Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 King 23:31 - 25:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Monarchy From The Reign Of Jehoahaz To That Of Zedekiah
(2Ki_23:31 to 2Ki_25:30)
A.—The Reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah
2Ki_23:31 to 2Ki_25:7
36Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Zebudah, the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. 37And he did that which was evil in the sight of 2Ki_24:1 the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. 2And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy [devastate] it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by 3his servants the prophets. Surely [Only] at the commandment of the Lord came this upon Judah, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to [in] all that he did; 4And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the Lord would not pardon. 5Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they 6not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead. 7And the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land: for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.
8Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that his father had done. 10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. 12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his 13[the king of Babylon’s] reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said. 14And he carried away [captive] all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valor, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. 15And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king’s mother, and the king’s wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land, those carried he into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon. 17And the king of Babylon made Mattaniah his father’s brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.
18Zedekiah was twenty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 19And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that Jehoiakim had done. 20For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he had cast them out from his presence [.] that [omit that; insert And] Zedekiah rebelled 2Ki_25:1 against the king of Babylon. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched 2against it; and they built forts [siege-works] against it round about. And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. 3And on the ninth day of the fourth [omit fourth] month the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. 4And the city was broken up [a breach was made in the city], and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, which is by the king’s garden (now the Chaldees were against the city round about [had invested the city]:) and the king went the way toward the plain. 5And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho: and all his army were scattered from him. 6So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him. 7And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and [he] put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and [they] bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.
2Ki_23:33. And Pharaoh-necho took him captive at Riblah in the land of Hamath. åַéַּàַñְøְäåּ is generally translated: he bound him, or put him in bands, but àñø has also “the primary meaning, to make captive, without the notion of fettering, Gen_42:16” (Gesenius), and, taking into consideration 2Ki_17:4, this more general signification is here to be preferred.—The city of Riblah (now the village Ribleh) belonged to the district of the Syrian city Hamath at the foot of Mt. Hermon (Antilebanon), on the river Orontes, that is, therefore, on the northernmost boundary of Palestine towards Damascus (1Ki_8:65; 2Ki_14:25; Amo_6:14). Riblah lay in a large and fruitful plain on the high-way which led, by way of the Euphrates, from Palestine to Babylon. At a later time Nebuchadnezzar also established his headquarters there (2Ki_25:6; 2Ki_25:20-21. See Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 323). It can hardly be the same Riblah which is mentioned in Num_34:11 (see Keil on that passage). If Necho had already advanced, since the battle of Megiddo in which Josiah fell (2Ki_23:29), on his way to the Euphrates, as far as Riblah, it cannot be that, during the three months that Jehoahaz reigned, he had also made a detour to Jerusalem and besieged and taken that city. Shalmaneser spent three years in besieging and taking Samaria, which was not so strongly fortified (2Ki_17:5). Moreover, Necho did not probably “quit the main army without great necessity while it was advancing against a powerful enemy” (Winer). The text says distinctly that he took Jehoahaz prisoner in Riblah and not in Jerusalem, and it gives no support to Keil’s statement, that, while the main army advanced slowly towards Riblah, “he sent a detachment to Jerusalem to take that city and dethrone the king.” In that case he must have captured the king in Jerusalem and not in Riblah. The attempt has been made to sustain this notion that Necho took Jerusalem by a statement of Herodotus (II. 159): ìåôÜ ôÞí ìÜ÷çí (at Megiddo) ÊÜäõôéí ðüëéí ôῆò Óõñßçò ἐïῦóáí ìåãÜëçí åἶëå . But it is now universally admitted that ÊÜäõôéò cannot mean Jerusalem, but rather that it was some sea-port (cf. Herod. III. 5), although this does not necessarily imply that it was Gaza, as Hitzig and Starke affirm. [It is Kadesh, a city of Syria, on the Orontes, near to Emessa, the ruins of which have lately been discovered.—Lenormant.] We are not told how Jehoahaz came to Riblah, but it certainly was not, as the old expositors supposed, with a large army in the intention of repeating his father’s attempt to arrest Necho’s advance, for the army of Judah had perished in the battle of Megiddo. According to Josephus, who says nothing of any capture of Jerusalem by Necho, the latter summoned Jehoahaz to come to his camp ( ìåôáðÝìðåôáé ðñὸò áὐôὸí ), and took him captive when he came. This is more probable than that he came of his own accord, “perhaps to seek from the victor the ratification of his election to the throne” (Thenius). However that may be, he was unexpectedly made a captive at Riblah. We may infer, as Ewald does, from Eze_19:4, where he is likened to a young lion whom “the nations” had taken “in their pit” (certainly not, therefore, at Jerusalem), that he was “treacherously” bound and carried away captive to Egypt. [See the Supplem. Note below, at the end of this section.]—The words áִּîְּìֹêְ áִּéøåּùָׁìָíִ are translated by Keil: “When he had become king in Jerusalem.” That, however, had been said just before in 2Ki_23:31, and is understood from the connection as a matter of course, so that it would be a mere idle remark. Neither can the translation: “Because he had exalted himself to be king in Jerusalem” (Dereser), or, dum regnaret (Vatablus) be sustained. We must, therefore, adopt the keri îִîְּìֹêְ , as is done by the Chaldee version, the Sept. ( ôïῦ ìὴ âáóéëåýåéí ἐí ’ ÉåñïõóáëÞì ), and the Vulg. (ne regnaret in Jerusalem). This is further confirmed by the parallel passage (2Ch_36:3) in which the verse is abbreviated: “And the king of Egypt put him down ( åַéְñִéøֵäåּ ) [i.e., removed him, set him aside] at Jerusalem.” (The Sept. have in that place ἔäçóåí which represents the Hebrew of Kings, and they have here ìåôÝóôçóåí which represents the Hebrew of Chronicles.) In 3 Esra 1:3 also we find: êáὶ ἀðÝóôçóåí áὐôὸí âáóéëåὺò Áἰãýðôïõ ôïῦ ìὴ âáóéëåýåéí ἐí ’ ÉåñïõóáëÞì . It is not necessary to suppose, with Ewald, that îִîְּìֹêְ was “dropped out” from 2Ch_36:3; still less, with Thenius, to read in this place, åַéְñִéøֵçåּ instead of åַéַּàַñְøֵäåּ .—And laid upon the land a tribute. The relative amount of the silver and the gold is remarkable, one hundred talents of silver to one of gold, but, as the same figures are given in 2Ch_36:3 and in 3 Esra 1:36, we are not justified in changing them, as Thenius does, appealing to 2Ki_18:14, and adopting the statement of the Sept. that there were ten talents of gold instead of one. It may be that Necho wanted silver, which was rarer in the Orient, or that he did not wish to alienate the country too much from himself by pitiless severity. The entire tribute amounted, according to Thenius, to 230,000 thaler [$165,600]; according to Keil the gold amounted to 25,000 thaler [$18,000], and the silver to 250,000 thaler [$180,000].
2Ki_23:34. And Pharaoh-necho made Eliakim, son of Josiah, king, &c. After the victory at Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho regarded himself as master of the country, and therefore he would not recognize as king Jehoahaz, who had been elevated to the throne by the people without his (Necho’s) consent. Possibly also, as has often been assumed, either the elder brother Eliakim, who had been passed over, had appealed to Necho, or the Egyptian party had, by its intrigues, induced Necho, after setting aside Jehoahaz, to appoint the elder brother, and not a foreigner, for instance one of his own generals. He changed his name, as was the customary sign of subjection and vassalage (2Ki_24:17; Dan_1:7). It appears that the choice of a name was left to Eliakim, who only changed— àֶì to— éְäåֹ in the composition of his former name so that its signification: God (Jehovah) will-establish, remained the same. Whether he did this “in intentional contradiction to the humiliation of the royal dynasty of David, which Jeremiah and the other prophets had threatened” (Keil), is very doubtful. Menzel very mistakenly infers that the name Jehoiakim pleased Necho better “on account of the connection with the Egyptian moon-God.”—And took Jehoahaz away, ì÷ç does not mean here: “He had taken prisoner,” any more than it does in 2Ki_23:30. This much has already been stated in 2Ki_23:33. It only means that he did not leave him in Riblah where he had taken him captive, but took him away from there (Gen_2:15). The Sept. and the Vulg. read, instead of åַéּáֵà , åַéָּáֹà ; et duxit, and in Chronicles we find åַéְáִéàֵäåּ , but åַéָּáֹà implies that Jehoahaz came to Egypt before Necho returned thither.—”In 2Ki_23:35 the details in regard to the payment of the tribute imposed by Necho are given before the history of the reign of Jehoiakim is entered upon, because the payment of that tribute was one of the conditions on which he was elevated to the throne” (Keil). àַêְ = nevertheless, but in order to obtain the sum; he did not pay it out of his own means. He demanded contributions “from each one, even from the humblest inhabitant” (Ewald). This place shows that by “the people of the land” we have not to understand, as Thenius does, the “national militia,” or the “male population fit for war.”
2Ki_23:36. Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old. He was therefore two years older than Jehoahaz (2Ki_23:31), and must have been begotten by Josiah in the fourteenth year of the latter’s age. His mother was not the same person as the mother of Jehoahaz. Rumah, her native place, is probably identical with Arumah in the neighborhood of Shechem (Jdg_9:41).—
2Ki_24:1. In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up. On the name ðְáֻëַãְðֶàöַּø (Jeremiah generally, and Ezekiel always, writes it ðְáåּëַãְøֶàöַּø ), its different forms, and its significance, see Gesenius, Thesaurus, II. p. 840, and Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr. s. 41. [The name is Nabu-kudurri-uzur, and means either Nebo-protects-the-youth (Oppert), or, Nebo-is-the-protector-of-landmarks (Sir H. Rawlinson)—Rawlinson, Five Great Mon. III. 80.] He was the son of Nabopolassar, and he appears here for the first time in this history. The question as to the time in Jehoiakim’s reign at which he made this expedition can be answered from other data with tolerable certainty. According to Jer_25:1, the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and according to Jer_46:2 this fourth year of Jehoiakim was the year in which Nebuchadnezzar inflicted a decisive defeat upon Necho near Carchemish, a large well-fortified city at the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates (Winer. R.-W.-B. I. s. 211 sq.). Moreover, according to Jer_36:1, Jeremiah commissioned Baruch, in this fourth year of Jehoiakim, to write down his discourses in a book which was read in public on a great fast day which was held in the ninth month, that is, towards the end of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer_24:9). This fast-day was not ordained on account of a misfortune which had already been experienced. “in order, by humiliation and submission, to turn aside the wrath of God, and to implore the divine pity” (Keil), but “evidently, because Jehoiakim was alarmed at the approach of the Chaldeans, and saw in it danger of a calamity to the country which might perhaps yet be averted” (Ewald); for Jehoiakim, when he heard that the book had been read, commanded it to be brought, and then cast it into the fire, because there was written in it: “The king of Babylon will certainly come and destroy this land” (22 Kings 24:29, cf. also Jer_24:3). At the time of this fastday, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar had not yet come. His coming was something to be looked forward to even in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim. It follows that his expedition took place, at the very earliest, at the end of the fifth, or at the beginning of the sixth, year of Jehoiakim’s reign. How far southward he penetrated, whether as far as Egypt, as some suppose, is uncertain. The supposition that he at this time captured the strongly fortified city of Jerusalem (Keil), and even took captive a part of the inhabitants of the city or country, as he did at a later time under Jehoiachin, is not sustained by anything in the Book of Kings or in Jeremiah. It is inconceivable that he should have done so and yet no mention of it be found in Scripture. This much only is certain: that Jehoiakim then “became subject to him for three years,” that is, until the eigth or ninth year of his reign (Jer_24:1), which may well have come to pass without the capture of Jerusalem, or the deportation of its inhabitants, although we do not know the manner in which it did come about. We have, therefore, to present to our minds the course of events as follows: After Necho had defeated Josiah at Megiddo and taken Jehoahaz captive at Riblah, and had made Jehoiakim king, he pushed on northeasterly towards the Euphrates, but he was met and so severely defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish that he was obliged to give up his plan of conquering Assyria and retreat to Egypt. The victor, Nebuchadnezzar, then advanced through the territory east of Jordan, where he had little opposition to encounter (Knobel, Prophet. II. s. 227), and made the king of Judah, who had for five years been a vassal of the king of Egypt, subject to himself. After three years, however, Jehoiakim revolted, but for the remaining two or three years of his reign he was hard pressed by bands of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites, who were probably incited to invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, for he was too much occupied in other directions, in consequence of the death of his father, to march against Judah in person. When he found opportunity he appeared in person with an army “to punish the revolt, and he took vengeance for it upon the son [Jehoiachin] who had recently succeeded Jehoiakim” (Thenius), especially because Jehoiachin had not at his accession, immediately submitted to the Babylonian authority.
Against this natural and simple conception of the course of events two biblical texts may be cited. 2Ch_36:6 reads: “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried [some] of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.” It is not here asserted that Jehoiakim was actually brought as a captive to Babylon, and this can, in fact, hardly have been the fact, for he was king in Jerusalem not eight or nine but eleven years (2Ki_23:36; 2Ch_36:5). It would be necessary, therefore, to assume that he was set at liberty again and came back to Jerusalem as king, of which we have no hint anywhere, and which is highly improbable. Certainly he did not die in Babylon (2Ki_24:6; cf. Jer_22:17-19). The Sept. filled out the meagre story of Jehoiakim in Chronicles from this account, but omitted entirely the words: “And bound him in fetters,” &c., evidently because they considered them incorrect. In view of the remarkable brevity and superficiality with which the chronicler treats the history of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, it appears, as Hitzig supposes (note on Dan_1:2), that he confused the two, for, according to our more detailed and more accurate account, the incidents which he mentions as having occurred to Jehoiakim really happened to Jehoiachin (2Ki_24:13-15). Josephus (Antiq. x. 6, 1) seems to have made the same mistake, for he confuses the history of the two kings. He says that Jehoiakim, on the promise that no harm should happen to him, admitted Nebuchadnezzar into the city, but that the Babylonian broke his word and put to death the king and the principal men threw the body of the king under the wall, and left it unburied, took about 3,000 Jews, among whom was Ezekiel, away captive to Babylon, and placed Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin, on the throne. Then that, fearing lest Jehoiachin might, out of revenge for his father’s murder, lead the city to revolt, he sent an army to Jerusalem, but gave an oath to Jehoiachin that, in case the city should be taken, no harm should befall him. That then the king of Judah surrendered, in order to spare the city, but was nevertheless taken away into captivity with 10,000 other captives. It appears that Josephus was not able to harmonize the account in Chronicles with the account here, and so he mixed them both up together, not writing history but inventing it.—
The other text which may be cited against the construction of the history above given is Dan_1:1 : “In the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it ( åַéַּöַø [pressed it hard] see Isa_21:2; Jdg_9:31; Est_8:11), and the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God,” &c. It is true that this passage does not say that the city was besieged and taken, and that then the king was bound and taken away to Babylon. When the Chaldeans had driven the Egyptians out of Palestine, Jehoiakim found himself in great distress, and, in order not to lose his crown and his kingdom, he surrendered to the king of Babylon, gave him some of the temple ornaments and utensils, and, probably enough, also gave him certain hostages, among whom was Daniel. But the statement that this took place in the third year of Jehoiakim does not agree with the statements above quoted from Jeremiah. No one has yet succeeded in removing the discrepancy, although very many attempts have been made (see a critical analysis of these attempts by Rösch in Herzog’s Real-Encyc. XVIII. s. 464). The latest of these attempts, that of Keil, which insists that we “must regard the third year of Jehoiakim, in Dan_1:1, as the terminus a quo of Nebuchadnezzar’s coming, i.e., must understand that statement to mean that Nebuchadnezzar began the expedition against Judah in that year; that Necho was defeated at Carchemish in the beginning of Jehoiakim’s fourth year, and that, in consequence of this victory, Jerusalem was taken and Jehoiakim was made tributary in the same year,” is unsatisfactory especially in view of Jer_36:9. There is scarcely any escape remaining except to assume that Daniel reckoned from some other point of time which we cannot now specify. It is not admissible to give his one statement the preference over the numerous chronological statements of Jeremiah, since these are consistent with one another, and with the historical connection, and are, moreover, as will be shown below in the review of the chronology of this period, in perfect harmony with all the other chronological data both in Jeremiah and in the Book of Kings, while the statement in Daniel, if it is taken as fixed and correct, introduces confusion. [See the Supplement. Note below.]
2Ki_24:2. And the Lord sent against him bands, &c. It is not stated what impelled Jehoiakim after three years to try to throw off the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar. Perhaps his courage rose again when Nebuchadnezzar had withdrawn and was fully occupied in other parts of his immense kingdom. Perhaps also he hoped for aid from Egypt. Before Nebuchadnezzar himself could come, “bands” ( âְּãåּãִéí in distinction from çַéִì , 2Ki_25:1, not an organized army) devasted the country, though they could not take the capital. “All the nationalities here mentioned had no doubt been obliged to recognize Nebuchadnezzar’s supremacy, and they gratified their own hate against Judah at the same time that they served his purposes” (Thenius). The åֹ in ìְäֵàַּáִéãåֹ does not refer to Jehoiakim (Luther: dass sie ihn umbrächten [that they might put him to death]), but to “Judah” which immediately precedes. This is evident from 2Ki_24:3. On 2Ki_24:2-4 Starke observes: “It is expressly said: ‘The Lord sent,’ and again: ‘According to the word of the Lord,’ and in 2Ki_24:3 again: ‘Surely at the commandment of the Lord came this’ (i.e., it came to pass only because the Lord had commanded it), and again in 2Ki_24:4 : ‘The Lord would not pardon,’ in order that in all this the hand of God might appear and be recognized, and that men might not think that these judgments came upon Judah by accident, or merely on account of the physical strength of the Babylonians.” The author means to say that the judgments which had long been threatened and predicted by the prophets (Isaiah, Micah, Huldah, Habakkuk, Jeremiah) now began. The invasion of all these bands on every side was the presage of the downfall of the kingdom, for from this time on came one misfortune after the other, and the kingdom and nation moved on steadily towards their downfall.
2Ki_24:3. Only at the commandment of the Lord, i.e., it came only for the reason that God had so willed it. Instead of òַìÎôִּé Ewald and Thenius desire to read òַìÎàַó as in 2Ki_24:20, i.e., because of the wrath of God. The Sept. have: ðëὴí èõìὸò êõñßïõ ἦí ἐðὶ ôὸí ’ Éïýäáí ; the Vulg. has: per verbum. The change in the text is not necessary. For the sins of Manasseh, see notes on chap. 21. The sin of Manasseh was far greater and heavier than that of Jeroboam. Judah gave itself up to this sin so entirely that not only were all the warnings and exhortations of the prophets ineffectual, but also the stern measures of Josiah could not effect anything in opposition; on the contrary, as we see from the words of Jeremiah, after his death this sin once more permeated the national life. The sins of Manasseh were not, therefore, avenged upon the people, but, because they persisted in them, they fell under the judgments of God. [That is, the nation was not punished under Jehoiakim for sins which Manasseh and his contemporaries had committed. The “sins of Manasseh” had become a designation for a certain class of offences, and a particular form of public and social depravity, which was introduced by Manasseh, but of which generation after generation continued to be guilty.—W. G. S.] Keil is mistaken when he thus states the connection between 2Ki_24:1 and 2Ki_24:2, and the following verses: “After God had given the nation into subjection to the Babylonian supremacy, as a punishment for its sins, every revolt against that power was a revolt against Him.”—In 2Ki_24:5 we find the last reference to the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah. The history of Jehoiakim therefore seems to have formed the conclusion to this book.
2Ki_24:6. So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers. The details which are given elsewhere in mentioning the death of a king, as to his burial and the place of his sepulture, are here wanting, certainly not through accident or error. Jeremiah says of Jehoiakim, Jer_22:19 : “He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem,” and, Jer_36:30 “He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat and in the night to the frost.” As the statement that he “slept with his fathers” means neither more nor less than that he came to death, this text does not exclude or deny the fulfilment of the prophecy; nor can the statement which is interpolated in the Sept.: êáὶ ἐêïéìÞèç ’ Éùáêåὶì ìåôὰ ôῶí ðáôÝñùí ἑáõôïῦ , êáὶ ἐôÜöç ἐí ãáíïæὰí ìåôὰ ôῶí ðáôÝñùí ἑáõôïῦ , for which there are no corresponding words in the Hebrew, avail, as Thenius believes, to prove the non-fulfilment of the prophecy. On the contrary, Ewald infers from the prophecy, which, however, he says “was written, in its present form, after the event,” that the following is the circumstantial story of Jehoiakim’s death: “Probably he had complied with a treacherous invitation of the enemy to visit his camp, for the purpose of making a treaty, and as soon as he came out he was taken prisoner in the very sight of his own capital. But as he resisted with rage and violence, he was borne away by force, and shamefully put to death. Even an honorable burial, for which his family no doubt entreated, was harshly refused.” This representation of the incident goes beyond the prophecy even, and builds history upon it. Winer supposes that Jehoiakim’s body was thrown out after, and in consequence of, the capture of the city in the reign of Jehoiachin (2Ki_24:10), “on which occasion either the enemy, or perhaps the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves, showed their rage against the hated king,” but, according to Jeremiah, he met with no burial at all. We therefore limit ourselves to the assumption, which is also made by Keil, “that he perished in a battle with some one of the irregular marauding bands mentioned above, and was not buried.”
2Ki_24:7. And the king of Egypt came not again any more, &c. This remark is here inserted in order to show under what circumstances Jehoiachin succeeded his father (2Ki_24:6), and how it came that he only reigned for so short a time (2Ki_24:8). Necho had retired finally from Asia after such losses that he could not venture again to meet his victorious enemy, therefore Judah could expect no more support from him. Much less could it attempt alone to resist the conqueror from whom it had revolted. The river of Egypt is not the Nile, but the stream now known as Arish, which forms the southern boundary of Palestine (1Ki_8:65; Isa_27:12).
2Ki_24:8. Jehoiachin was eighteen years old, &c. The form of the name éְäåֹéָëִéï which occurs here and in Chronicles (II. 36:8, 9), is the full and original form. The signification is “He-whom-Jehovah-confirms.” In Eze_1:2 we find éåֹéָëִéï ; in Jer_27:20; Jer_28:4 : éְëָðְéָäåּ ; and in Jer_22:24; Jer_22:28 : áָּðְéָäåּ , which last is probably a popular abbreviation of the name. Instead of eighteen years the chronicler gives eight years, evidently through an omission of é = 10. The grounds adduced by Hitzig (note on Jer_22:28) in favor of eight are swept away by ver 15 of this chapter, where the king’s “wives” are mentioned. There is no reason to cast suspicion upon the more accurate statement of the chronicler: “three months and ten days,” as Thenius does. Elnathan belonged to the ùָׁøִéí at the court of Jehoiakim, Jer_26:22; Jer_36:12; Jer_36:25.
2Ki_24:10. At that time, &c. The chronicler says instead: “When the year was expired” [more correctly it would read: “At the turning-point of the year,” i.e., either the spring equinox, or the beginning of the Jewish year, both of which came at nearly the same time; the time at which military movements were commenced], i.e., in the spring, not “late in the summer or in the autumn” (Thenius). Nebuchadnezzar sent out his generals ( òֲáָãִéí ), in the first place, with the army to besiege the city. Afterwards he came himself, in order to be present at the capture (see notes on 2Ki_24:2).—And Jehoiachin, king of Judah, went out, &c., 2Ki_24:12. éָöָà , as in 2Ki_18:31, is the ordinary expression for besieged who go out to surrender to the besiegers (1Sa_11:3; Jer_21:9; Jer_38:17). Jehoiachin perceived that the city would not be able to hold out very long, and therefore determined to surrender, in the hope of meeting with grace from Nebuchadnezzar, and of being allowed to keep his kingdom, though as a vassal. He therefore went out with his mother as the Gebirah (1Ki_15:13), and with his ministers and officers, but his hopes were all disappointed. Nebuchadnezzar distrusted him, not without reason, and he desired to punish the father in the son. åַéִּ÷ַּç , he seized him, not “he received him graciously” (Luther and the Calw. Bib.), for, if the latter were the meaning, he would have restored him as a vassal, but he dethroned him and took him into exile. The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, who became king in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer_25:1), fell in the year after the eleven-year reign of Jehoiakim had closed. On Jer_52:28 sq. see below.
2Ki_24:13. And he carried out thence, &c., that is, from the city which he had entered after seizing the king and his chief men. In the first place he took all there was in the treasuries of the temple and the royal palace, and then he took the utensils of the temple. The meaning of åַéְ÷ַöֵּõ is not altogether clear. “To tear off the gold surface” (Keil) is a meaning which is not applicable to “all the vessels,” for many of these were entirely of gold, as, for instance, the candlesticks, and such, we may be sure, he did not leave behind. The Sept. have óõíÝêïøå , the Vulg. concidit or confregit (2Ki_18:16), hence Thenius renders it: “to crush into shapeless masses,” but, if this had been done, Cyrus would not have been able to give these articles back again to the Jews, as it is stated in Eze_1:7-11 that he did do. We must understand it to mean, to tear away violently, avellit (Winer), for the most of these articles were no doubt fastened to the floor of the temple. äֵéëָì does not mean the temple as a whole, but the sanctuary, the “dwelling,” all the articles in which were of gold. Nebuchadnezzar did not take away the brazen vessels from the forecourt until he destroyed Jerusalem (2Ki_25:13 sq.).—As the Lord had said, 2Ki_20:17; cf. Jer_15:13; Jer_17:3.
2Ki_24:14. And he carried away captive all Jerusalem. He left only the poorest and humblest of the population, because nothing was to be feared from them (see Jer_39:10 : “the poor of the people which had nothing”). 2Ki_24:14 states in general, and in round numbers, what persons were taken into exile. There were two classes: first, the ùָׂøִéí , the chiefs [E. V. “princes”], not the military chiefs, but the chief men of rank, the nobles, and the âִּáּåֹøֵé äַçַéִì , i.e., the mighty men of wealth, the rich (2Ki_15:20); and second, äֶçָøָùׁ , the artisans, the workers either in brass, or iron, or wood (Isa_44:12-13; Gen_4:22; 1Ki_7:14), and äַîִּñְâֵø , i.e., not “common laborers who broke stone and carried burdens” (Hitzig on Jer_24:1), but, literally, one who shuts in, encloses, or locks up, from ñâø , to close, or shut up, and so, according to Ewald: “persons who are skilled in siege operations (from äñâéø , to invest or enclose, cf. Jer_13:19),” but we prefer to understand by it locksmiths, inasmuch as these also made weapons (1Sa_13:19). When these persons were taken away into captivity the rest were deprived of the power to revolt or to make war. There were in all ten thousand of the exiles. 2Ki_24:15-16 are not a mere repetition of 2Ki_24:14; they particularize what 2Ki_24:14 stated in general. The king and his court are mentioned first, then the àåּìֵé äָàָøֶõ (keri, àֵéìֵé ), that is, the mighty men of the land, who are included in the ùָׂøִéí in 2Ki_24:14, then the àַðְùֵׁé äַçַéִì , who are there called âִּáּåֹøֵé äַçַéִì . There were seven thousand of the rich and noble, and one thousand of the two classes of artisans. äַëֹּì in 2Ki_24:16 (not åְëֹì ) “gathers in one all who have been mentioned, and it is then specified in regard to them that they were all men in the prime of life, and that they were familiar with the use of weapons” (Thenius). We see from Jeremiah 29. that there were also priests and prophets among them, and according to Josephus, (Antiq. x. 6, 3) especially ὁ ðñïöÞôçò ’ Éåæåßëïò ðáῖò ὤí . Cf. Eze_1:1-3. 2Ki_24:17. Mattaniah was, according to 1Ch_3:15, the third son of Josiah, so that he was the uncle of the exiled king Jehoiachin (Jer_37:1). àָçִéå , 2Ch_36:10, must not, therefore, be translated: “his brother,” but: “his cousin,” or, “his relative,” a sense in which it frequently occurs. (Sept. ἀäåëöὸí ôïῦ ðáôñὸò áὐôïῦ ). On the change of name see notes on 2Ki_23:34. Nebuchadnezzar did not choose the name, he only approved of the new name chosen by the king, as Necho had done in the case of Jehoiakim. îַúָּï , gift, is changed to öֶãֶ÷ , justice, righteousness, so that the name means: “the righteousness of Jehovah,” that is, “he by whom Jehovah executes justice.” It is hardly probable that the king meant by this name to identify himself with éְäåָֹä öִãְ÷ֵðåּ promised by Jeremiah (23:6), as Hengstenberg and Von Gerlach think; it is much more likely that the prophet took occasion from the king’s name, with which his character did not at all correspond, to promise that one should come to whom alone this name might justly be applied.—Nebuchadnezzar showed himself merciful in that he put another member of the native dynasty on the throne, and did not appoint a stranger and foreigner as viceroy.
2Ki_24:18. Zedekiah was twenty and one years old. Of the passage from this verse on to the end of the book, Jer_52:1-34 is a duplicate, almost word for word. The only differences are that Jerem. lacks 2Ki_25:22-26, and 2 Kings lacks Jer_52:28-30. It follows that neither one is borrowed from the other. Moreover there are also a few other slight differences, as, for instance, 2Ki_25:16-17 compared with Jer_52:20-23. It is certain that the fifty-second chapter of Jeremiah is an appendix to the discourses of that prophet, and that it does not come from his hand, for it is impossible that he should have survived the liberation of Jehoiachin (Jer_52:31). (See the Introd. § 1.) Although it is not true that the text in Kings is “thoroughly corrupt” (Hitzig), yet that in Jerem. is, on the whole, to be preferred, and is therefore the more original. On the other hand, that of Kings has some peculiar excellences, as, for instance, 25:6, 7, 11, 17 compared with Jer_52:9-10; Jer_52:15; Jer_52:20. We are driven to a conclusion similar to that which we reached in regard to the history of Hezekiah (see p. 201), and which is adopted also by Keil and Thenius, that both narratives were borrowed from one source which is now lost.—The mother of Zedekiah was also, according to 2Ki_23:31, the mother of Jehoahaz; he was, therefore, the full brother of the latter, and the step-brother of Jehoiakim (Jer_23:36). On 2Ki_24:20 see notes on 24:3. The author means to say that, as this king and the people persisted in their evil ways, the judgment which had long been threatened was executed in this reign. The special occasion of it was his revolt from Nebuchadnezzar who had put him upon the throne, and, according to 2Ch_36:13 and Eze_17:13, had taken an oath of fidelity from him. The year of this revolt cannot be accurately determined. At the commencement of his reign he sent an embassy to Babylon, as it seems, in order to bring about the release of the captives who had been carried away under Jehoiachin (Jer_29:3 sq.). In his fourth year he himself went thither with Seraiah, probably with the same intention, but in vain (Jer_51:59). Then came ambassadors from the neighboring peoples who wanted to unite with Zedekiah in a common effort to cast off the Babylonian yoke (Jer_27:3). False prophets encouraged him to agree to this (Jeremiah 28). This led him to send to Egypt “that they might give him horses and much people” (Eze_17:15). As the Chaldean army was before Jerusalem in Zedekiah’s ninth year, the revolt must have taken place, at the latest, in his eighth year, but it probably took place in his seventh, or perhaps even earlier.
2Ki_25:1. And it came to pass in the ninth year, &c. These dates can be given thus accurately to the month and the day, because the Jews were accustomed during the exile to fast on the anniversary of these days of disaster (Zec_7:3; Zec_7:5; Zec_8:19). It is evident from 2Ki_25:6 that Nebuchadnezzar did not come to Jerusalem himself, but remained at Riblah (2Ki_23:33), and sent his army from thence against Jerusalem. According to Jer_34:7 they also besieged Lachish and Azekah, the only two strongholds remaining. The word ãָּéֵ÷ cannot mean a “wall” (De Wette), for it stands in contrast with ñֹìְìָä as something different (Eze_4:2; Eze_17:17; Eze_21:27). It is ordinarily derived from ãּåּ÷ speculari, to observe, to watch, and is understood to mean a “watch-tower,” or, collectively, “watch-towers” (Hävernick on Eze_4:2; Gesenius, Keil), but ñָáִéá , which does not refer to observation but to an encircling on all sides, does not fit this meaning. The Sept. translate it in Eze_4:2, by ðñïìá÷þí , a bulwark, a rampart, in Eze_17:17; Eze_21:27 by âåëüóôáóéò , a machine for throwing missiles, and this place they translate: ðåñéῳêïäüìçóåí ἐð ’ áὐôὴí ôåῖ÷ïò êýêëῳ ; the Vulg. has munitiones. Hitzig understands by it “lines of circumvallation,” and Thenius “the outermost of the siege lines, built only of palisades, and intended to prevent the introduction of supplies,” &c., but this last cannot be so accurately determined. We must, therefore, content ourselves with the less definite meaning, “bulwark,” or, “siege-work.” Vatablus: Machinam bellicam, qualisqualis fuerit.
2Ki_25:2. Unto the eleventh year, &c. The siege lasted in all one year five months and twenty-seven days, for the city was very strongly fortified (2Ch_32:5; 2Ch_33:14). This is conclusive against the assumption that a capture of the city is implied in 24:1 sq. According to Jer_37:5; Jer_37:11, the besieging army, or at least a part of it, raised the siege and marched against the Egyptian army which was coming to the help of the Jews. It would thus appear that the siege was interrupted for a time.—Jeremiah gives the date in 2Ki_25:3 more accurately (see Jer_39:2; Jer_52:6): “In the fourth month, on the ninth [day] of the month.” The first words áַּçֹøֶùׁ äָøְáִéòִé have been omitted by some accident in the version, in Kings, and they must be supplied. How severe the famine was, and what horrors came to pass as a consequence of it, may be seen from Lam_2:11-12; Lam_2:19; Lam_4:3-10 (Eze_5:10; Bar_2:3). See also Jer_37:21. The famine did not begin on the ninth of the fourth month, but had become so severe at that time that the people were no longer capable of making a strong resistance; so on that day the enemy was able to storm the city.
2Ki_25:4. And a breach was made in the city. This breach was on the north side, for, according to Jer_39:3, the leaders of the Chaldean army, when they came in, halted and seated themselves in “the middle gate,” that is, in the gate which was in the wall between the upper, southern city (Zion), and the lower northern city, and which led from one of these into the other. When the king learned of this he took to flight with his warriors by night. In the text before us not only is “Zedekiah, king of Judah” (Jer_39:4) omitted after äָòִéø , but also the predicate éִáְøְçåּ åַéֵּöְàåּ (Jer_39:4; Jer_52:7) is omitted after “men of war.” All the old versions supply at least one of these words. They fled towards the south, because the enemy had penetrated by the north side, and there was no hope of escaping that way, but even on this side they had to fight their way through, for the Chaldeans had invested the entire city ( ñָáִéá ). The attempt derived its only hope of success from the darkness, and from the greater weakness of the besieging force on the south side.—By the way of the gate between, &c. This gate, called the gate of the fountain (Neh_3:15), was at the southern end of the ravine between Ophel and Zion, the Tyropoion. At this point, inasmuch as it was the site of the pool of Siloam and there were cisterns to be protected, and inasmuch also as the formation of the ground made it a convenient place for the enemy to attack (Thenius), two walls had been built, between which was this gate (Sept.: ὀäὸí ðýëçò ôῆò ἀíὰ ìÝóïí ôῶí ôåé÷ῶí , and in Jer_52:7 : ἀíὰ ìÝóïí ôïῦ ôåß÷ïõò êáὶ ôïῦ ðñïôåé÷ßóìáôïò . This double wall is also mentioned in Isa_22:11. The way of the gate is the way through that gate out of the city. It is not quite certain whether the king’s garden was inside or outside of this double wall; Thenius assumes that it was outside (see Map of Jerusalem Before the Exile, appended to his commentary). It is said in Eze_12:12 : “The prince … shall bear upon his shoulder in the twilight, and shall go forth; they shall dig through the wall ( áַ÷ִéø ) to carry [him] out thereby.” Here ÷ִéø cannot be understood to refer to either of those walls, for he went through the gate; moreover it would have been impossible to break through such a wall in the night. We must therefore understand it of that wall which the enemy had built all around the city (2Ki_25:1), and which it was necessary to break through. The fugitives then took the way to the plain ( äָòֲøָáָä ), that is, to the plains or meadows through which the Jordan flows, and which were called the plain (Jos_11:2; Jos_12:3; 2Sa_2:29; 2Sa_4:7). Their intention was to cross the Jordan and escape, but they were overtaken near Jericho, six hours journey from Jerusalem.
2Ki_25:6. So they took the king, &c. On Riblah see notes on 2Ki_23:33. “Nebuchadnezzar was not present at the storming of Jerusalem (Jer_39:3), he awaited the result in his camp” (Thenius). Instead of the plurals åַéְּãַáְּøåּ and ùָׁçֲèåּ in 2Ki_25:7, we find in Jer_39:5; Jer_52:9 the singular with Nebuchadnezzar as the subject. Although the latter may be the more original reading, the sense is the same in either case, for Nebuchadnezzar certainly did not put Zedekiah’s sons to death with his own hand; he appointed a tribunal which judged and executed them. Instead of the singular îִùְׁôָּè Jeremiah has, in the places quoted and elsewhere, the plural, îִùְׁôָּèִéí . With ãִáֶּø it means, to deal with and decide a question of law. This trial cannot have occupied much time, for it was a matter of common notoriety that Zedekiah had broken his oath of allegiance and revolted. The sons of Zedekiah, not all his children, had fled with him. They also were regarded as rebels and put to death, in order to put an end to the dynasty. His daughters were taken away as captives according to Jerem. 41:20. As for Zedekiah himself, he was to suffer a painful punishment as long as he lived. His eyes were put out. This form of punishment was used by the Chaldeans and ancient Persians (Herod. 7:18). Princes are still disabled in this way in Persia when it is desired to deprive them of any prospect of the throne. “A rod of silver (or of brass), heated glowing hot, is passed over the open eye” (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 15). The Vulg. has oculos ejus effodit, and on Jer_52:11 : oculos eruit. It was also a customary mode of punishment in the Orient to pierce out the eyes (Ctes. Pers. 5). “Plate No. 18 in Botta (Monum. de Nin.) represents a king who is in the act of piercing out with a lance the eyes of a captive of no ordinary rank who kneels before him” (Thenius). See Cassel on Jdg_16:21. However the act of piercing out the eyes is not generally expressed by òִåִּøִ , but by ðִ÷ַּø , Jdg_16:21; 1Sa_11:2; Num_16:14.—With fetters of brass, and double fetters at that,