is becoming, but are carried away by fondness for excess. Calvin.S. R. A.]
10. On Jer 22:15. God may grant the great lords a preference in eating and drinking and the splendor of royal courts, but it is not His will that these be regarded as the main things, but that true religion, right and justice must have the precedence;this is the Lords work. But cursed is he who does the Lords work remissly. Jer 48:10. Cramer.
11. On Jer 22:17. Description of haughty, proud, magnificent, merciless and tyrannical lords and rulers, who are accomplices of thieves. Cramer.
12. On Jer 22:19. [God would have burial a proof to distinguish us from brute animals even after death, as we in life excel them, and as our condition is much nobler than that of the brute creation. Burial is also a pledge as it were of immortality; for when mans body is laid hid in the earth, it is as it were a mirror of a future life. Since then burial is an evidence of Gods grace and favor towards mankind, it is on the other hand a sign of a curse, when burial is denied. Calvin.S. R. A.]
13. On Jer 22:24. Great lords often imagine that they not only sit in the bosom of God, but that they are a pearl in His crown; or as the prophet says here, Gods signet-ring. Therefore, it is impossible that they should not succeed in their designs. But God looks not on the person of the princes, and knows the magnificent no more than the poor. Job 34:19. Cramer.
14. On Jer 22:28. [What is idolized will, first or last, be despised and broken, what is unjustly honored will be justly contemned, and rivals with God will be the scorn of man. Whatever we idolize we shall be disappointed in, and then shall despise. Henry.S. R. A.]
The compliment is a very poor one for a king, who thinks somewhat of himself, and to whom it in a certain measure pertains that he be honored.But here it is the word of the Lord, and in consideration of these words it is declared in 2Ch 36:12, to be evil on the part of Zedekiah, that he did not humble himself before Jeremiah. Teachers must be much on their guard against assuming such purely prophetic, that is, extraordinary acts. It cost the servants of the Lord many a death, who were obliged thus to employ themselves, and when it is easy for one to ape it without a divine calling he thus betrays his frivolity and incompetence, if not his pride and delusion. Zinzendorf.
15. On Jer 22:28-30. Irenus (Adv. Hr. 3:30) uses this passage to prove that the Lord could not have been Josephs natural son, for otherwise he would have fallen under the curse of this passage, and appear as one not entitled to dominion (qui eum dicunt ex Joseph generatum et in eo habere spem, abdicatos se faciunt a regno, sub maledictione et increpatione decidentes, qu erga Jechoniam et in semen ejus est). Basil the Great (Epist. ad Amphilochium) endeavors to show that this passage, with its declaration that none of Jeconiahs descendants should sit on Davids throne, is not in contradiction to the prophecy of Jacob (Gen 49:10), that a ruler should not be lacking from Judah, till He came for whom the nations were hoping. Basil distinguishes in this relation between dominion and royal dignity.The former continued, the latter ceased, and this period of, so to speak, latent royalty, was the bridge to the present, in which Christ rules in an invisible manner, but yet in real power and glory as royal priest, and at the same time represents Himself as the fulfilment of the hope of the nations. In like manner John of Damascus concludes that according to this passage there could be no prospect of the fulfilment of the promise in Gen 49:10, if Mary had not virgineo modo borne the scion of David, who however was not to occupy the visible throne of David. (Orat. II. in Nativ. B. Mari p. med.)Ambrose finally (Comment. in Ev. Luc. L. III. cap. ult.) raises the question how Jeremiah could say, that ex semine Jechoni neminem regnaturum esse, since Christ was of the seed of Jeconiah and reigned? He answers: Illic (Jer 22:30) futuros ex semine Jechoni posteros non negatur et ideo de semine ejus est Christus (comp. Mat 1:11), et quod regnavit Christus, non contra prophetiam est, non enim seculari honore regnavit, nee in Jechoni sedibus sedit, sed regnavit in sede David. Ghislerus.
16. On Jer 23:2. Nonnulli prsmles gregis quosdam pro peccato a communione ceiciunt, ut pniteant, sed quali sorte vivere debeant ad melius exhortando non visitant. Quibus congrue increpans sermo divinus comminatur: pastores, qui pascunt populum meum, vos dispersistis gregem meum, ejecistis et non visitastis eum. Isidor. Hisp. de summo bono she LL. sentt. Cap. 46. Ghislerus.
17. On Jer 23:5-6. Eusebius (Dem. Ev. VII. 9) remarks that Christ among all the descendants of David is the only one, who rules over the whole earth, and everywhere not only preaches justice and righteousness by His doctrine but is Himself also the author of the rising [of the Sun] of righteousness for all, according to Psa 72:7 : , (LXX.) Cyril of Alex. (Glaphyr. in Gen. I. p. 133) explains as justitia Dei, in so far as we are made righteous in Him, not for the sake of the works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His great mercy. Rom 3:24; Tit 3:5.
18. On Jer 23:6. [If we regard God in Himself, He is indeed righteous, but not our righteousness. If we desire to have God as our righteousness, we must seek Christ; for this cannot be found except in Him. Paul says that He has been given or made to us righteousness,for what end? that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. (1Co 1:30). Since, then, Christ is made our righteousness, and we are counted the righteousness of God in Him, we hence learn how properly and fitly it has been said that He would be Jehovah, not only that the power of His divinity might defend us, but also that we might become righteous in Him, for He is not only righteous for Himself, but He is our righteousness. Calvin. See also a long note in Wordsworth, to show that Jehovah our Righteousness refers to Christ;S. R. A.]
The character of a true church is when the Lytrum, the ransom-money of Jesus Christ, is known and valued by all, and when they have written this secret, foolish and absolutely inscrutable to reason, in the heart with the finger of the living God: that Jesus by His blood has taken away the sins of the world. O let it neer escape my thought, at what a price my soul was bought. This is the evening and morning prayer of every church, which is a true sister from above. Zinzendorf.
19. On Jer 23:5-8. The return under Ezra was also a fulfilment of this promise, but inferior and preliminary: not all came, and those who did come brought their sins back with them. They were still under the Law and had to wait for Righteousness; still in their return they had a pledge that the Messiah was yet to come and prepare the true city of peace. Now, however, all has been long fulfilled and we can enjoy it perfectly, if we have the mind for it. We have now a country of which no tyrant can rob us; our walk and citizenship is in heaven. We have been delivered from all our suffering, when we sit down at the feet of Jesus to hear His word. Then there is a power of resurrection within us, So that we can fly with our souls beyond the world and laugh at all our foes. For Christ has made us righteous by His daily forgiveness, so that we may also bring ourselves daily into heaven. Yea verily, the kingdom of heaven is come very nigh unto us! Jeremiah then longed to see and hear this more nearly, and now we can have it. Diedrich.
20. On Jer 23:9. Great love renders Gods servant so ardent, that he deals powerful blows on the seducers. He does not think that he has struck a wasps nest and embittered his life here forever, for he has a higher life and gives the lower one willingly for love. Yet all the world will hold him for an incorrigible and mad enthusiast, who spares no one. He says himself that he is as it were drunk with God and His word, when he on the other hand contemplates the country. Diedrich.
21. On Jer 23:11. They are rogues. They know how to find subterfuges, and I would like to see him who accuses a false and unfaithful teacher, and manages his own case so that he does not himself come into the dilemma. Zinzendorf.
22. On Jer 23:13-14. In the prophets of Samaria I see folly. This is the character which the Lord gives to error, false religion, heterodoxy. But in the prophets of Jerusalem I find abomination. This is the description of the or thodox, when they apply their doctrine, so that either the wicked are strengthened or no one is converted. Zinzendorf.
23. On Jer 23:15. From the prophets of Jerusalem hypocrisy goes forth into all the land. This is the natural consequence of the superiority, which the consistories, academies, ministers, etc., have and in due measure ought to have, that when they become corrupt they communicate their corruption to the whole region, and it is apparent in the whole land what sort of theologians sit at the helm. Zinzendorf.
24. On Jer 23:16. Listen not to the words of the prophets, they deceive you. Luther says (Altenb. Tom. II. p. 330): But a Christian has so much power that he may and ought to come forward even among Christians and teach, where he sees that the teacher himself is wanting, etc.; and The hearers altogether have the right to judge and decide concerning all doctrine. Therefore the priests and liveried Christians have snatched this office to themselves; because, if this office remained in the church, the aforesaid could retain nothing for their own. (Altenb. Tom. II. p. 508).The exercise of this right on the part of members of the church has its difficulties. May not misunderstanding, ignorance, even wickedness cause this to be a heavy and unjust pressure on the ministers of the word, and thus mediately tend to the injury of the church? Certainly. Still it is better for the church to exercise this right than not to do so. The former is a sign of spiritual life, the latter of spiritual death. It will be easier to find a corrective for some extravagances than to save a church become religiously indifferent from the fate of Laodicea (Rev 3:16).
25. On Jer 23:16. [But here a question may be raised, How can the common people understand that some speak from Gods mouth, and that others propound their own glosses? I answer, That the doctrine of the Law was then sufficient to guide the minds of the people, provided they closed not their eyes; and if the Law was sufficient at that time, God does now most surely give us a clearer light by His prophets, and especially by His Gospel. CalvinS. R. A.]
26. On Jer 23:17. The pastors, who are welcome and gladly seen at a rich mans table, wish him in fact long life, good health, and all prosperity. What they wish they prophesy. This is not unnatural; but he who is softened by it is ill-advised. Zinzendorf.
27. On Jer 23:21. [There is a twofold call; one is internal, the other belongs to order, and may therefore be called external or ecclesiastical. But the external call is never legitimate, except it be preceded by the internal; for it does not belong to us to create prophets, or apostles, or pastors, as this is the special work of the Holy Spirit. But it often happens that the call of God is sufficient, especially for a time. For when there is no church, there is no remedy for the evil, except God raise up extraordinary teachers. Calvin.S. R. A.]
28. On Jer 23:22. If I knew that my teacher was a most abominable miscreant, personally, and in heart the worst enemy of God in his parish; so long as, for any reason, he preaches, expounds, develops, inculcates the word of God; even though he should betray here and there in his expressions, that this word was not dwelling in him; if only he does not ex professo at one time throw down what at another time he teaches of good and true quasi aliud agendo: I assure you before the Lord that I should fear to censure his preaching. Zinzendorf.
29. On Jer 23:23. Gods essential attribute is Omnipresence. For He is higher than heaven, what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know? Longer than the earth and broader than the sea (Job 4:8). And He is not far from every one of us (Act 17:27). Cramer.We often think God is quite far from us, when He is yet near to us, has us in His arms, presses us to His heart and kisses us. Luther. When we think the Sun of righteousness, Jesus, is not risen, and is still behind the mountain, and will not come to us, He is yet nearest to us. The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart. (Psa 34:19) Deus et omni et nullo loco Cuncta Deus replens molem se fundit in omnem. MS. notes to my copy of Cramers Bibel. Si vis peccare, O homo, qure tibi locum, ubi Deus non videat. Augustine.
30. On Jer 23:28. [When any one rejects the wheat because it is covered with chaff, and who will pity him who says that he has indeed wheat on his floor, but that it is mixed with chaff, and therefore not fit for food? If we be negligent, and think that it is a sufficient excuse for despising the Word of God, because Satan brings in his fallacies, we shall perish in our sloth like him who neglects to cleanse his wheat that he might turn it to bread. Calvin.S. R. A.]
He who cannot restrain his mouth or his ink let him expectorate. But let him say openly and honestly that they are his own dreams, which he preaches. The false prophets certainly know that mere falsehood is empty straw. They therefore always mingle some of the genuine word of God amongst it. An unavailing mixture! It is in this mingling that Satans highest art is displayed, so that he at the same time furthers his own work and testifies against himself. Comp. Genesis 3
31. On Jer 23:29. Gods word is the highest reality, life and power, while the dreams of the false prophets are pretence, death and weakness. Gods word is therefore compared to a fire which burns, warms, and enlightens, so that it burns up the hardest flint, melts the thickest ice, illuminates the deepest obscurities. It is compared further to a hammer which crushes the hardest rocks into sand.He who mingles Gods wheat among his straw, will find that the wheat will become fire and burn up the straw (1Co 3:12-15). He Who handles the word of the Lord purely, let him not despair if he sees before him hearts of adamant (Zec 7:12). He who seeks peace is not ashamed to bow beneath the hammer of the word. For the destructive power of the word applies to that in us which is opposed to God, while the God-related elements are loosed and set free by those very crushing blows.He, however, to whom the peace of God is an object of derision, may feed on the straw of this world. But how will it be when finally the day comes that God will come upon him with fire and hammer? What then remains to him as the result of his straw-diet, which is in a condition to withstand the blows of the hammer and the fire?
Help, Lord, against Thy scornful foes,
Who seek our souls to lead astray;
Whose mockeries at mortal woes
Will end in terrible dismay!
Grant that Thy holy word may root
Deep in our hearts, and richer fruit
May ever bear to endless day.
Gods word converts, all other doctrine befools. Luther.
32. On Jer 23:29. Gods word in general is like a fire: the more it is urged the more widely and brightly it extends. God has caused His word to be proclaimed to the world as a matter, which they can dispense with as little as fire. Fire often smoulders long in secret before it breaks out, thus the power of the divine word operates in its time. Gods word can make people as warm as if glowing coals lay upon them; it shines as brightly upon them, as if a lamp were held under their eyes; it tells every one the truth and purifies from all vices. He who deals evilly with Gods word burns himself by it, he who opposes it is consumed by it. But the word of God is as little to blame as a lamp or a fire when an unskilful person is burned by it. Yet it happens that often it will not be suffered in the world, then there is fire in all the streets. That is the unhappy fire of persecution, which is kindled incidentally in the world by the preaching of the Gospel. Jos. Conr. Schaller, Pastor at Cautendorf, Sermons on the Gospels, 1742.
33. On Jer 23:30. Teachers and preachers are not to steal their sermons from other books, but take them from the Bible, and testify that which they speak from their inward experience (Joh 3:11). False teachers steal Gods word, inventing a foreign meaning for it, and using this for the palliation of their errors. StarkeHinc illi at auctions, who can obtain this or that good book, this or that manuscript? Here they are thus declared to be plagiarios; and they are necessarily so because they are not taught of God. But I would rather they would steal from true men of God than from each other.Zinzendorf.
34. On Jer 23:33-40. When the word of God becomes intolerable to men, then men in their turn become intolerable to our Lord God; yea, they are no more than inutile pondus terr, which the land can no more bear, therefore they must be winnowed out, Jer 15:17. Cramer.
35. On Jer 24:5-7. He who willingly and readily resigns himself to the will of God even to the cross, may escape misfortune. But he who opposes himself to the hand of God cannot escape. Cramer.The captives are dearest to God. By the first greater affliction He prepares their souls for repentance and radical conversion, so that He has in them again His people and inheritance. O the gracious God, that He allows even those who on account of sin must be so deeply degraded and rendered slaves, even in such humiliation to be His people! The captives are forgiven their opposition to God; they are separated from the number of nations existing in the world, politically they are dead and banished to the interior. Now, God will show them what His love can do; they shall return, and in true nearness to God be His true Israel. Diedrich.
36. On Jer 24:7. [Since He affirms that He would give them a heart to understand, we hence learn that men are by nature blind, and also that when they are blinded by the devil they cannot return to the right way, and that they cannot be otherwise capable of light than by having God to illuminate them by His Spirit. This passage also shows, that we cannot really turn to God until we acknowledge Him to be the Judge; for until the sinner sets himself before Gods tribunal he will never be touched with the feeling of true repentance. Though God rules the whole world. He yet declares that He is the God of the Church; and the faithful whom He has adopted He favors with this high distinction, that they are His people; and He does this that they may be persuaded that there is safety in Him, according to what is said by Habakkuk, Thou art our God, we shall not die (Hab 1:12). And of this sentence Christ Himself is the best interpreter, when He says, that He is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Luk 20:38). Calvin.S. R. A.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. On Jer 21:8. This text may be used on all occasions when an important decision is to be made or on the entrance on a new section of life, as, e. g., at synods, diets, New Years, beginning of the church-year, at confirmations, weddings, installations, etc. What the present day demands and promises: I. It demands from us an important choice. II. It promises us, according as we choose, life or death.
2. On Jer 22:2-9. In how far the divine election is conditional and unconditional. I. It is conditional with respect to individual elected men, places, things. For 1, these become partakers of the salvation promised by the election only by behaviour well-pleasing to God; 2, if they behave in a manner displeasing to God, the election does not protect them from destruction. II. The election is unconditional with respect to the eternal ideas lying at the foundation of the single appearances, and their absolute realizations.
3. On Jer 22:24. [Payson:The punishment of the impenitent inevitable and justifiable. I. To mention some awful instances in which God has verified this declaration: (a), the apostate angels; (b) our first parents; (c) destruction of mankind by the flood; (d) the children of Israel; (e) Moses, David, the disobedient prophet, Christ. II. Some of the reasons for such a declaration. Not a disposition to give pain or desire for revenge. It is the nature and tendency of sin to produce misery.S. R. A.]
4. On Jer 23:5-6. The Son of David. What the prophet declares of Him is fourfold: 1. He will Himself be righteous; 2. He will rule well as king and execute judgment and righteousness; 3. He will be our righteousness; 4. Under Him shall Judah be helped and Israel dwell safely.
5. On Jer 23:14. [Lathrop: The horrible guilt of those who strengthen the hands of the wicked. 1. All sin is horrible in its nature. 2. This is to oppose the government of the Almighty. 3. It directly tends to the misery of mankind. 4. It supports the cause of the Evil Spirit. 5. It is to become partakers of their sins. 6. It is horrible as directly contrary to the command of God, and marked with His peculiar abhorrence.S. R. A.]
6. On Jer 23:23-24. The Omnipresence of God. 1. What it means. God is everywhere present, (a). He fills heaven and earth; (b) there is no removal from Him in space; (c) nothing is hidden from Him. 2. There is in this for us (a) a glorious consolation, (b) an earnest admonition. [Charnock, Jortin, and Wesley have sermons on this text, all of very similar outline. The following are Jortins practical conclusions; This doctrine 1. Should lead us to seek to resemble Gods perfections 2. Should deter us from sin. 3. Should teach us humility. 4. Should encourage us to reliance and contentment, to faith and hope.S. R. A.]
7. On Jer 23:29-30. Gods Word and mans word. 1. The former is life and power (wheat, fire, hammer). The latter pretence and weakness (dream, straw). 2. The two are not to be mixed with each other. [Cecil: This shows 1. The vanity of all human imaginations in religion, (a). What do they afford to man? (b). How much do they hinder? 2. The energy of spiritual truth. Let us entreat God that our estimate may be practical.S. R. A.]
8. On Jer 24:1-10. The good and bad figs an emblem of humanity well-pleasing and displeasing to God. 1. The prisoners and broken-hearted are, like the good figs, well-pleasing to God. For (a) they know the Lord and turn to Him; (b) He is their God and they are His people. 2. Those who dwell proudly and securely are displeasing to God, like the bad figs. For (a) they live on in foolish blindness; (b) they challenge the judgment of God.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
It is probable that this Shallum is the same person as is elsewhere in the scripture called Jehoahaz: See 2Ki 23:30 . In 1Ch 3:15 we have the name of Shallum instead of, Jehoahaz: so that it is likely that he was known by both names. The Lord’s command, not to weep for one prince, but sorely for another, forms a different view, in what sense the death of the righteous and of the wicked are considered in the sight of God. Rev 14:13 ; Psa 116:15 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jer 22:10 Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: [but] weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country.
Ver. 10. Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him. ] Lament no more for the good Josiah, lately slain in war, and yet dead in peace: Ne fletote, neque condoletote: there is no such cause, everything counted; neither shall ye have leisure so to do, because of later miseries befalling you thick and threefold. Weep ye rather for his son Challum, carried captive into Egypt; and there miserably handled, without hope of return.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jer 22:10
10Do not weep for the dead or mourn for him,
But weep continually for the one who goes away;
For he will never return
Or see his native land.
Jer 22:10-12 This brief poem and prose conclusion addresses the issue of the Davidic seed (Shallum or Jehoahaz, son of Josiah) exiled! This seems to violate 2Sa 7:13-17, but the reality of Ezekiel 18 must also be taken into account. YHWH’s promises are sure but they are conditional in relation to individual leaders’ volition. Sin has consequences!
There is a series of commands in Jer 22:10.
1. do not weep for the dead – BDB 113, KB 129, Qal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense
2. do not mourn for him – BDB 626, KB 678, Qal IMPERFECT used in a JUSSIVE sense
3. weep continually – BDB a Qal IMPERATIVE and INFINITIVE ABSOLUTE from the same root (BDB 113, KB 129)
The king shall never return from captivity! There may be a word play on return (BDB 996, KB 1427), which can mean
1. repent
2. return
He was capable of neither!
The AB and UBS Handbook suggest that the dead of Jer 22:10 a refers to King Josiah, killed by the Egyptian army at Megiddo in 609 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 23:28-35; 2Ch 35:20-25). The phrase who departs (Jer 22:10 b) refers to Jehoahaz (Shallum, cf. 1Ch 3:15), who was Josiah’s son who succeeded him but was exiled to Egypt three months later by Pharaoh Necho (cf. 2Ki 23:31-34; 2Ch 36:2-4).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
the dead: i.e. Josiah.
him: i.e. Jehoiachin.
weep sore = weep ye, weep on. Figure of speech Polyptoton. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Jer 22:10-12
Jer 22:10-12
Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him; but weep sore for him that goeth away; for he shall return no more, nor see his native country. For thus saith Jehovah touching Shallum 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 shall he die, and he shall see this land no more.
These words, of course, apply to the brief period following the usurpation of the throne from Shallum by the Egyptians who placed their vassal Jehoiachim on the throne and imposed a heavy tribute of a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold annually upon the people.
Shallum was the very last chance that Israel had to receive a decent king. Jehoiachim was a carbon copy of Manasseh. “He permitted pagan rites to flourish again, including even those of Egypt.” The next paragraph will speak of the heartless tyranny, selfishness, extravagance and insatiable greed of this evil ruler.
Weep not for the dead. but for him that goeth away …..
(Jer 22:10). This meant Do not weep for Josiah, but for Shallum. The latter was the last sad home for Judah.
Shallum was the first king of Israel to be deported and to die in exile.
Oracles Concerning Specific Kings Jer 22:10-30
Three separate oracles concerning specific kings have been gathered together in Jer 22:10-30. Here Jeremiah speaks of the future of Jehoahaz (Jer 22:10-12), the folly of Jehoiakim (Jer 22:13-23) and the fate of Jehoiachin (Jer 22:24-30).
1. The future of Jehoahaz (Jer 22:10-12)
After the untimely death of the godly king Josiah at the pass of Megiddo in 609 B.C., the people of the land selected his son Jehoahaz to occupy the throne of Judah. Jehoahaz had reigned but three months when Pharaoh Necho summoned him to Riblah, put him in chains, and deported him to Egypt (2Ki 23:30 ff.). Jeremiahs oracle must have been delivered shortly after the deportation of Jehoahaz.
The death of Josiah was bitterly lamented. Even Jeremiah himself joined in the lamentation for this righteous man (2Ch 35:25). But as far as Jeremiah was concerned, tears were more appropriate for Jehoahaz than for Josiah. By his premature death Josiah would be delivered from the horrors of those final years of Judahs history. But Jehoahaz would live out his life as a captive in a foreign land (Jer 22:10). Though some people apparently believed that Jehoahaz would shortly return from Egypt to reclaim his throne, Jeremiah knows that this will not be the case. He shall not return, cries the prophet. He will never see this land again (Jer 22:11-12). That Shallum here is identical with the Jehoahaz of II Kings is made clear by 1Ch 3:15. Shallum was his given name; Jehoahaz was his throne name.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Weep ye: 2Ki 22:20, 2Ki 23:30, 2Ch 35:23-25, Ecc 4:2, Isa 57:1, Lam 4:9, Luk 23:28
weep sore: Jer 22:11, 2Ki 23:30-34, Eze 19:3, Eze 19:4
Reciprocal: Gen 23:2 – mourn 1Sa 1:10 – wept sore 1Ki 14:13 – shall mourn 2Ch 35:25 – Jeremiah 2Ch 36:4 – Necho Jer 22:18 – They Jer 42:18 – and ye shall see Eze 19:1 – the princes Eze 19:12 – strong Eze 24:16 – yet Act 8:2 – made
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE ELEGY ON SHALLUM
Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country.
Jer 22:10
This exquisite little elegy, which was sung for many years in the city of Jerusalem, has a music and a pathos which even the least instructed and least thoughtful reader can hardly fail to recognise. Quite apart from their meaning, the mere words have a charm. They sound like a song. The very tone and rhythm of them might well move a sensitive heart to pensive reflection. Musical in themselves, they readily ally themselves with music; and, indeed, there is one of Mendelssohns Songs without Words, to which they go as naturally as though he had had these words in his mind when he wrote the song. Who was the dead man for whom no lament was to be sung? Of whom did the prophet speak as him that goeth away? and where did he go? and what was the tragic fate that overtook him? and what was there in him and in his fate that a whole nation should lament and bemoan him?
There were two political parties in Jerusalem, the one heathen, the other Hebrew. Each was headed by a son of Josiah. Eliakim, the elder son, was at the head of the heathen party; Shallum, a younger son, was at the head of the party which stood faithful to the laws and traditions of Israel. At first, while the memory of Josiah was still fresh, and his servants held the reins of power, they had no great difficulty in placing Shallum, although he was a younger son, on the throne of his father. Dissolute and oppressive, a doer of evil, Shallum was nevertheless lavish and ambitious, qualities which commonly win popular liking and applause. Moreover, unworthy as he was of the honour, he was the head and leader of the national, the patriotic party. Raised to the throne by the national party, Shallum naturally set himself strongly against making terms with Egypt; his voice was all for war. By some unexplained stratagem, however, he was enticed into visiting the Egyptian camp in Syria. Here he was treacherously seized, thrown into chains, and sent a prisoner into Egypt. And so, after a reign of only three months, he disappears from history in the darkness of an Egyptian dungeon, in which, bound in misery and iron, he sadly wore away his life.
I. In the prophets conception, this was a far worse fate than death, a fate worthy of a far more passionate lamentation.And, therefore, he bids the people cease their lamentations for Josiah, and sing an elegy for Shallum, his son. Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep ye sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country. And he assigns as a reason for his command, and a sufficient reason: For thus saith the Lord, touching Shallum the son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of Josiah his father, who went forth out of this place; He shall not return hither any more: but he shall die in the place whither they have led him captive, and shall see this land no more.
The brief reign of Shallum was the last gleam of hope that lit up the sky of Israel. Even to us, few figures are more pathetic than that of the last real king of Israel languishing in an Egyptian dungeon, and perishing perchance on the very spot in which his great ancestor, Joseph, had slept and dreamed. If we read Jeremiahs words as though they were written on the dungeon wall of that poor discrowned king, or inscribed on his tomb, we can hardly fail to be touched and moved by their pathos: Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep ye sore for him that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country. What a tenderness there is in the words! and what an ardent undying patriotism!
II. But is there nothing more? Is there no present truth, no eternal truth, in these words? no lesson, no consolation for us?Surely there is, and it lies on the very surface of the words. Do not we weep for our dead? We need, then, to hear the injunction, Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan them. Are not those whom we love sometimes carried away by divers lusts, and bound by themcarried away by them as into a far country, where only too surely they come to want? And do we always lament their sins as much as we should lament their death, and more? If not, we too need to lay to heart the injunction, Weep ye for them, rather than for the dead, for them who go away, away from God, away from virtue, away from peace, into that land of darkness from which it is so hard to return.
We none of us believe that death is the greatest of evils. You would almost laugh at me if I were to ask, Do you weep and lament with equal passion when a friend, a child or parent, a husband or wife, falls into sin? If sin is more terrible to you than death, how is it that you are not more terrified by it? How is it that you are not more zealous to avert it, to save men from it, to do your part towards stamping it out of the world?
Call men to a crusade against death, in which there was even the faintest hope of victory, and who would not join it? But call them to a crusade against sin, in which there is not only the hope, but the assurance, of ultimate victory, and of victory over death as well as over sin; and who offers himself for this war? Do you? Do I? I think we may begin to have some hope of ourselves when we find that we really fear sin more than death, not for ourselves alone, but for others, and are more hurt to see them do a wrong action than to see them expire, and are even more prone to weep and lament over the guilty than over the dead.
Illustration
If faith were perfect in us, if love were perfect, we should not weep for the dead who die in the Lord, for to die in the Lord is to live in the Lord. Sorrow for the pious dead is selfish sorrow, and shows that we are thinking more of ourselves than of them, more of our loss than of their gain, more of the winter of our loneliness and discontent than of the summer of their joy. If you would weep unselfish tears, the tears of love, weep not for those who have gone away from you to be with God; but weep ye sore for those who have gone away from God, though they are still with you. Weep for the sinful, for the lost, who wander through the far country, seeking rest, and finding none; seeking food, and finding none.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Jer 22:10. Weep ye not for the dead. People sometimes show sympathy for the wrong person and overlook another whose fate is actually more to be regretted. Such was the case when Jesus was being led away to crucifixion. The women were weeping for him when they should have been weeping for themselves (Luk 23:27-29), The dead man in this verse was Josiah, the righteous king of Judah. When he died under such unfortunate circumstances (2Ki 23:29; 2Ch 35:22-23) it caused a great lamentation. The words weep ye not do not mean that it would he improper to lament his passing for Jeremiah himself did so (2 Chronicles 35; 2 Chronicles 25), The thought is that another person was to have a misfortune befall him that would be more lamentable, which was to be exiled into a foreign land without friends to accompany him.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jer 22:10. Weep ye not for the dead This seems to be spoken of King Josiah, killed in battle with the Egyptians: see 2Ki 23:29-30, concerning whom the prophet here says that he was rather to be rejoiced over than lamented, since, by being taken soon out of life, he escaped the terrible evils which came upon his country. But weep sore for him that goeth away, for he shall return no more Namely, Jehoahaz, who was carried captive into Egypt by Pharaoh-necho, and never more returned to his country. He is called Shallum in the next verse, but in all other places Jehoahaz. It seems probable that Shallum was his name before he ascended the throne, and that he changed it for Jehoahaz, as his brothers Eliakim and Mattaniah also assumed the names of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah on the like occasion, 2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
22:10 Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: [but] weep bitterly for him {g} that goeth away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native country.
(g) Signifying that they would lose their king: for Jehoiachin went forth to meet Nebuchadnezzar and yielded himself, and was carried into Babylon, 2Ki 24:12 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
A prophecy about King Jehoahaz (Shallum) 22:10-12
This section probably contains two originally separate parts (Jer 22:10-12).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Jeremiah instructed the people not to mourn over Josiah, who had died in battle with the Egyptians, as much as they should mourn over those who had gone into captivity. Pharaoh Neco II had deposed Jehoahaz and had taken him captive to Egypt (2Ki 23:31-35). Jehoahaz was the king’s throne name, and Shallum was his personal name. He was Josiah’s second son, whom the people of the land had placed on Judah’s throne (2Ch 36:1). The fate of the people and Jehoahaz was worse than Josiah’s, because they would remain alive but never be able to return to the Promised Land. In one sense, death is worse than life, but in another sense, life under certain conditions is worse than death.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY: JEHOAHAZ
Jer 22:10-12
“Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep sore for him that goeth away for he shall return no more.”- Jer 22:10
AS the prophecies of Jeremiah are not arranged in the order in which they were delivered, there is no absolute chronological division between the first twenty chapters and those which follow. For the most part, however, chaps, 21-52 fall in or after the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B.C. 605). We will therefore briefly consider the situation at Jerusalem in this crisis. The period immediately preceding B.C. 605 somewhat resembles the era of the dissolution of the Roman Empire or of the Wars of the French Revolution. An old established international system was breaking in pieces, and men were quite uncertain what form the new order would take. For centuries the futile assaults of the Pharaohs had only served to illustrate the stability of the Assyrian supremacy in Western Asia. Then in the last two decades of the seventh century B.C. the Assyrian Empire collapsed, like the Roman Empire under Honorius and his successors. It was as if by some swift succession of disasters modern France or Germany were to become suddenly and permanently annihilated as a military power. For the moment, all the traditions and principles of European statesmanship would lose their meaning, and the shrewdest diplomatist would be entirely at fault. Mens reason would totter, their minds would lose their balance at the stupendous spectacle of so unparalleled a catastrophe. The wildest hopes would alternate with the extremity of fear; everything would seem possible to the conqueror.
Such was the situation in B.C. 605, to which our first great group of prophecies belongs. Two oppressors of Israel-Assyria and Egypt-had been struck down in rapid succession. When Nebuchadnezzar was suddenly recalled to Babylon by the death of his father, the Jews would readily imagine that the Divine judgment had fallen upon Chaldea and its king. Sanguine prophets announced that Jehovah was about to deliver His people from all foreign dominion, and establish the supremacy of the Kingdom of God. Court and people would be equally possessed with patriotic hope and enthusiasm. Jehoiakim, it is true, was a nominee of Pharaoh Necho; but his gratitude would be far too slight to override the hopes and aspirations natural to a Prince of the House of David.
In Hezekiahs time, there had been an Egyptian and an Assyrian party at the court of Judah; the recent supremacy of Egypt had probably increased the number of her partisans. Assyria had disappeared, but her former adherents would retain their antipathy to Egypt, and their personal feuds with Jews of the opposite faction; they were as tools lying ready to any hand that cared to use them. When Babylon succeeded Assyria in the overlordship of Asia, she doubtless inherited the allegiance of the anti-Egyptian party in the various Syrian states. Jeremiah, like Isaiah, steadily opposed any dependence upon Egypt; it was probably by his advice that Josiah undertook his ill-fated expedition against Pharaoh Necho. The partisans of Egypt would be the prophets enemies; and though Jeremiah never became a mere dependent and agent of Nebuchadnezzar, yet the friends of Babylon would be his friends, if only because her enemies were his enemies.
We are told in 2Ki 23:37 that Jehoiakim did evil in the sight of Jehovah according to all that his father had done. Whatever other sins may be implied by this condemnation, we certainly learn that the king favoured a corrupt form of the religion of Jehovah in opposition to the purer teaching which Jeremiah inherited from Isaiah.
When we turn to Jeremiah himself, the date “the fourth year of Jehoiakim” reminds us that by this time the prophet could look back upon a long and sad experience; he had been called in the thirteenth year of Josiah, some twenty-four years before. With what sometimes seems to our limited intelligence the strange irony of Providence, this lover of peace and quietness was called to deliver a message of ruin and condemnation, a message that could not fail to be extremely offensive to most of his hearers, and to make him the object of bitter hostility.
Much of this Jeremiah must have anticipated, but there were some from whose position and character the prophet expected acceptance, even of the most unpalatable teaching of the Spirit of Jehovah. The personal vindictiveness with which priests and prophets repaid his loyalty to the Divine mission and his zeal for truth came to him with a shock of surprise and bewilderment, which was all the greater because his most determined persecutors were his sacerdotal kinsmen and neighbours at Anathoth. “Let us destroy the tree,” they said, “with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.” {Jer 11:19}
He was not only repudiated by his clan, but also forbidden by Jehovah to seek consolation and sympathy in the closer ties of family life: “Thou shalt not take a wife, thou shalt have no sons or daughters.” {Jer 16:2} Like Paul, it was good for Jeremiah “by reason of the present distress” to deny himself these blessings. He found some compensation in the fellowship of kindred souls at Jerusalem. We can well believe that, in those early days, he was acquainted with Zephaniah, and that they were associated with Hilkiah and Shaphan and King Josiah in the publication of Deuteronomy and its recognition as the law of Israel. Later on Shaphans son Ahikam protected Jeremiah when his life was in imminent danger.
The twelve years that intervened between Josiahs Reformation and his defeat at Megiddo were the happiest part of Jeremiahs ministry. It is not certain that any of the extant prophecies belong to this period. With Josiah on the throne and Deuteronomy accepted as the standard of the national life, the prophet felt absolved for a season from his mission to pluck up and break down, and perhaps began to indulge in hopes that the time had come to build and to plant. Yet it is difficult to believe that he had implicit confidence in the permanence of the Reformation or the influence of Deuteronomy. The silence of Isaiah and Jeremiah as to the ecclesiastical reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah stands in glaring contrast to the great importance attached to them by the Books of Kings and Chronicles. But, in any case, Jeremiah must have found life brighter and easier than in the reigns that followed. Probably, in these happier days, he was encouraged by the sympathy and devotion of disciples like Baruch and Ezekiel.
But Josiahs attempt to realise a Kingdom of God was short-lived; and, in a few months, Jeremiah saw the whole fabric swept away. The king was defeated and slain; and his religious policy was at once reversed either by a popular revolution or a court intrigue. The people of the land made Josiahs son Shallum king, under the name of Jehoahaz. This young prince of twenty-three only reigned three months, and was then deposed and carried into captivity by Pharaoh Necho; yet it is recorded of him, that he did evil in the sight of Jehovah, according to all that his fathers had done. {2Ki 23:30-32} He-or, more probably, his ministers, especially the queen mother {Jer 22:26} must have been in a hurry to undo Josiahs work. Jeremiah utters no condemnation of Jehoahaz; he merely declares that the young king will never return from his exile, and bids the people lament over his captivity as a more grievous fate than the death of Josiah:-
“Weep not for the dead,
Neither lament over him:
But weep sore for him that goeth into captivity;
For he shall return no more,
Neither shall he behold his native land.” {Jer 22:10-12}
Ezekiel adds admiration to sympathy: Jehoahaz was a young lion skilled to catch the prey, he devoured men, the nations heard of him, he was taken in their pit, and they brought him with hooks into the land of Egypt. {Eze 19:3-4} Jeremiah and Ezekiel could not but feel some tenderness towards the son of Josiah: and probably they had faith in his personal character, and believed that in time he would shake off the yoke of evil counsellors and follow in his fathers footsteps. But any such hopes were promptly disappointed by Pharaoh Necho, and Jeremiahs spirits bowed beneath a new burden as he saw his country completely subservient to the dreaded influence of Egypt.
Thus, at the time when we take up the narrative, the government was in the hands of the party hostile to Jeremiah, and the king, Jehoiakim, seems to have been his personal enemy. Jeremiah himself was somewhere between forty and fifty years old, a solitary man without wife or child. His awful mission as the herald of ruin clouded his spirit with inevitable gloom. Men resented the stern sadness of his words and looks, and turned from him with aversion and dislike. His unpopularity had made him somewhat harsh; for intolerance is twice curst, in that it inoculates its victims with the virus of its own bitterness. His hopes and illusions lay behind him; he could only watch with melancholy pity the eager excitement of these stirring times. If he came across some group busily discussing the rout of the Egyptians at Carchemish, or the report that Nebuchadnezzar was posting in hot haste to Babylon, and wondering as to all that this might mean for Judah, his countrymen would turn to look with contemptuous curiosity at the bitter, disappointed man who had had his chance and failed, and now grudged them their prospect of renewed happiness and prosperity. Nevertheless Jeremiahs greatest work still lay before him. Jerusalem was past saving; but more was at stake than the existence of Judah and its capital. But for Jeremiah the religion of Jehovah might have perished with His Chosen People. It was his mission to save Revelation from the wreck of Israel. Humanly speaking, the religious future of the world depended upon this stern solitary prophet.