In the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and encamped against it; and they built forts against it around it. So the city was besieged until the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. On the ninth day of the fourth month, the famine was severe in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land. Then a breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king’s garden (now the Chaldeans were against the city around it); and the king went by the way of the Arabah. But the Chaldean army pursued the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him. Then they captured the king, and carried him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they passed judgment on him. They killed Zedekiah’s sons before his eyes, then put out Zedekiah’s eyes, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon.
Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned Yahweh’s house, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great house, he burned with fire. All the army of the Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down the walls around Jerusalem. Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive the residue of the people who were left in the city, and those who fell away, who fell to the king of Babylon, and the residue of the multitude. But the captain of the guard left some of the poorest of the land to work the vineyards and fields. The Chaldeans broke up the pillars of bronze that were in Yahweh’s house and the bases and the bronze sea that were in Yahweh’s house, and carried the bronze pieces to Babylon. They took away the pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the spoons, and all the vessels of bronze with which they ministered. The captain of the guard took away the fire pans, the basins, that which was of gold, in gold, and that which was of silver, in silver. The two pillars, the one sea, and the bases, which Solomon had made for Yahweh’s house, the bronze of all these vessels was not weighed. The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and a capital of bronze was on it. The height of the capital was three cubits, with network and pomegranates on the capital around it, all of bronze; and the second pillar with its network was like these.
The captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the threshold; and out of the city he took an officer who was set over the men of war; and five men of those who saw the king’s face, who were found in the city; and the scribe, the captain of the army, who mustered the people of the land; and sixty men of the people of the land, who were found in the city. Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took them, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah. The king of Babylon attacked them, and put them to death at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away captive out of his land. As for the people who were left in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, governor. Now when all the captains of the forces, they and their men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor, they came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of the Maacathite, they and their men. Gedaliah swore to them and to their men, and said to them, “Don’t be afraid because of the servants of the Chaldeans. Dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon, and it will be well with you.”
But in the seventh month, Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the royal offspring came, and ten men with him, and struck Gedaliah, so that he died, with the Jews and the Chaldeans that were with him at Mizpah. All the people, both small and great, and the captains of the forces, arose, and came to Egypt; for they were afraid of the Chaldeans. In the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, Evilmerodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; and he spoke kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon, and changed his prison garments. Jehoiachin ate bread before him continually all the days of his life; and for his allowance, there was a continual allowance given him from the king, every day a portion, all the days of his life.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 18, 19, 24, 26, 27, 30 That is, of Zedekiah.
That is, of Zedekiah.
Which the Hebrews call Tebet, and it containeth part of December, and part of January.
Read full note →
Or, a mount.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 2Ki 25:1 And it came to pass in the…
2Ki 25:1 And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth [day] of the month, [that] Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it; and they built forts against it round about.
Ver. 1. In the tenth month, the tenth day of the month.] This was revealed to Ezekiel in Babylon. {Eze 24:1} And although this day of the tenth month was by the law appointed for a day of expiation or atonement, {Lev 16:29-31} yet now "an end was come, the end was come, it watched against them, behold, it was come, an evil, an only evil was come, was come," as Ezekiel hath it. {Eze 7:5-6} This the poor captives afterward bewailed in their anniversary fast on this day kept. {Zec 8:19}
Read full note →
And they built forts against it round about.] Of the greatness of this army environing so great a city, see Jer 34:1.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 To chastise Zedekiah for his rebellion and perjury, 2Ch…
To chastise Zedekiah for his rebellion and perjury, 2Ch 36:13. They built forts against it round about; partly to keep all supplies of men or provisions from entering into the city; and partly that from thence they might shoot darts, or arrows, or stones into the city. See Jer 52:4; Eze 4:2; 17:17.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 22 We left king Zedekiah in rebellion against the king…
We left king Zedekiah in rebellion against the king of Babylon (Kg2 24:20), contriving and endeavouring to shake off his yoke, when he was no way able to do it, nor took the right method by making God his friend first. Now here we have an account of the fatal consequences of that attempt.
I. The king of Babylon's army laid siege to Jerusalem, Kg2 25:1. What should hinder them when the country was already in their possession? Kg2 24:2. They built forts against the city round about, whence, by such arts of war as they then had, they battered it, sent into it instruments of death, and kept out of it the necessary supports of life. Formerly Jerusalem had been compassed with the favour of God as with a shield, but now their defence had departed from them and their enemies surrounded them on every side. Those that by sin have provoked God to leave them will find that innumerable evils will compass them about. Two years this siege lasted; at first the army retired, for fear of the king of Egypt (Jer 37:11), but, finding him not so powerful as they thought, they soon returned, with a resolution not to quit the city till they had made themselves masters of it.
Read full note →
II. During this siege the famine prevailed (Kg2 25:3), so that for a long time they ate their bread by weight and with care, Eze 4:16. Thus they were punished for their gluttony and excess, their fulness of bread and feeding themselves without fear. At length there was no bread for the people of the land, that is, the common people, the soldiers, whereby they were weakened and rendered unfit for service. Now they ate their own children for want of food. See this foretold by one prophet (Eze 5:10) and bewailed by another, Lam 4:3, etc. Jeremiah earnestly persuaded the king to surrender (Jer 38:17), but his heart was hardened to his destruction.
III. At length the city was taken by storm: it was broken up, Kg2 25:4. The besiegers made a breach in the wall, at which they forced their way into it. The besieged, unable any longer to defend it, endeavoured to quit it, and make the best of their way; and many, no doubt, were put to the sword, the victorious army being much exasperated by their obstinacy.
IV. The king, his family, and all his great men, made their escape in the night, by some secret passages which the besiegers either had not discovered or did not keep their eye upon, Kg2 25:4. But those as much deceive themselves who think to escape God's judgments as those who think to brave them; the feet of him that flees from them will as surely fail as the hands of him that fights against them. When God judges he will overcome. Intelligence was given to the Chaldeans of the king's flight, and which way he had gone, so that they soon overtook him, Kg2 25:5. His guards were scattered from him, every man shifting for his own safety. Had he put himself under God's protection, that would not have failed him now. He presently fell into the enemies' hands, and here we are told what they did with him. 1. He was brought to the king of Babylon, and tried by a council of war for rebelling against him who set him up, and to whom he had sworn fidelity. God and man had a quarrel with him for this; see Eze 17:16, etc. The king of Babylon now lay at Riblah (which lay between Judea and Babylon), that he might be ready to give orders both to his court at home and his army abroad. 2. His sons were slain before his eyes, though children, that this doleful spectacle, the last his eyes were to behold, might leave an impression of grief and horror upon his spirit as long as he lived. In slaying his sons, they showed their indignation at his falsehood, and in effect declared that neither he nor any of his were fit to be trusted, and therefore that they were not fit to live. 3. His eyes were put out, by which he was deprived of that common comfort of human life which is given even to those that are in misery, and to the bitter in soul, the light of the sun, by which he was also disabled for any service. He dreaded being mocked, and therefore would not be persuaded to yield (Jer 38:19), but that which he feared came upon him with a witness, and no doubt added much to his misery; for, as those that are deaf suspect that every body talks of them, so those that are blind suspect that every body laughs at them. By this two prophecies that seemed to contradict one another were both fulfilled. Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah should be brought to Babylon, Jer 32:5; Jer 34:3. Ezekiel prophesied that he should not see Babylon, Eze 12:13. He was brought thither, but, his eyes being put out, he did not see it. Thus he ended his days, before he ended his life. 4. He was bound in fetters of brass and so carried to Babylon. He that was blind needed not be bound (his blindness fettered him), but, for his greater disgrace, they led him bound; only, whereas common malefactors are laid in irons (Psa 105:18; Psa 107:10), he, being a prince, was bound with fetters of brass; but that the metal was somewhat nobler and lighter was little comfort, while still he was in fetters. Let it not seem strange if those that have been held in the cords of iniquity come to be thus held in the cords of affliction, Job 36:8.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 13, 18, 22, 25 And it came to pass in the ninth year…
And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign,.... Of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah. From hence to the end of Kg2 25:7, the account exactly agrees with Jer 52:4.
.
Read full note →
2 Kings 25:8
kg2 25:8
kg2 25:8
kg2 25:8And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month,.... In Jer 52:12 it is the tenth day of the month; which, how to be reconciled; see Gill on Jer 52:12.
which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar; who, according to Ptolemy's canon, reigned forty three years; Metasthenes (u) says forty five; and from hence, to the end of Kg2 25:12 facts are related as in Jer 52:12 whither the reader is referred.
(u) De Judicio Temp. & Annal. Pers. fol. 221. 2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 Jerusalem is taken, ver. 1-4. Zedekiah taken and sentenced,…
Jerusalem is taken, ver. 1-4. Zedekiah taken and sentenced, ver. 5-7. Nebuzaradan burns the city, breaks down the walls, and carries away the spoils, with most of the people, ver. 3-17. The chief officers are put to death, ver. 18-21. The very remnant of the people is scattered, ver. 22-26. Jehoiachin is countenanced, after thirty seven years imprisonment, ver. 27-30.
Came - To chastise Zedekiah for his rebellion and perjury. Built - To keep all supplies of men or provisions from entering into the city: and that from thence they might shoot darts, or arrows, or stones.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30 Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem; it is taken, after having
CHAPTER XXV
Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem; it is taken, after having
Read full note →
been sorely reduced by famine, c. and Zedekiah, endeavouring
to make his escape, is made prisoner, his sons slain before his
eyes; then, his eyes being put out, he is put in chains and
carried to Babylon, 1-7.
Nebuzar-adan burns the temple, breaks down the walls of
Jerusalem, and carries away the people captives, leaving only a
few to till the ground, 8-12.
He takes away all the brass, and all the vessels of the temple,
13-17.
Several of the chief men and nobles found in the city, he
brings to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, who puts them all to death,
18-21.
Nebuchadnezzar makes Gedaliah governor over the poor people that
were left, against whom Ishmael rises, and slays him, and
others with him; on which the people in general, fearing the
resentment of the Chaldeans, flee to Egypt, 22-26.
Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, releases Jehoiachin out of
prison, treats him kindly, and makes him his friend, 27-30.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXV
Verse 1. In the ninth year of his reign] Zedekiah, having revolted against the Chaldeans, Nebuchadnezzar, wearied with his treachery, and the bad faith of the Jews, determined the total subversion of the Jewish state. Having assembled a numerous army, he entered Judea on the tenth day of the tenth month of the ninth year of the reign of Zedekiah; this, according to the computation of Archbishop Usher, was on Thursday, January 30, A.M. 3414, which was a sabbatical year: whereon the men of Jerusalem hearing that the Chaldean army was approaching, proclaimed liberty to their servants; see Jer 34:8-10, according to the law, Ex 21:2; De 15:1-2; De 15:12: for Nebuchadnezzar, marching with his army against Zedekiah, having wasted all the country, and taken their strong holds, except Lachish, Azekah, and Jerusalem, came against the latter with all his forces. See Jer 34:1-7. On the very day, as the same author computes, the siege and utter destruction of Jerusalem were revealed to Ezekiel the prophet, then in Chaldea, under the type of a seething pot; and his wife died in the evening, and he was charged not to mourn for her, because of the extraordinary calamity that had fallen upon the land. See Eze 24:1-2, c.
Jeremiah, having predicted the same calamities, Jer 34:1-7, was by the command of Zedekiah shut up in prison, Jer 32:1-16.
Pharaoh Hophra, or Vaphris, hearing how Zedekiah was pressed, and fearing for the safety of his own dominions should the Chaldeans succeed against Jerusalem, determined to succour Zedekiah. Finding this, the Chaldeans raised the siege of Jerusalem, and went to meet the Egyptian army, which they defeated and put to flight. Joseph. Antiq., lib. 10, cap. 10. In the interim the Jews, thinking their danger was passed, reclaimed their servants, and put them again under the yoke Jer 34:8, &c.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 2Ki 25:1. Nebuchadnezzar came, and all his host, against…
2Ki 25:1. Nebuchadnezzar came, and all his host, against Jerusalem — To chastise Zedekiah for his rebellion and perjury: for, contrary to the solemn oath he had taken, he had been contriving and endeavoring to revolt from the king of Babylon, and shake off his yoke. They built forts against it round about — To keep all supplies of men and provisions from entering into the city, and that from thence, by such arts of war as they then had, they might batter the walls, shoot arrows, and throw darts or stones into it. Formerly Jerusalem was compassed with the favour of God as with a shield, but now their defence is departed from them, and their enemies surround them on every side. The siege lasted two years. At first the besieging army retired for fear of the king of Egypt, who came to help Zedekiah; and then Jeremiah endeavoured to get out of the city, to go into the land of Benjamin, but was hindered, seized, and imprisoned, Jer 37:11. The Chaldeans, finding that Pharaoh was not so powerful as they at first supposed, soon returned, as Jeremiah had foretold they would, with a resolution not to quit the siege till they had made themselves masters of the place.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 In the ninth year ... - As the final…
In the ninth year ... - As the final catastrophe approaches, the historian becomes more close and exact in his dates, marking not only the year, but the month and the day, on which the siege began, no less than those on which it closed 2Ki 25:3. From Eze 24:1 we find that on the very day when the host of Nebuchadnezzar made its appearance before Jerusalem the fact was revealed to Ezekiel in Babylonia, and the fate of the city announced to him Eze 24:6-14. The army seems to have at first spread itself over all Judaea. It fought, not only against Jerusalem, but especially against Lachish and Azekah Jer 34:7, two cities of the south 2Ch 11:9, which had probably been strongly garrisoned in order to maintain the communication with Egypt. This division of the Babylonian forces encouraged Hophra to put his troops in motion and advance to the relief of his Jewish allies Jer 37:5. On hearing this, Nebuchadnezzar broke up from before Jerusalem and marched probably to Azekah and Lachish. The Egyptians shrank back, returned into their own country Jer 37:7; Eze 17:17, and took no further part in the war. Nebuchadnezzar then led back his army, and once more invested the city. (It is uncertain whether the date at the beginning of this verse refers to the first or to the second investment.)
Forts - Probably moveable towers, sometimes provided with battering-rams, which the besiegers advanced against the walls, thus bringing their fighting men on a level with their antagonists. Such towers are seen in the Assyrian sculptures.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30 Day, the 30th of January, the year of the…
Day, the 30th of January, the year of the world 3414. (Usher) --- Some time after Nabuchodonosor left the siege, to attack the Egyptians; (Jeremias xxxvii. 3.) and the people of Jerusalem, (Haydock) supposing that he would return no more, took back their slaves, whom Jeremias had prevailed on them to liberate, according to the law, during the sabbatical year, Jeremias xxxiv. 8. (Usher) --- The prophet reproached them for it; and announced the destruction of the city so plainly, that he was thrown into prison, Jeremias xxi., and xxxiv., and xxxviii. --- It. The Babylonians had already taken all the towns of Juda, except Azeca and Lachis, Jeremias xxxiv. 7. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v8 B.—Fall of the Kingdom of Judah; Jehoiachin set at…
B.—Fall of the Kingdom of Judah; Jehoiachin set at Liberty
2Ki_25:8-30. (Jer_52:12-34.)
Read full note →
8And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzar-adan,captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem: 9And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man’s [omit man’s7] house burnt he with fire. 10And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with8 the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. 11Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carry away. 12But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be [read to be] vinedressers and husbandmen.9 13And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon. 14And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered [the service was performed], took they away. 15And the firepans, and the bowls [sprinklers], and such things as were of gold, in gold, and of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away. 16The two pillars, one sea, and the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the Lord; the brass of all these vessels was without weight. 17The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and the chapiter [capital] upon it was brass; and the height of the chapiter three cubits; and the wreathen work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass: and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work.
18And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the door: 19And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, and five men of them that were in the king’s presence, which were found in the city, and the principal [omit principal] scribe of the [captain of the] host, which mustered the people of the land, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the 20city: And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah: 21And the king of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their 22land. And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had left, even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, ruler. 23And when all the captains of the armies, they and their [the] men, heard that the king of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor, there came to Gedaliah to Mizpah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Johanan the son of Careah, and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah the son of a Maachathite, they and their men. 24And Gedaliah sware to them, and to their men, and said unto them, Fear not to be [omit to be] the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be well with you. 25But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died [and put him to death], and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah. 26And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees.
27And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; 28And he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were 29with him in Babylon; [.] And [he] changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him [in his presence, i.e., at his table] all the days of his life. 30And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life.
Chronology Of The Period From The Fall Of The Kingdom Of Israel To The Fall Of The Kingdom Of Judah
Although the chronology of this period presents far fewer difficulties than that of the two former ones (pp. 86 and 180), yet a certain transmutation of its data into dates of the Christian era is hardly possible, for this reason, that the number of years stated as the duration of each reign does not always represent so many complete twelvemonths, and, of course, the years intended are not years of the Christian era, so that one year of a reign may fall in two different years “before Christ,” and two years of these reigns may fall in one year b.c. We cannot, therefore, avoid some uncertainties in the transfer from one to the other of these two modes of reckoning, and a difference of a single year cannot demand an explanation, or vitiate the calculation.
(a) Let us start from the fixed date which we have reached above (p. 181), 721 b.c., the year of the fall of Samaria. As this was the sixth year of Hezekiah, who reigned twenty-nine years (2Ki_18:10), there remain twenty-three years of his reign to be reckoned into this period. This gives us the following results:—
Reigned for Hezekiah23yearslonger,i.e.,until698.Manasseh55years(2Ki_21:1)““643.Amon2years(2Ki_21:19)““641.Josiah31years(2Ki_22:1)““610.Jehoahaz3mos.(2Ki_23:31)““ Jehoiakim11yrs.(2Ki_23:36)““599.Jehoiachin3mos.(2Ki_24:8).““ Zedekiah11yrs.(2Ki_24:18)““588.The Book of Chronicles agrees exactly in all these dates. There is no variant in regard to a single one of them; the old versions have them exactly as they are given in the Hebrew text, and Josephus also gives the same. We are, therefore, as sure of these numbers as of any. Some modern scholars have taken scruples at the long reign of fifty-five years which is ascribed to Manasseh, and have shortened it arbitrarily either to thirty-five years (Movers, Von Gumpach), or to forty-five years (Bunsen, Wolff). This change, however, is inadmissible, for it necessitates other changes and throws the whole chronology into confusion. [This change is made in the interest of what is known as the “shorter period” for the space of history which is here included. The grounds for it are found in the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian chronologies. The problem is very complex, and the solution of it is hampered at many points by the uncertainty of many of the data. The majority of scholars have not, therefore, thought it wise to make any changes in the Hebrew chronology, to bring it into accord with that of contemporary nations, until the latter shall be more satisfactorily determined. Those who desire to attempt, even now, to bring about an accord, find it necessary to shorten the time which is required by the sum of the reigns for this period, and they see in the long reign ascribed to Manasseh the point where the error is most likely to lie.—W. G. S.] The time for which the kingdom of Judah outlasted the kingdom of Israel amounts to 133 years. The six months for which Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin reigned are here left out of the account, and with justice, for it can hardly be that the years ascribed to the other reigns were all full twelvemonths. It is immaterial whether each three months’ reign is reckoned into the preceding or the following reign. It is possible that Zedekiah did not ascend the throne until 598, so that he reigned until 587, but in no case can his dethronement be placed later than 587. Instead of the year 588, in which, according to our reckoning, the fall of Jerusalem took place, many have lately adopted 586 as the date of that event. Bunsen, starting from the very uncertain Assyrio-Egyptian chronology, puts the fall of Samaria in 709 instead of in 721. He would be obliged, if he admitted 133 years for the subsequent duration of the kingdom of Judah, to put the fall of Jerusalem in 576, but, as he sees that this is inadmissible, he arbitrarily cuts off ten years from the reign of Manasseh and thus reaches the date 586. Ewald also adopts the date 586, but he reaches it by putting the fall of Samaria in 719 instead of in 721. This obliges him to set the date of accession of each of the following kings two years later than our dates, and thus he arrives at 586 instead of 588. We saw above (p. 181) that the date 719 is incorrect; with the incorrectness of this date, the date 586 falls to the ground. If, as we have seen, the date 721 is certainly established, then 588 is the only date which can be correct for the fall of Jerusalem, for, even if we suppose that all the years of all the reigns were full years, they only amount to 133 years.
(b) Besides the statements as to the duration of these reigns, we have the following chronological data in regard to them: (1) The thirteenth year of Josiah is given as the year in which Jeremiah first appeared as a prophet (Jer_1:1). This was the year 628, for Josiah began to reign in 641. Also the eighteenth year of Josiah is mentioned as the year of his reformation and celebration of the passover—that is, 623 (2Ki_22:3; 2Ki_23:23). As Josiah was slain in his battle with Necho, the invasion of Asia by the latter took place in Josiah’s thirty-first year, that is, in 610. The invasion of Judah by the Scyths, which is not mentioned at all in the historical books, must have taken place during the reign of Josiah, not before the public appearance of Jeremiah (628), and not after the great reformation (623). Duncker sets it in the fourteenth year of Josiah’s reign, that is, 627. [See the Supp. Note, p. 285.]—(2) King Jehoiakim ascended the throne either at the very end of 610, or perhaps in 609, for Jehoahaz reigned for three months after Josiah’s death. According to Jer_46:2, the great battle at Carchemish, in consequence of which Nebuchadnezzar advanced into Palestine, took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, that is, in 605 or 604 (see notes on 2Ki_23:36). In this same fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah caused to be written down his prophecies, which were solemnly read in public in the following year, on a great holiday (Jer_36:1; Jer_36:9). Up to this time, therefore, Jehoiakim was not yet subject to Nebuchadnezzar; he cannot have become so until the end of 605 or the beginning of 604. He revolted after three years (2Ki_24:1), that is, in 602 or 601. Chaldean and other forces harassed him from that time until his death in 599 (2Ki_24:2 sq.).—(3) As Jehoiachin only reigned three months, it may well be that Zedekiah ascended the throne before the end of the year (599) in which Jehoiakim died. His fourth year, in which, according to Jer_51:59, he made a journey to Babylon, was, therefore, 595; certainly it was not 593, as Duncker and Ewald state, for, if he had not become king until the beginning of 598, this journey would fall, at the latest, in 594. In his ninth year, 590, the Chaldeans appeared before Jerusalem (2Ki_25:1). In his tenth year (589), while the city was being besieged, he ordered Jeremiah to be imprisoned (Jer_32:1). In his eleventh year (588), Jerusalem was taken, and Zedekiah was blinded and taken away captive to Babylon. In this same year occurred the destruction of the temple and of the city (2Ki_25:4; 2Ki_25:8).
(c) Several synchronisms are given between the reigns of the Jewish kings and that of Nebuchadnezzar. According to Jer_25:1, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar was the fourth of Jehoiakim (606), that is (see above), the year of the battle of Carchemish (Jer_46:2). This first year of Nebuchadnezzar and fourth of Jehoiakim was also, according to Jer_25:1-3, the twenty-third year of Jeremiah’s work as prophet, which began (Jer_1:2) in the thirteenth year of Josiah (628). According to 2Ki_24:12, Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin prisoner in his own eighth year, that is, in 599, in which year, as we have seen above, the three months’ reign of Jehoiachin fell. Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year corresponds, according to Jer_32:1, to the tenth year of Zedekiah, that is, since Zedekiah became king in 599, 589, and his nineteenth year, in which he took Jerusalem (2Ki_25:8; Jer_52:2), corresponds to the eleventh year of Zedekiah (2Ki_25:2). This is the year 588. In Jer_52:28 sq., the seventh year is given instead of the eighth, and the eighteenth instead of the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, but we shall see below, in the appendix to the Exegetical notes, that this difference, which only amounts at best to one year, is only apparent and not real. It cannot invalidate the calculation. The last chronological statement which occurs in the book is that, in the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s successor, released Jehoiachin from his prison in Babylon (2Ki_25:27; Jer_52:31). As the exile took place in the year 599 (see above under a), the liberation must have occurred in 562. According to Josephus (Antiq. x. 11, 1) Nebuchadnezzar reigned for forty-three years. We have seen above that he became king in 606; his death, therefore, took place in 562. In this year Evil-Merodach followed him, and, on his accession, he showed grace to Jehoiachin.
Thus the chronological statements in reference to this period which are presented by the Bible stand in the fullest accord with each other, and we have the more reason to hold to them, inasmuch as they are consistent with those of the former period. It is not our duty to inquire whether they agree with the results of the Assyrian and Egyptian investigations. We need only remark that these results are based, partly upon later unbiblical authors, and partly on attempts to decipher old Asiatic inscriptions, which have as yet produced no certain results, so that, as Rösch says: “They are not yet by any means so firmly established that they could force us to surrender the data of the Old Testament.” [See the Appendix on the Chronology.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki_25:8. And in the fifth month, on the seventh day. Instead of the seventh day, Jer_52:12 gives the tenth day. As the tenth day was the day on which Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem, according to that passage, it is impossible to assume, with the Rabbis, that the seventh day was the day that the burning commenced, and the tenth the day on which it ended. Also in 2Ki_25:17 Jeremiah has five cubits instead of three, and in 2Ki_25:19 seven men instead of five. The difference in these numbers is to be explained by a mistake in the numeral-letters. In 2Ki_25:17 the number five is unquestionably correct (cf. 1Ki_7:16; 2Ch_3:15), and in this verse the number ten (י) no doubt is to be preferred to seven (ז). In fact, the text of Jeremiah is in many respects to be preferred. Josephus (Bella Judges 6, 4, 8) states that Herod’s temple was burned on the tenth of the fifth month, and adds that it was a marvellous coincidence that the first temple was burned on the same day by the Babylonians.—The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar. See the Chronological section above.—Nebuzar-adan. On the etymology and signification of this name see Gesenius, Thesaurus II., p. 839, and Fürst, H.- W.-B. II., s. 6. [The former interprets it by Mercurii dux dominus, i. e., dux cui Mercurius favet], the latter considers it equivalent to the Hebrew expression which immediately follows: רַב־טַבָּחִים (שַׂר, i.e., literally: The captain of the executioners, the one who commands those who are commissioned to execute the king’s commands, especially his death-sentences, and so, in general, the captain of the [royal] guard (Gen_37:36). [“It is probably a Hebrew corruption of Nebu-zir-iddin, which means Nebo-has-given-offspring” (Rawlinson). This is the only explanation which has any value, since it alone rests on an etymological study of Chaldee names.—W. G. S.] The supplementary description in Jer_52:12 : “Who stood before the king of Babylon,” designates him as the first and highest officer who stood nearest to the king. He therefore remained in the camp at Riblah with the king, and only went to Jerusalem for the execution, and not, as Thenius thinks, in order to bring the siege to a conclusion. [It is laying too much stress on the primary signification of the word, which, moreover, is incorrect, to suppose that he did not go up to the city until it had been taken, and that then his business was to “execute” upon it the vengeance or punishment ordained by the king. He went up as the chief officer of the king “to bring the siege to a conclusion,” to take possession of the city in the king’s name, and to carry out the king’s determinations in regard to it.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_25:9. And he burnt the house of the Lord, &c. We see what is meant by בָּל־בָּתֵּי, all the houses, from 2Ch_36:19, where we read: בָּל־אַרְמְנוֹתֶיהָ, all the palaces. He left the small houses standing for the poor and humble people who were left behind.—In Jer_52:14 we find כָּל before חוֹמֹת in 2Ki_25:10. It has been omitted here by some accident, or because it was regarded as a matter of course; it is by no means “an arbitrary exaggeration” (Thenius). On the other hand we must supply אֶח before רַב on the authority of the passage in Jeremiah. Many old MSS. contain it, and all the versions supply it. Nebuzar-adan directed the work of destruction; the entire army fulfilled his commands.—The exiles were composed, as the repetition of וְאֶת shows, of “remnants” (יֶתֶר) of two classes; first, of those whom famine, pestilence, and sword had yet spared, and those who had deserted to the Chaldeans; and, secondly, of חֶהָמוֹן, or, as we read in Jer_52:15 הָאָמוֹן, which Hitzig declares to be the original reading, and to mean master-workman in a collective sense, comprising both the classes which are mentioned in Jer_24:1. The parallel passage, however, in Jer_39:9 does not admit of this interpretation, for there we read: יֶתֶר הָעָם הַנִּשְאָרִים. הַעָם is not a synonym of הָאָמוֹן (master-workman), but of הָהָמוֹן (multitude). This latter word is used for the mass of the people, and especially for the multitude of persons capable of bearing arms (Isa_13:4; Isa_33:3; Jdg_4:7; Dan_11:11). We must understand this class of exiles to be the remainder of the able-bodied male population who were capable of bearing arms (Thenius). In א ,האמון is an error for ה. The one class were inhabitants of the city; the other were persons who had belonged to the army without being inhabitants of the city.—דַּלַּת הָאָרֶץ, 2Ki_25:12, is used as in 2Ki_24:14. The words do not mean that he left vinedressers and husbandmen, but, as is stated in Jer_39:10, that he “left of the poor of the people, which had nothing, in the land of Judah, and gave them vineyards and fields at the same time.” The Chaldee version has it, “that they might cultivate vineyards and fields.” The land was not to remain desert and uncultivated.
2Ki_25:13. And the pillars of brass, &c. In regard to these pillars, and the bases, and the sea, see notes on 1Ki_7:15-39. The מִזְרָקֹת (sprinklers), mentioned in Jer_52:18, are not named among the utensils enumerated in 2Ki_25:14 (for description of which see notes on 1Ki_7:40; 1Ki_7:50); they are mentioned in 2Ki_25:15. In 2Ki_25:15 we have the utensils of the forecourt, and in 2Ki_25:15 those of the sanctuary. It is expressly stated in Jer_27:19; Jer_27:21 that there remained after the first spoliation, 2Ki_24:13, a portion of these utensils which may have been hidden away at that time. The parallel passage, Jer_52:19, adds four more to the utensils which are mentioned in 2Ki_25:15. In general the account here is brief, and all articles not mentioned are summarily disposed of by the words: “such things as were of gold, in gold, and such things as were of silver, in silver,” i.e., “so much as there was to be found of either kind” (Thenius).—לקח is not to be supplied in 2Ki_25:16 from 2Ki_25:15, and הָעַמּוּדִים, &c., are not the objects of this verb. The verse means to show that there was such a mass of the brass which was carried away that it could not be weighed. הָעַמּוּדִים is a nominative absolute. As for the pillars, &c., the mass of the brass was so great, &c. אֶחָד with הַיָּם stands in contrast to שְׁנַיִם with הָעַמּוּדִים. There were two of the pillars but only one sea.—In 2Ki_25:17 the author recurs to the pillars in order to say that they were very valuable, not only on account of the mass of the brass which was on them (2Ki_25:16), but also on account of the artistic labor which had been spent upon them . שָׁלשׁ, as has been said above, is an error, the consequence of mistaking the numeral character, for the height of the capital of the column, according to the consistent statements in 1Ki_7:16; 2Ch_3:15; and Jer_52:22 was five cubits. עַל־הַשְבָכָה, at the end of the verse, is difficult, for the second column was in all respects, and not simply in respect to the “wreathen work,” like to the first. Moreover, the wreathen work was not the most remarkable feature in these columns, so as to deserve to be especially mentioned. Thenius sees in the clause “the residuum of a sentence which is given in full in Jeremiah” [Jer_52:23], and which closes with the words עַל־הַשְׂבָכָח סָבִיב. We must admit either that the original account [which was used by the author of “Kings”] was here too much abbreviated by him, or else that the text at this point is defective. The account in Jeremiah is, at this point, fuller and more satisfactory. As this author had already given a full description of these things in 1Ki_7:15-22, he did not think it necessary to go into detail here.
2Ki_25:18. And the captain of the guard took Seraiah. The persons who are mentioned here and in 2Ki_25:19 are not the same ones who are called, in Jer_39:6, חֹרִים, and who were put to death with the sons of Zedekiah, for these were first captured by Nebuzar-adan after the taking of the city. Seraiah is not the person of that name who is mentioned in Jer_51:59, but the grandfather or great-grandfather of Ezra (see Ezr_7:1; 1 Chron. 5:40). Zephaniah was no doubt the son of the priest Maaseiah, who, although a priest of the second rank (see notes on 2Ki_23:4), appears to have been a person of importance (Jer_21:2; Jer_29:25; Jer_29:29; Jer_37:3). The three keepers of the door were the chiefs of the body of levites who guarded the temple; one was stationed at each of the three main entrances to the temple (Jer_38:14); according to Josephus: τοὺς φυλάσσοντας τὸ ἱερὸν ἡγεμόνας. The chief royal officers were also taken, together with these chief men in the personnel of the temple (2Ki_25:19). עִיר stands in contrast with the temple; whether it has the narrower meaning of the “City of David” (Thenius), is uncertain. סָרִים cannot mean a eunuch here, any more than in 2Ki_20:18; 2Ki_24:12. The command of soldiers would never be intrusted to such a person. Jer_52:25 has הָיָה instead of הוּא, evidently more correctly, for he was so no longer. We cannot tell whether five men of those who belonged to the king’s immediate circle were carried away, as is here stated, or seven, as is stated in Jer_52:25. The diverse statements are the result of some error in reading or copying the numerals. Hitzig: “Seven persons are mentioned as having been chosen to be a sacrifice on account of the mystical significance of that number,” but the number five, half of ten, which was the number for a complete whole incorporated of parts, may also have had mystical significance. The reason why just this number, whether five or seven, were taken appears to be given in the relative clause which follows, and that is that there were just so many left in the city. שַׂר הַצָּבָא is a genitive after הַסֹּמֵר [the scribe of the captain of the host], and הַמַּצְבִּא is not to be joined with שַׂר but with הַסֹּפֵר [the scribe who was put on the staff of the commander-in-chief, and whose duty it was to enroll the persons liable to military service, &c.] The article with סֹמֵר (it is wanting in Jer_52:25) shows that that is not a proper name in apposition with “Captain of the host,” as the Vulg. and Luther understand it: “Sopher, the commander of the army.” It means the general’s clerk, the officer who had charge of the writing which might be required. “Perhaps the commander himself had fled with the king” (Thenius). [Of course any one who filled this office at a time when writing was a special accomplishment would be a person of far more importance than a military clerk now is. The Babylonian king thought him an officer whom it was worth while to put to death among the high officials of the kingdom.—] The threescore men of the people of the land, who were put to death with the chief officers, were either “the chiefs of the rebellion with their immediate followers” (Von Gerlach), or “Such as had in some way distinguished themselves above others in the defence of the city” (Keil). It is very doubtful whether they were, as Thenius thinks, the handful that were left of the garrison of the city of David, and the opinion of Hitzig and Bertheau that they were the country people who had fled into the citadel is very improbable.
2Ki_25:21. So Judah was carried out of their land. “Nebuzar-adan took up his march toward Riblah, not only with these who were destined to death, but also with all the people of Judah” (Hitzig). This sentence evidently closes the history, like Jer_52:27, and 2Ki_17:23. At the same time it forms the introduction to what follows. Thus was Judah (that is, the mass and strength of the nation) led away into captivity. As for those who were left behind (the comparatively small, and poor, and weak portion), Nebuchadnezzar set Gedaliah over them.
2Ki_25:22. And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah. What is here narrated in 2Ki_25:22-26 is omitted in Jeremiah 52 because it is narrated, in that book, in Jeremiah 40 and Jeremiah 41, and in much fuller detail. The verses before us form only an extract from that account, which is here inserted in its proper historical connection.—Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar appointed governor, was the son of Ahikam, who is mentioned in 2Ki_22:12 as a man of importance under Josiah, and who, according to Jer_26:24, saved the life of the prophet when, during Jehoiakim’s reign, he was in danger of falling a victim of popular rage. Gedaliah, like his father, was a friend of the prophet. He shared the prophet’s judgment in regard to the wise policy to be pursued, and joined with him in advising Zedekiah to surrender to the Babylonians (Jer_38:17). Hence Nebuchadnezzar, after he had taken the city, intrusted the prophet, who until then had lain in captivity, to the care and protection of Gedaliah (Jer_39:14; Jer_40:6).—The captains of the armies, they and the men, &c. Instead of הָאֲנָשִׁים we find in Jer_40:7 : אַנְשֵׁיהֶם, their men. These are they “who were scattered when the king was captured, so that Jer_40:7 describes them as those ‘which were in the fields’ ” (Thenius). Mizpah was a city in the territory of Benjamin (Jos_13:26), some hours’ journey north-west of Jerusalem. Here, in this city, which was situated in a high position and strongly fortified (1Ki_15:22), the governor established himself, as he could not live in the destroyed city of Jerusalem. Ishmael, according to 2Ki_25:25, was the grandson of Elishama, the סֹפֵר of king Jehoiakim (Jer_36:12; Jer_36:20). For further particulars in regard to Johanan see Jer_40:13 sq.; Jer_41:11 sq. Jonathan is mentioned with him, Jer_40:8, as another son of Careah. Possibly the similarity of the names caused the latter to be omitted in this place. Seraiah came from Netopha, which appears to have lain between Bethlehem and Anathoth (Ezr_2:22; Neh_7:26). Jaazaniah came from Maacha, which is mentioned in 2Sa_10:6; 2Sa_10:8; 1Ch_19:6, and Jos_12:5, together with Syrian districts, and, in Deu_3:14, is mentioned as lying on the boundary of the country east of the Jordan. He was, therefore, a naturalized alien.—By the servants of the Chaldees (2Ki_25:24) we have to understand the officers whom Nebuchadnezzar had left to govern the country, and whom he had perhaps put under Gedaliah’s command. The latter, therefore, makes promises on their behalf, provided that the Jewish captains would acquiesce in the new order of things.
2Ki_25:25. In the seventh month, that is, only two months after the destruction of Jerusalem (2Ki_25:8). Of the seed royal; this is expressly stated in order to show what incited him to this action. He believed that he, as a descendant of the royal house, had a claim to the position of governor. According to Jer_40:14 he was also incited to this action by Baalis, king of the Ammonites, who no doubt would have been very glad to throw off the Chaldean yoke.—The author breaks off abruptly with 2Ki_25:26, and simply states the result of this act. The people, fearing the return and vengeance of the Chaldeans, fled into Egypt. For further details see Jeremiah 40-42.
2Ki_25:27. In the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity. See the Chronological Remarks above. In Jer_52:31 the twenty-fifth day is given instead of the twenty-seventh, in the Hebrew text, and in the Sept. the twenty-fourth, evidently in consequence of a mistake in the numerals. We see from this accuracy in the date what significance was attached to the event. Evilmerodach was the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. He only reigned two years and was put to death by his brother-in-law, Neriglassar (Berosus, cited in Josephus c. Apion. i. 20). The signification of Evil is uncertain. Merodach, or Berodach, was the name of the Babylonian Mars. We find it in the composition of other proper names also (see notes on 2Ki_20:12). In the year that he became king. For מָלְכוֹ we find in Jer_52:31 : מַלְכֻתוֹ, i.e., of his reign, equivalent to: When he came to be king. This is evidently more correct. Sept.: ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ. נָשָׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ, as in Gen_40:13; Gen_40:20, means, To lift up the head (for some one), i.e., inasmuch as captives moved about in despondency, with bowed heads, to lift up their heads is to release them from captivity, despair, and misery (Job_10:15, cf. Jdg_8:28). Here again the text before us is abbreviated. It omits וַיֹּצֵא, which is found in Jer_52:31, before מִבֵּית. This deliverance from captivity was an act of grace performed by him at his accession, but there seems to have been a special ground for it in the case of Jehoiachin, as he was preferred before the other captive kings. [“The rabbis say that Evilmerodach had formed a friendship with Jehoiachin in prison, into which Nebuchadnezzar had cast the former because he had been guilty of excesses in carrying on the government during an illness of the king, and had expressed pleasure at the same; evidently a fiction based on this passage and Daniel 4.” (Thenius).]—And set his throne above, &c., 2Ki_25:28. This certainly means that he gave him the preference and the higher rank. Whether he merely held him in higher estimation (Rosenmüller, Keil), or “allowed him actually to occupy a more elevated seat” (Hitzig, Thenius), is not a matter of importance. The kings that were with him in Babylon, are “those who, having been deprived, like Jehoiachin, of their kingdoms, were forced to enhance the triumph and glory of the court at Babylon, cf. Jdg_1:7” (Hitzig).
2Ki_25:29. And changed his prison-garments. Instead of the late Aramaic form שִׁנָּא we find in Jer_52:33 שִׁנָּה. The subject is not Evilmerodach (Hitzig), but Jehoiachin, who is the subject of the following verb וְאָכַל. In חַיָּיו the suffix can only refer to Jehoiachin and not to Evilmerodach. It would be a false inference, therefore, that Jehoiachin’s period of grace only lasted through Evilmerodach’s short reign. “Jehoiachin ate in person at the royal table, but he probably also received an allowance for the support of his little court, consisting of his servants and attendants” (Hitzig). Here again this text is abbreviated. In Jeremiah there follow after בְּיוֹמוֹv the words: “until his death.” Here those words are omitted as unnecessary after: all the days of his life. The Sept. also have these words in this place. The fact that they omit them in Jer_52:34 does not justify the assumption of Thenius that they were borrowed from 2Ki_25:29, and are not original in that place. Hitzig very properly declares that they are “evidently genuine,” and adds: “In 2Ki_25:11 ‘all the days of his life’ might well be omitted. Here, however, where he narrates something joyful, the author looks back once more, after fixing the term or limit, over the entire period of good fortune. Cf. 1Ki_5:1; 1Ki_15:5.” He wants to tell once more what good fortune Jehoiachin enjoyed until the end of his life, and how Evilmerodach at least had the intention of providing for him. This good fortune lasted until Jehoiachin’s death, whether he died before or after Evilmerodach.
_____
Appendix.—After the words: So Judah was carried away out of their land, there follows, in Jer_52:28-30, the following statement, which is omitted in the book of Kings: “This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive; in the seventh year three thousand Jews and three and twenty. In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty and two persons. In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzar-adan, the captain of the guard, carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons. All the persons were four thousand and six hundred.” 2Ki_25:22-26 is wanting in Jeremiah 52. because its statements had been given in detail in chaps, 40 and 41; the statements above quoted are inserted in Jeremiah 52. because they had not been given before, as they are in 2 Kings, in 2Ki_24:14-16. The numbers given in Jeremiah vary very much from those in Kings. The former, however, are recommended, as Hitzig says, by their detail; they cannot have been invented. They are evidently derived from a different source, and the only question is, what relation does that source bear to the statements in the book of Kings? Of the three separate deportations mentioned, one took place in the seventh, and one in the eighteenth, year of Nebuchadnezzar. These can be no other than the one which took place according to 2Ki_24:12, in the eighth, and the one which took place according to 2Ki_25:8 and Jer_52:12, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar would be, as is expressly stated in Jer_32:1, the tenth of Zedekiah, that is, the year in which Jerusalem was first besieged. There cannot have been any deportation in this year. Again, the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar would not be the year in which Jehoiachin reigned for three months, and in which it is said that he and ten thousand others were led into exile, but the last year of Jehoiakim. In this year there was no deportation. We are therefore compelled to assume, if we will not alter all the other chronological data in the book of Jeremiah itself, that the original document from which Jer_52:28-30 is derived, reckons the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from another starting-point from that which is adopted in the book of Kings and elsewhere in Jeremiah. This may well be, inasmuch as the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign do not coincide exactly with those of the Jewish kings. The difference, however, only amounts to one year. The third deportation in the twenty-third year must, therefore, have taken place in the twenty-fourth year. It is not mentioned in Kings at all, but no doubt took place. In view of the continual disposition to revolt, it is very likely that he carried off more of the people in his twenty-third or twenty-fourth year, especially as he was at that time busy besieging Tyre. He intrusted this duty to the same officer who had had charge of the previous deportation. There is a much more serious difficulty in regard to the number of the exiles. According to Jer_52:28 there were only 3,023 in the first deportation; according to 2Ki_24:14 there were 10,000. Josephus says there were 10,832. Evidently he has joined the 10,000 in Kings, for the first deportation, with the 832 in Jeremiah for the second (Antiq. x. 7, 1). Thenius suggests that the sign for ten (yod) may have resembled the sign for three (gimel) in the original document from which these statements are derived, and so 3,023 took the place of 10,023. This last would then be the accurate number for which 10,000 is the round number. But the sum given at the end, 4,600, supports 3,023 in this place, and this testimony cannot be put aside by the critical decree that: “The summation at the end was interpolated by the redactor.” According to Ewald, “עשׂרה has fallen out after שׁבע in 2Ki_25:28 just as certainly as it has fallen out after שמונה in the statement of Jehoiachin’s life in 2Ch_36:9.” According to this we should have to take it as referring, not to the deportation mentioned in 2Ki_24:14, but to the later one under Zedekiah. The seventeenth of Nebuchadnezzar was the 9th of Zedekiah, and in that year Nebuchadnezzar advanced against Jerusalem (2Ki_25:1). He took the city in Zedekiah’s eleventh year (2Ki_25:2), and before that no deportation can have taken place. The discrepancy between 10,000 and 3,023 can hardly be accounted for otherwise than by the explanation of Estius. In 2Ki_25:28 the 3,023 are expressly mentioned as “Jews,” that is, persons who belonged to the tribe of Judah. The 10,000 included persons not of that tribe, Benjamites and others who had joined themselves to Judah, since it alone represented the Israelitish nationality, and who made common cause with it against the Chaldeans. There may well have been 7,000 of these, and the entire number in the first captivity, including the 3,023 “Jews,” was thus 10,000. It is evident that the statements in Jer_52:28-30 are meant to apply only to the persons of the tribe of Judah (see יְהוּדָה 2Ki_25:27), and not to all who were carried away captive. This opinion is also favored by the number 4,600 as the sum of the exiles, for this number would be far too small for the sum of all the persons carried into captivity. [There can be no doubt that Jer_52:28-30 refers to the Jews who were taken captive. What reason have we for supposing that 2Ki_24:14 refers to or includes any others than Jews? There is none. It is only an invention for the sake of harmonizing the two passages. Then the probabilities are against it. The persons carried away were chosen on account of their rank, position, and influence. We have an instance in Jaazaniah of Maacha (2Ki_25:25 see Exeget. notes on that verse) that others than men of Judah held power and rank. Shebna the scribe (Isa_22:15) is another instance to prove that in the time before the captivity pure Israelitish, much more pure Jewish blood, was not necessary to hold high office in Jerusalem. The persons of the highest rank were the ones taken away—as such—whether Jews or not. Non-Jews were, of course, rare exceptions. Of the common people large numbers were spared. Naturally people of Judah, who were most deeply interested in the fate of Jerusalem, would be taken first, together with such of other tribes or nationalities as were dangerous from their rank and influence and ability. It is, therefore, improbable that many non-Jews of the common people were carried away. It amounts to a certainty that the exiles were not composed of non-Jews in the ratio of 7,000 to 3,000. This explanation must, therefore, be abandoned. It is the only true policy, in this and in similar cases, to take note of the discrepancy as a fact, and to abandon the attempt at forced and strained explanations. Between the two accounts, that in Jeremiah deserves the preference as the more specific, and also as the more moderate statement. The larger number and the round number is suspicious.—W. G. S.] Only 832 were taken away in the second deportation, because there were only so many left of the more influential people. The 745 who were taken away at the third deportation were not inhabitants of Jerusalem but יְהוּדִים (2Ki_25:30). The smallness of this number is due to the fact that most of the Jews, properly speaking, had been taken away before.
[The numbers certainly are astonishingly small in one point of view, though in another we are not surprised that they are no larger. Taking the number of Israelites who entered Palestine at the lowest estimate, and noticing the numbers which formed the armies, or were engaged in battle at various times, as well as the pictures of society which are given, especially by Isaiah and the other older prophets, we get the impression that there was a very large population in Palestine before the Assyrian Empire began to press upon the North. On the other hand, when we consider the great difficulty of leading a large mass of people, with the aged, the women, and the children, on a long journey through a rough country, we can hardly conceive it possible that the conquerors should have taken away an entire population. The Assyrians, however, blotted out the kingdom of the ten tribes. The whole picture which is presented to us gives the impression that the land was depopulated and left desert. The wild beasts took possession of it. Not enough remained to continue the ancient traditions and worship there. It was found necessary to begin almost de novo in the population and cultivation of the country. So too in Judah. The pictures presented by the prophets and in the Psalms, as well as by the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, are those of a depopulated and desert country. Such numbers were taken away that some had to be left on purpose to cultivate the land. When the exiles came back they had to re-found the nation. Now we hear that there were only 4,600 exiles in all, or, at most, 10,000. This seems reasonable in view of the difficulty of transportation, but it is difficult to see how it accounts for the destruction of the nation. Two suggestions present themselves: in the first place, the last 150 years, with their internal dissensions, their reformations and revolutions, their counter-reformations and counter-revolutions, as well as their foreign wars, may have greatly reduced the population. In the second place, in a nation such as Judah was, the centre of gravity of the nationality was, no doubt, in the upper and better classes. The poor and uneducated and humble were probably very dependent upon the more fortunate classes. One proof of it is the fact that the prophets and psalmists were continually rebuking the arrogance of the latter towards the former. The Babylonian king’s policy of carrying off the “chief men” may, therefore, have been radical and all sufficient for rooting out the nationality.—W. G. S.]
Those who were carried away last were probably those who had formerly been considered harmless, but whom it was found, upon experience, inexpedient to trust. However the numbers may be explained, it is certain from Jer_52:28-30 that there were only three deportations, and not six, as Usher and the Calw. Bib. assume, viz., the first in the seventh of Jehoiakim (Dan_1:1; Dan_1:3 (?)), the second in the seventh of Nebuchadnezzar, the third under Jehoiachin, the fourth in the eighteenth, the fifth in the nineteenth, and the sixth in the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar. Later scholars have reduced these to four: the first under Jehoiakim, the second under Jehoiachin, the third under Zedekiah, and the fourth some years after the destruction of Jerusalem. But this is not correct, for there is no hint of any deportation under Jehoiakim either in Kings or Chronicles or Jeremiah. So much only may be accepted, that Daniel was sent to Babylon as a hostage when Jehoiakim became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_24:1). Perhaps, also, at that time Jehoiakim gave some of the temple utensils to the enemy to pacify him (2Ch_36:6-7).
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. The destruction of Jerusalem did not take place immediately after the fall of the city, but one month later. It is clearly designated in the record as a later and independent event. Nebuzar-adan who “stood before the king of Babylon” (Jer_52:12), who, that is, attended his orders, came to Jerusalem, by the express command of the king, not to take the city, which had not yet been captured (as Thenius thinks), but, as 2Ki_25:9 distinctly shows, in order to destroy the captured city. The destruction of the city was intended and distinctly commanded by Nebuchadnezzar. It was the punishment which the king had decreed and which Nebuzar-adan was to execute. He went methodically to work. First of all he caused the temple to be burned, then the royal palace, then the houses of the great men, then he tore down the walls, and finally he took the inhabitants away. In 2Ki_25:13-17 the account returns to the temple and enumerates its decorations and furniture, which were destroyed or carried off. The utter destruction of the temple cannot have been insisted on, on account of the value of the objects it contained, for these were not of gold, like the ones which had formerly been carried away (2Ki_24:13). The only ground for it was that the temple had especial significance, as the dwelling of the one God in the midst of His chosen people. Both politically and religiously it was the centre of the State, the basis and the bond of the national unity. It was the building of chief importance, and was, therefore, to be destroyed first and utterly. The temple worship had become, under the four last kings, a mere external ceremonial. Even the priests made of it a mere hypocritical show, so that Jeremiah cried out: “Trust ye not in lying words, saying. The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these” (Jer_7:4). Then he commanded them to repent and amend. They did not, however, and so the externals in which they trusted were taken from them. The destruction of the temple was the seal of God’s truth impressed upon the words of the prophets, in which the people had not believed (Jer_27:19-22). The two brazen columns are mentioned first and chiefly in the description of the glories of the temple. (They are described with more detail in Jeremiah than in Kings.) The cause of this is, as we saw in the Exeg. note on 1Ki_7:21 and Hist. § 5 on 1Ki_7:1-51, that these columns represented the foundation and the strength of the temple, and were, therefore, in a certain measure, representatives of Jehovah. The destruction and removal of these showed, more than any other event, that the house of Jehovah, as the physical centre of the theocracy, had come to an end. The ark of the covenant is not mentioned in either account. It seems to have been removed from the temple before its destruction. It had been removed under Manasseh or Amon, for Josiah commanded the levites to bring it back into the temple (2Ch_35:3). We may suppose that it was removed again under one of the following kings, perhaps under Jehoiakim. What became of it we cannot tell. The inference from Jer_3:16 that it was no longer in existence in the time of Jeremiah (Hitzig) is not justified. Some suppose, as Carpzov does (Apparat. Crit. p. 298), that it was among the articles which Nebuchadnezzar caused to be either destroyed or carried off in the time of Jehoiachin (2Ki_24:13; 2Ch_36:10). The story of the rabbis that Josiah had caused it to be hidden in a subterranean chamber, and that Jeremiah commanded those who fled to Egypt (2Ki_25:26) to take it with them, and that they hid it in a cleft of the mountain on which Moses had once been (2Ma_2:5. Cf. Buxtorf, De arc fœd., cap. 22. Winer, R.-W.-B. I. s. 203), sounds very wild.
2. The fall of the kingdom of Judah was, according to the distinct statement of the Scriptures, the divine judgment which had long been threatened by the prophets (Isa_39:6-7; 2Ki_21:10-15; Jer_19:3-13). It fell when all Jehovah’s attempts to recall the chosen people to their allegiance had failed, and the apostasy from Him and from His law had reached the utmost limit. Sun and Moon, Baal and the Queen of Heaven, Adonis and Astarte, all the host of heaven were worshipped, and children were sacrificed to Moloch in the valley of Hinnom. Idols stood even in the House of Jehovah; idol-altars stood in the streets. On the hills, on the roofs, in the groves, incense was offered to idols. There was no abomination of idolatry which was not practised. All that remained of the Jehovah worship was external ceremonial, and priests and prophets uttered lies (Jer_7:17-18; Jer_7:30-32; Jer_8:2; Jer_11:12-13; Jer_17:2; Jer_19:4-5; Jer_19:13; Jer_32:29; Jer_32:34-35; Eze_8:3; Eze_8:9-10; Eze_8:14; Eze_23:38-39, &c.). Moral corruption kept pace with this religious apostasy: “Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; and come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say: We are delivered to do all these abominations?” [Lit. we are concealed to do, &c., i.e., we have impunity] (Jer_7:9-10). Avarice, love of gain, and cheating (Jer_6:13), licentiousness and whoredom (Jer_5:8-9), injustice and violence (Jer_6:6), shedding innocent blood (Jer_2:34; Jer_7:6), overriding justice and right (Jer_7:6), falsehood and hypocrisy (Jer_8:9-10), bigotry and obstinacy (Jer_7:24-26), infidelity and perjury (Jer_9:2-3; Jer_9:7), in short, all sins and vices were prevalent, especially among the rich and great. “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, and that seeketh the truth, and I will pardon it” (Jer_5:1; cf. 2Ch_36:14-16). So the measure had become full. Judah had fallen lower than Israel, therefore the Lord cast it away from before His face as He had cast away Israel (2Ki_17:20; 2Ki_24:20). As there the king of Assyria, so here the king of Babylon was the instrument of the divine judgment, “the rod of his anger,” which, after it had served His purpose, He broke and cast into the fire (Jer_1:17-18; cf. Isa_10:5). This punishment, however, was not the annihilation of the chosen people, but the sole radical cure for it. The Lord keeps His promises even while He chastises and punishes. The only means by which the chosen people could preserve and fulfil its destiny in human history, to bring the knowledge of God and salvation to all nations, was by the downfall of the visible kingdom, the earthly theocracy. The downfall of the visible kingdom was a step in the divine economy of salvation, and it marked progress towards the true kingdom of God. The people needed to be convinced of the nothingness of the visible kingdom, and to have its attention directed to the new, spiritual, true, and eternal kingdom. This was the aim of the divine judgment, to awaken an appreciation of this kingdom and a longing for it, and this aim was reached in the end. The idea of the messianic kingdom which the prophets had brought forward long before the downfall of the visible kingdom, but which had fallen uncomprehended, now took firm root. Hasse well says (Gesch. des A. B. s. 136): “It belonged to the consummation of the history of Israel that Judah also should perish. It had long ago made this necessary by its backsliding after every momentary reformation, and by its obstinate resistance to every call of grace; but the power of the Davidic element to recover from corruption had thus far saved it. This power exhausted its last energies in Josiah, and, after his death, the kingdom sank rapidly into ruins. As the old passed away, the prophets were obliged to turn and give expression to what they perceived as something new and future. A sharp division separated this new from the old. On the one hand, the judgment and penalty were recognized as a penalty of death. On the other hand arose the figure of the new life, and it was transfigured into a lofty ideal.” Lisco (Das A. T. I. s. 538) gives a similar conception: “The breach which was made by the separation of the kingdom was never healed. On the contrary, its evil effects lasted on until the downfall, first of Ephraim and then of Judah. In the measure in which the political confusion and decay increased, and the impending calamity approached, in the same measure the prophetic word grew loud and clear, and, when the blow fell which destroyed the Jewish nation, Jeremiah arose upon the ruins of Jerusalem, Daniel appeared as a prophet to speak in the name of his people before the king of Babylon, and Ezekiel watched over the scattered remnants of the nation who were in exile on the Chaboras. The civil power was dead; the prophetical power survived its death.” The fall of Jerusalem forms the most important crisis in the history of the ancient people of God. It was not an event between two nations; it was an event in the history of the world. Many a great nation fell both before and after, but the fall of none of them had anything like the significance for the history of the world which that of Judah had. It is an event which is as unique in history as the Jewish people was unique among nations, for “Salvation cometh of the Jews” (Joh_4:22). By its fall Judah became the keeper and bearer of salvation for all the world (cf. Jeremiah 30-33).
3. The deportation of conquered peoples from their country was the ordinary policy of the ancient Asiatic conquerors, in order that the nationality might thus be obliterated (see Exeg. on 1Ki_8:46 sq.). In this case, however, the effect was, on the contrary, in the providence of God, to preserve the conquered people in all their peculiarity of character and calling and destiny. Herein consists the great difference between the downfall of Samaria and that of Judah, as we saw above (2 Kings 17 Hist. § 3); whereas the exile of the people of the ten tribes in Assyria served to annihilate their nationality, and they sank lower and lower until they disappeared from history, the exile of the people of Judah in Babylon served only to strengthen and purify them, so that they far out-lived the world-monarchy which had conquered them. Nothing could show more clearly the indestructibility of the chosen people than this fact, that the event which should have destroyed them only served to purify and strengthen them. The distress of the captivity brought them to their senses, and made them see their own sinfulness. They repented, and turned to Jehovah and to His Law with a sincerity which they had never before felt. The exile awakened in them a deep longing for the promised land, for the city in which Jehovah had placed His name (2Ki_21:7), for the temple which was the pledge of the selection of Israel to be the chosen people, and the centre of its nationality. This is expressed in Psalms 137, 126. It was a dispensation of Divine Providence that the king of Babylon did not do as the king of Assyria had done in Samaria—bring heathen colonists to settle in the land of Judah after its population was taken away. If he had done so a mixed population would have grown up there and the land would have become the home of many diverse religions and forms of worship (2Ki_17:24-33; cf. 2 Kings 17. Hist. §§ 4 and 5). Judah maintained its purity of religion and nationality both in captivity and in the home country. The exiles retained their national constitution (Eze_14:1; Eze_20:1; Sus. 5:28). According to the Talmud (Gem. Makkoth i. 1; Sanhedr. i. 12, 21) they were put under a רֹאשׁ הַגְּלוּת [Governor of the captivity, i.e., of the captives] of their own nation. The practice of their religion was also allowed them, but they could not offer sacrifices, because they lacked the one central sanctuary at which alone sacrifice might be offered. This only increased their longing to erect the sanctuary once more, and this longing endured until the time of chastisement was at an end (Jer_25:12; Jer_29:10). When they returned their first care was to rebuild the sanctuary (Eze_1:3; Eze_6:3).
4. The two brief narratives by which the author closes his work are not mere appendages to the history, but the proper epilogue to the words: “So Judah was carried away out of their land.” They are parallel, in a certain manner, to the review which the author gives in 2Ki_17:7 sq. of the history of Israel. The first of these incidents shows us how deep was the corruption which had pervaded the kingdom, and how hopelessly depraved the monarchical constitution had become. It was not possible any longer to have even a deputy-king under Babylonian sovereignty. Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had left as governor, was put to death after a few months in spite of his oath (2Ki_25:24), and the murderer, Ishmael, who desired to make himself king, was obliged to flee with his followers into the territory of the Ammonites. Others fled, for fear of the vengeance of the Chaldeans, into Egypt. Every attempt to unite the scattered remnants, and to set up at least the shadow of a monarchy, failed. Judah could not any longer stand any kind of a monarchy. It was incapable of sustaining an independent existence under an independent dynasty. The inauguration of such a government only served to produce greater confusion and disorder. The events which followed the destruction of Jerusalem only showed how necessary the divine chastisement had become. This is what the author desires to show by the first incident which he relates. However, he could not and would not close his work, which was written primarily for those who, like himself, were living in exile, with such a sad and hopeless incident. He therefore adds the story of the deliverance of Jehoiachin from his prison after thirty seven years of captivity. He thereby offers to the people who sat weeping “by the waters of Babylon,” and thinking of Jerusalem, a prospect into a more hopeful future. The release of Jehoiachin “was the first ray of light in the long night of the captivity … and was a guarantee to the people that the Lord would keep His promise, and would not withdraw his grace from the house of David forever” (Keil). It gave the captive people hope that the hour of their deliverance also would come. The author could not have given a more appropriate close to his work, in which he had shown God’s plan of grace and redemption in the history of the chosen people.
5. In conclusion, we must notice the manner in which the latest modern historians conceive of, and represent, the fall of Judah. “There had been,” says Duncker (Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 542), “no increase in power since the time of Hezekiah. There was no better guarantee for the existence of a small State than there had been at that time. If Egypt went on, as it had begun under Psammetichus, making conquests in Asia, and if a new great power arose to inherit and increase the might which Assyria had once possessed, the existence of Judah would once more be threatened as seriously as it was in the time of Hezekiah (s. 552): The effort of the nation to regain its independent existence, the stiffnecked resistance with which the Jews were ready to fight for their fatherland, and to break the yoke of the foreigner, were as well justified as was the abstract religious policy of Jeremiah. Who can blame those who hold the duty of sacrificing one’s life for one’s country, even under the most hopeless circumstances, higher than the counsel to submit at discretion? Who can blame those who regarded Jeremiah’s conduct and policy as ruinous, who demanded that Jeremiah should stand on the side of his own nation against the foreign foe, and who stigmatized his discourses as treason? … (s. 553): He (Jeremiah) is bitter and violent enough to call down bloody destruction upon his [personal] enemies (Jer_15:5).… (s. 556): However much Jeremiah’s assertions were calculated to discourage the king and people, they did not have that effect. It was natural that Jeremiah should seem to the people to be a cowardly traitor.… (s. 557): Jeremiah’s persistence in advising submission, under the circumstances, finally so far outraged the chief men that they demanded his life of the king … (s. 544): The prophet went so far in his opposition to Jehoiakim that he finally brought his own life into danger. At the same time he irritated the people against himself by his persistent prophecies of the coming fall of Jerusalem.… He was no less severe against the people for the wickedness of their conduct, and for their practice of some remains of foreign usages which had not been eradicated by the (new) Law-book.” It is hardly necessary to say that this view is diametrically opposed to that of the Bible, and yet the biblical documents are the only authority for the history. In the text the grounds of the national downfall are stated to be the apostasy of the nation in religion, its corruption in morals, and the unfaithfulness, tyranny, and depravity of its king. The downfall is represented as a divine judgment upon the nation in punishment for all this. Duncker, however, ignores this view. In his view all is explained by the physical weakness of the kingdom of Judah in face of the great world-empires, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon. It was all due to external and natural causes, such as have often produced similar catastrophes in human history. It was an undeserved misfortune, in which the king and people appear battling with desperate courage for the highest national interests. They appear great and admirable, while the truly great one, the prophet, who was persecuted while laboring for the true welfare of the people, who held firm and impregnable as a rock in the midst of the storm, is represented as a factious oppositionist, nay, even as a traitor. This is not writing history, but turning it upside down.
[The facts of history are one thing; their philosophy is another. The theocratic philosophy of history is one thing, and the purely human philosophy of it is another. To pass behind history and trace the moral causes which were at work, and observe their effects, is the great task of the historian, but he limits himself to the second causes, and contents himself with seeing God’s plan only in the grand results of centuries, and in the movements of epochs. The attempt to pursue this latter investigation into details never succeeds when men try it. God’s Providence is in every event of history, and in the character of every historical personage, but its presence and its operation there are matters of faith. Try to seize it, to specify it, and to examine it, and you are baffled and disappointed. God is in every blade of grass. His presence there is clear to our reason, our conscience, and our faith. If we hastily infer that, if God is in the blade of grass which we hold in our hands, then we can seize Him and see Him, and if we betake ourselves to the microscope and the dissecting apparatus, we find that we fail. Just so it is here in history. This biblical history is the only one we have in which the history is written from the theocratic standpoint, and in which the presence of God in history is traced step by step and man by man. If we attempt to take up this stand-point and follow it and apply it rigorously we involve ourselves in hopeless contradictions. The standpoint is not rational, it is prophetic; that is, its norm and standard of consistency is that of the divine plan, not of the human reason. The reason, however, is the only instrument at our disposal, and it falls short of its task if it undertakes to adopt the prophetical method. It took a prophet to give us this view of the Jewish history, and it would require a prophet to apply the same method elsewhere, or to follow it here into greater detail. Duncker lays aside the theocratic and prophetical conception, and approaches the facts of the history, as here recorded, in exactly the same spirit, and with exactly the same method, by which he treats the history of Egypt, Assyria, and Greece. His work is a universal history. The history of Israel as an earthly monarchy enters into the scope of his work as regards its earthly and external fortunes. Its theological and religious significance are aside from his plan. He is an historian, not a prophet, and he can only treat history as ordinary historians treat it. His view, therefore, naturally appears low and worldly and commonplace, when quoted in a book of this kind, which is avowedly biblical and theocratic, and only follows and explains the biblical presentation. His undertaking is a legitimate one for an historian. We cannot say that it is wrong for him to treat history as he does, and to include Jewish history in his plan, but he is engaged in a work whose stand-point and aim are so different from that in which we are engaged, that we are not called to consider it here. His readers must add to his representation of the history the explanation and philosophy of it which is furnished by their Bibles. The distinction which is brought out here is one which it is most important to bear in mind in commenting on the historical books.—As for Jeremiah’s attitude at the siege of Jerusalem, the question is the one which always arises in such cases between prudence and valor. The rôle which was filled by Jeremiah, to give wise and prudent counsel to men who are heated with the strongest passions, and to stem alone a tide of feeling which animates a body of men of which he is a member, and with which he is expected to sympathize without reserve or question, is the most thankless one which can possibly devolve upon any man. He cannot succeed in persuading his companions; he can only draw down persecution on himself. His only consolation is his fidelity to his convictions, and our judgment of him, as of any other man who has the courage to undertake the prophet’s task, must be regulated by the issue. He stakes all upon the wisdom of his counsel. If in a calm view of the situation and its results we see that he was wise and right, we must “blame” those who persecuted him and denied the wisdom of his counsel. Humanly speaking, Jeremiah was the only wise counsellor in Jerusalem, for his counsel would have saved the city and the national existence, if not the national independence. If, however, we turn to the theocratic standard, we see how utterly impossible it is for us to apply it. As we have seen above (§ 2), the fall of Jerusalem was no step backwards, but a great one forwards, in the development of the redemptive plan. When a church or a nation reaches the point of saying “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these,” that is, when it puts its trust in externals, in ceremonies, and sacred houses, and sacred things, while the spirit of truth and righteousness is lost, and treats God’s promises as if He had bound His own hands against punishing their sins, their fate is sealed. The downfall of Jerusalem might have been delayed, it could not have been averted, or, if it had been averted, as far as we can judge, all the religious truth of which Israel was the keeper and witness would have been lost. Here, however, is just the difficulty. History only takes one course of two or more which are conceivable. This one only is open to our study and observation, and we are forced to assume that that was God’s plan. The consequences of the other policy, supposing it to have been adopted, are a pure matter of speculation. Now Jeremiah counselled submission. That might have saved the city and the temple and the nationality, but, if we can rely upon our judgment expressed in § 2, it would have sacrificed the kingdom of God. He also preached amendment and righteousness as the only condition of permanent safety, but we cannot see, as far as we judge, that such amendment was possible until after severe chastisement, and it remains for us, what it was for Jeremiah, a subject of faith, that God would have preserved the national independence if the people had repented.—W. G. S.]
Ewald’s presentation of the fall of Jerusalem (Gesch. III. s. 712–717) is very different from Duncker’s superficial and perverted view of it. As he sees in the whole course of the history, from the time of Solomon on, a continual conflict between two “independent authorities,” the monarchy and the prophetical institution, and explains this conflict by the “violence” which was characteristic of either (see Pt. II. pp. 103 and 4), so he finds the causes of the ruin of the kingdom in this conflict. “It remained to be shown, by the fate of Judah also, that violence destroys its own cause, even when that cause seems to be the most permanent and enduring.… The second of these independent powers, the prophetical institution, was now also irrevocably broken.” The reason why the prophetical office no longer possessed its ancient power was that “it had rid itself of the last relics of the violence which marked it even in Isaiah, and had risen to a purely spiritual activity and influence. It was long since violence had been able to accomplish any sound results even in the prophetical office. Thus the highest prophetical activity lost its power when it lost its fierce and violent forms of action, and the second of the two forces on which the nationality rested was radically ruined.… When the two forces which could alone carry and preserve the nation were thus worn out, when the nation could no longer find either the right king or the right prophet, it sank rapidly towards its catastrophe. Then first did the evils which had long threatened it, or which had made themselves temporarily felt, become fatal to it.” In this view also the idea which is made uppermost in the biblical narrative, that the fall was a divine judgment justly and deservedly inflicted as a punishment for persistence in sin, is obscured and neglected, and the fall is represented as a catastrophe which was the legitimate result of a regular development. [There is no real disagreement here. The one is a pragmatic and the other is a philosophical statement of the same idea. The ancient Hebrew writer states it as a balance between so much sin and so much punishment. We cannot expect a critical and philosophical statement from him. In his view God stands over the sinful nation patiently and with long-suffering, and finally His hand falls in punishment. The modern German critic sees, in “persistence in sin,” the adoption of certain depraved doctrines, principles, and modes of thought, which form a creed or sum of convictions tacit or expressed. These produce a reiteration of unchaste, immoral, and irreligious acts—sins. This finally becomes a national habit, a characteristic of the nationality. It rises into a moral cause, and according to the laws of God’s moral government, this cause will in time produce inevitably certain moral and physical results—national decay (which will show itself first in the most vital organs of the State, its throne, its altar, and its pulpit), and finally national ruin. The two forms of statement are identical.—W. G. S.] As for the theory that there were two “independent authorities” in the State, and that the great characteristic of each was violence—employment of force in word or deed—in fulfilling its functions, it has been sufficiently noticed on p. 104. We need only remark here, that if violence was a characteristic of Isaiah, then Jeremiah’s discourses are far more forcible, vigorous, and violent than his, so that Duncker (quoted above) charges him with passion, severity, and sternness. No prophet ever rebuked the sin and apostasy of king and people with more plain and severe
language than Jeremiah. It cannot be said of him that he had thrown off the violent manner of the ancient prophets, and that “one and the same ruin enveloped the last great prophet and the nation, with all of its better interests which still remained at this stormy time.” His forcible words of rebuke and reproof, his endurance, pertinacity, and inflexibility, in the hardest conflicts and sufferings, down to the very end, bear testimony, not to the weakness and decay of the prophetical office, but to the fact that it was as grand, as great, and as vigorous as ever before. The monarchy sank and ceased at the fall of the kingdom, but the prophetical institution, so far from ceasing, arose again to new glory and strength. Those have the less ground for denying this who ascribe the second part of Isaiah to a great unknown prophet, who lived near the end of the captivity.
[The decay of the prophetical office is undeniable, in spite of the fact that one or two last great ones yet appeared. There had been false prophets, in greater or less number, at all times, but see the 23d chap. of Jeremiah, from the 9th verse on (Jer_23:9), for a sweeping denunciaton of the contemporary prophets. No distinction between false and true is specified. Depraved priests and prophets are together branded with one terrible denunciation. In Jer_23:38-40 the degeneracy of the prophets seems to be given as the cause why Jehovah had abandoned the city. Prophecy ceased at some time—when did it cease? It did not cease abruptly, but shared the fate of all similar institutions among mankind. It degenerated into formalism and superstition (see Jer_23:33-37). In its rise and bloom and decay we can trace undeniable steps of change, development, progress, and decline. After the exile we have a few prophets, but not like the ancient ones. The spoken word gave way to the written word; the original oracle gave way to the commentary; the prophet gave way to the scribe. Following the stream upwards we come to the “Great Unknown” (?), and to Jeremiah. We find in Jeremiah descriptions of the contemporary prophets, and we see that the institution was dying, and that the one or two great ones who yet arose were great and grand as exceptions to the prevalent degeneracy. Jeremiah was the last prophet who was a statesman also, as the old prophets had been (Stanley).—W. G. S.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki_25:8-21. God’s Judgment upon Judah. (a) It was well deserved (Rom_2:5-11); (b) it was terrible (Heb_10:30-31; Deu_4:24); (c) it was a warning (1Co_10:11; 2Th_1:8-10; Isa_2:10-17). Comparison of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans with its destruction by the Romans. (a) Wherein they were alike; (b) wherein they differed.—Keil: The saying that the world’s history is the world’s condemnation, finds its full justification in the history of Judah, and nowhere else.
2Ki_25:9-17. Kyburz: No place is so strong, no building so grand, no wall so firm, that sin cannot undermine and overthrow it. Let no man trust in ceremonies, or sacred houses, or sacred traditions, so long as his heart is far from God, and his life is not in accord with his righteous creed. The destruction of the temple was a testimony that God will spare no house in which any other name than His is worshipped, or in which He is worshipped only with the lips while the hearts are far from Him. If the temple of Solomon was not spared, no physical temple can save us.—Starke: If temples are not used for the true worship of God, He allows them to fall into the hands of unbelievers. Matt. 32:37 (as at the time of the extension of Mohammedanism).—Pfaff. Bib.: The highest pitch of the divine condemnation is reached when God removes the light of His Word from its place, and takes away from us the ordinances of true worship (Rev_2:4-5; 1Pe_4:17).
2Ki_25:18-21. God often executes His judgments by means of wicked and godless men. This does not excuse or justify them in their cruelty or wickedness. They are only the rod of his anger, which he breaks after it has unconsciously served His purpose (Isa_10:5; Isa_14:3-6; Jerem. 50:51)
2Ki_25:21. Pfaff. Bib.: When the measure of sin is full, and the judgment of God has begun to fall, nothing can any longer arrest its flood.—Cramer: He who will not serve God in peace and prosperity must learn to do so in misery and adversity.—Osiander: Those who will not serve God in their own father land, must serve their enemies in harsh subjection.—The Curse and the Blessing of the Exile, Deu_30:19. (a) The curse consisted in this, that the Lord removed the people from before His face (2Ki_23:27; 2Ki_24:3; 2Ki_24:20), that is, He removed them from the land of promise, in which He gave them His gracious blessings, and placed them in a distant country, where nothing was known of the true and living God. This curse, which had long been threatened (Lev_26:33; Deu_4:27; Deu_28:26; Dan_9:11) is a proof of the truth of the words: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked,” &c. (Gal_6:7). God still does spiritually to individuals and to nations what He did to Judah—He removes them from before His face; He removes from them His word and His means of grace, if they do not repent, and leaves them to live in darkness, without Him. (b) The curse became a blessing for this people. It humiliated itself and repented. It experienced that there was no greater curse than to live far from its gracious God, and it longed for the land of promise. When it had lost its earthly kingdom and its earthly king, it learned to look for the kingdom of heaven and for that One in whom all God’s promises to man are fulfilled. The exile became a blessing for the whole world, for the Jewish nation was thereby made fit to fulfil its destiny in the redemptive plan of God. It was “a great opportunity, by which the name and glory of Jehovah were spread abroad, as a preparation for the preaching of the gospel of Christ” (Starke). We all lay under the curse of the law, but Christ has redeemed us (Gal_3:13-14).
2Ki_25:22-26. See Jeremiah 42-44. The People who remained in the Country, (a) Their protection by Gedaliah, 2Ki_25:22-24. (“The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord,” Pro_21:1. Nebuchadnezzar gave them a ruler from among their own countrymen who promised them favor and protection. So the Lord often offers consolation even in deserved misfortune, but men go their own way and plunge themselves into ruin.) (b) Their flight into Egypt (Jer_43:7; Jer_42:18; Jer_42:22. Their bad conscience leads them back to the country from which God had, wonderfully delivered them. Starke: When the godless attempt to flee from a calamity they plunge themselves into it. Isa_24:17 sq.)
2Ki_25:24. Osiander: It is great wisdom to bear our burdens with patience; we thus make them lighter. It is folly to resist a greater power, for thus we only make our burdens heavier.
2Ki_25:25. We see, by the example of Israel, how envy and jealousy, pride in high descent and destiny, and love of power, lead to the most utter ruin (Psa_5:6; Pro_27:4). Passion makes men fools. Ishmael could not hope with his small company to resist the Chaldean power.
2Ki_25:27-30. Jehoiachin’s Deliverance from his Prison, (a) Its significance for the whole captive people (Lev_26:44); (b) the warning which we may find therein.—An unfortunate state of things often endures for a long time. It seems that it never will end. Happy is he who does not murmur against God, but can say with the Apostle,—Rom_5:3-5; see also Rev_2:10,—The time of our deliverance is in the hands of the Lord. It comes when He sees that it is best for us.—Würt. Summ.: We should despair in no trouble or punishment, but cry to God and trust in Him.
2Ki_25:27. Starke: Kings win great love by acts of grace and mercy (Act_25:1-9).—The Same: We should be kind to captives, and pray to God for a loving disposition towards our enemies (Mat_5:44).—Per Aspera ad astra! That is the way in which our Lord walked and in which we all must follow Him (Rom_8:17; Psa_126:1-6).—Final Review of the History in the Apostle’s words: “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For of him, and through him, and to him are all things; to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom_11:33; Rom_11:36).
Footnotes:
[7]2Ki_25:9. [בֵּית גָּדוֹל. The translators took the stat. const. to mean house of a great (sc. man). It is a case, however, of an adjective bound somewhat more closely to its substantive by the stat. const.=every great house, mansion. Cf. הֵיל כָּבֵד, 2Ki_18:17. Ew. § 237, 1.
[8]2Ki_25:10. [“After אשׁר we must supply אֶת from Jer_52:14.” Ew. Lehrb. s. 737, ut 1.—W. G. S.]
[9]2Ki_25:12. For the chetib וּלְגָבִים the keri presents וּלְיגְֹבִים as in Jer_52:16. The signification is the same.—Bähr.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 6, 8, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29 on the ninth day of the fourth month the…
on the ninth day of the fourth month the famine prevailed--In consequence of the close and protracted blockade, the inhabitants were reduced to dreadful extremities; and under the maddening influence of hunger, the most inhuman atrocities were perpetrated (Lam 2:20, Lam 2:22; Lam 4:9-10; Eze 5:10). This was a fulfilment of the prophetic denunciations threatened on the apostasy of the chosen people (Lev 26:29; Deu 28:53-57; Jer 15:2; Jer 27:13; Eze 4:16).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 1. Ninth year… tenth month… tenth day — Compare…
1. Ninth year… tenth month… tenth day — Compare also the specification of exact dates in 2Ki_25:3; 2Ki_25:8. “These dates,” says Bahr, “could be given thus accurately to the month and the day, because the Jews were accustomed during the exile to fast on the anniversary of these days of disaster.” See Zec_7:3; Zec_7:5; Zec_8:19. On this same day Ezekiel received and uttered his oracle of woe against Jerusalem. Eze_24:1.
He, and all his host — Nebuchadnezzar was, doubtless, present more or less during the two years of siege at Jerusalem, to counsel and direct the besieging army, but he seems to have had his own headquarters most of the time at Riblah. 2Ki_25:6; 2Ki_25:20. During this same campaign he also fought “against all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish and Azekah; for these defenced cities remained of the cities of Judah.” Jer_34:7.
Read full note →
Built forts against it round about — The word rendered forts (דיק) Michaelis explains as a wall or line of circumvallation. This is favoured by the Septuagint and the expression round about. But according to Gesenius the word means a watchtower, and is here to be taken collectively in the sense of towers erected by the besiegers to overlook and harass the city.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 2Ki_25:1. in the ninth year of his reign] i.e.…
2Ki_25:1. in the ninth year of his reign] i.e. Of Zedekiah’s reign. How long before this, the neglect to pay the tribute, which was the usual indication of disaffection, had gone on we are not told. The Babylonian power might overlook the first omission, but perhaps not the second. So we may date the determination to revolt from about the seventh year of Zedekiah’s reign. Thus time would be given for such preparations as in the weak condition of the land he could make.
and pitched [R.V. encamped] against it] The verb is one of constant occurrence in the descriptions of the marches of the Israelites from Egypt. There ‘to pitch’ is a very suitable word, but the Babylonian armies did not intend to move till the city of Jerusalem was taken. So ‘encamp’, the general term for such a military ‘pitching’ of tents, seems preferable.
Read full note →
built forts] To the precise character of these erections the word gives no clue by its derivation. It is always used for works built against a city by the attacking party. Hence we must suppose some line of enclosure to be intended, or erections from which the besiegers could with greater effect discharge missiles over the walls.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (1) And it came to pass.—With the account which…
XXV.
(1) And it came to pass.—With the account which follows comp. Jer_52:4 seq., Jer_39:1-10, Jeremiah 40-43.
Read full note →
In the ninth year . . . tenth day.—Comp. the similarly exact dates in 2Ki_25:3; 2Ki_25:8. Eze_24:1-2, agrees with the present. The days were observed as fasts during the exile (Zec_7:3; Zec_7:5; Zec_8:19).
Came . . . against Jerusalem.—After taking the other strong places of Judah, as Sennacherib had done (Jer_34:7; comp. 2Ki_18:13; 2Ki_19:8), Zedekiah must have prepared for the siege, as it lasted a year and a half.
Forts.—The Hebrew word (dâyçq) occurs in Eze_4:2; Eze_17:17; Eze_21:27; Eze_26:8. Its meaning is some kind of siege work, as appears from the context in each case; but what precisely is not clear. The LXX. here has “wall” (τεῖχος); Syriac, “palisade” (qalqûmê, i.e., χαράκωμα).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–30 Vers. 1-30. THE LAST SIEGE OF JERUSALEM. THE JEWS…
Vers. 1-30. THE LAST SIEGE OF JERUSALEM. THE JEWS LED INTO CAPTIVITY. HISTORY OF THE REMNANT LEFT BEHIND. RELEASE FROM PRISON OF JEHOIACHIN.
Vers. 1-10. LAST SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM. The open rebellion of Zedekiah was followed almost immediately by the advance into Judaea of a Babylonian army under Nebuchadnezzar in person, and the strict investment of the capital. We learn the circumstances of the siege from Jeremiah, in the prophecy which bears his name, and in the Book of Lamentations. It lasted one year and seven months, and was accompanied by a blockade so strict that the defenders were reduced to the last extremity, and, as in Samaria under Jehoram, (2Ki_6:29) and again in Jerusalem during the siege by Titus (Josephus, "Bell. Jud:," 6:3. mothers ate their children. (see Lam_2:20 Lam_4:10) When resistance was no longer possible, Zedekiah, with his men-at-arms, attempted to escape by night, and fled eastward, but were overtaken and captured in the plain of Jericho. (Jer_39:4, Jer_39:5) Meanwhile the city fell into the enemy"s hands, and was treated with all the rigors of war. The temple, the royal palace, and the great houses of the rich men were first plundered and then delivered to the flames (ver. 9). The walls of the city were broken down (ver. 10), and the gates laid even with the ground. (Lam_2:9) A great massacre of the population took place in the streets. (Lam_2:3, Lam_2:4)
Read full note →
And it cams to pass in the ninth year of hisi.e. Zedekiah"sreign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month. Extreme exactness with respect to a date indicates the extreme importance of the event dated. In the whole range of the history contained in the two Books of the Kings, there is no instance of the year, month, and day being all given excepting in the present chapter, where we find this extreme exactness three times (vers. 1, 4, and 8). The date in ver. 1 is confirmed by Jer_52:10 and Eze_24:1. That Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem. "According to the description of the eye-witness, Jeremiah, the army was one of unusual magnitude. Nebuchadnezzar brought against Jerusalem at this time "all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people". (Jer_34:1) The march of the army was not direct upon Jerusalem; it at first spread itself over Judea, wasting the country and capturing the smaller fortified towns (.Josephus, "Ant. Jud:," 10:7. among them Lachish, so famous in the war against Sennacherib, (2Ki_18:14, 17 19:8) and Azekah. (Jer_34:7) The capture ofthese two places was important as intercepting Zedekiah"s line of communication with Egypt. Having made himself master of them, Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to invest the capital. And pitched against iti.e. , encamped, and commenced a regular siegeand they built forts against it round about. It has been argued that qyed; does not mean a "fort" or "tower," but a "line of circumvallation" (Michaelis, Hitzig, Thenius, Bahr). Jerusalem, however, can scarcely be surrounded by lines of circumvallation, which, moreover, were not employed in their sieges by the Orientals. Dayek (qyed) seems to be properly a "watchtower," from qWd, speculari, whence it passed into the meaning of a "tower" generally. The towers used in sieges by the Assyrians and Babylonians were movable ones, made of planks, which were pushed up to the walls, so that the assailants might attack their adversaries, on a level, with greater advantage. Sometimes they contained battering rams (see Layard, "Monuments of Nineveh," first series, pl. 19; Jer_52:4; Eze_4:2 Eze_17:17 Eze_26:8; Josephus, "Ant. Jud:," 10:8.
Vers. 1-10. The fall of Judah and Jerusalem a warning for all time to all nations.
Jerusalem had defied Zerah with his host of a minion men, (2Ch_14:9-15) and had triumphed over Sennacherib at the head of all the armed force of Assyria: (2Ki_19:35, 2Ki_19:36) why did she succumb to Nebuchadnezzar? It is quite certain that Babylon was not a stronger power than either Egypt or Assyria when in their prime. There is no reason to believe that Nebuchadnezzar was a better general than Sennacherib, or even than Zerah. The ground of the difference in the result of Judah"s struggle with Babylon, and her earlier struggles with Egypt and Assyria, is certainly not to be sought in the greater strength of her assailant, but in her own increased weakness. What, then, were the causes of this weakness?
I IT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY DECLINE IN MILITARY STRENGTH, AS ORDINARILY ESTIMATED. The population of Judaea may have diminished, but under Josiah her dominion had increased, (2Ki_23:15-20) and it is probable that she could still put into the field as many men as at any former period. Even if there were a diminution in the number of her troops, the fact would not have been one of much importance, since her military successes had never been dependent upon the numerical proportion between her own forces and those of her adversaries, but had been most signal and striking where the disproportion had been the greatest (see Num_31:3 Num_31:47; Jud 7:7-22 8:4 12; 1Sa_14:11-16; 2Ch_14:8-12 2Ch_20:15-24, etc.)
II IT WAS NOT PRODUCED BY INTERNAL QUARREL OR DISSENSION. Ewald attributes the fall of Judah and Jerusalem mainly to the antagonism between the monarchy and the prophetical order, and to the violence employed by each against the other. "The kingdom of Judah was torn," he says, "with less and less hope of remedy, by the most irreconcilable internal divisions; and the sharpest dissensions at length made their way into the sanctity of every house." Violence on the part of the kings was met by violence on the part of the prophets; and "the sacred land went to ruin under the development of the element of force" ("History of Israel," vol. 4. p. 289). It is difficult to discover any sufficient support for this view in the sacred narrative, which shows us Hezekiah on the most friendly terms with Isaiah, Josiah on the same terms with Huldah, and Zedekiah certainly not on unfriendly terms with Jeremiah. In the closing scene the antagonism is not between prophetism and monarchy, but between prophetism and an aristocratical clique. Nor is it at all clear that the final result was seriously affected by the antagonism in question. It may have somewhat relaxed the defense; but we cannot possibly imagine that, if there had been no difference of view, no sharp dissension, a successful resistance could have been made, The resistance might, perhaps, have been prolonged had all Israelites been of one mind; but still Babylon would have prevailed in the end.
III IT WAS NOT FROM ANY TREACHERY OR DESERTION ON THE PART OF ALLIES. Allies had never done Judaea much good; and dependence on them was regarded as an indication of want of faith in Jehovah. But, so far as the matter of alliances went, Judah was in a superior, rather than in an inferior, position now than formerly. Her natural allies in any struggle with the dominant power of Western Asia were Phoenicia and Egypt; and at this time both Phoenicia and Egypt rendered her aid. Tyro was in revolt against Babylon from B.C. 598 to B.C. 585, and gave occupation to a considerable portion of the Babylonian forces while Jerusalem was being besieged. Egypt, under the enterprising Hophra (Apries), took the field soon after the siege began, and for a time succeeded in raising it. Babylon had to contend with the three allies, Tyro, Egypt, and Judea, at one and the same time, but proved equal to the strain, and overcame all three antagonists. Judaea"s weakness lay in this that she had offended God. From the time of Moses to that of Zedekiah, it was not her own inherent strength, or vigor, or energy, that had protected and sustained her, but the supporting hand of the Almighty. God had ever "gone forth with her armies". (Psa_60:10) God had given her "help from trouble." Through God she had "done valiantly." He it was who had "trodden down her enemies". (Psa_60:11, Psa_60:12) Many of their deliverances had been through actual miracle; others were the result of a divinely infused courage pervading their own ranks, or a panic falling upon their adversaries. It was only as God"s "peculiar people," enjoying his covenanted protection, that they could possibly hold their place among the nations of the earth, so soon as great empires were formed and mighty monarchs devised schemes of extensive conquests. God"s arm had saved them, from Egypt and from Assyria; he could as easily have saved them from Babylon. It is nothing with God to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power". (2Ch_14:11) He could have bridled Nebuchadnezzar as easily as Zerah or Sennacherib, and have saved the Jews under Zedekiah as readily as under Asa or Hezekiah. But Judah"s sins came between him and them. The persistent transgressions of the people from the time of Manasseh, their idolatries, immoralities, cruelties, and wickedness of all kinds, shortened God"s arm, that he could not interpose to save them. As the author of Chronicles puts it, "there was no remedy". (2Ch_36:16) "They had transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem... they had mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets"; (2Ch_36:14-16) and so "filled up the measure of their iniquities." Under such circumstances, God could not spare even his own children (Isa_1:4 Isa_63:16) his own people. Can, then, any sinful nation hope to escape? Ought not each to feel the fate of Judah a warning to itself? a warning to repent of its evil ways, and turn from them, and walk in the paths of righteousness, according to the exhortation of Isaiah? you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it". (Isa_1:16-20)
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN. Vers. 1-21. The last days of Jerusalem.
The shameful story of Judah"s disobedience and sin is now drawing to a close. Here we have an account of the capture of Jerusalem and its king by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon. Zedekiah, the king, was taken prisoner. His sons were first put to death before his eyes. Then his own eyes were put out. He was bound in fetters of brass, and carried sway to Babylon. Jerusalem itself, the city of David and Solomon, was a scene of desolation. Nebuzar-adan, captain of the Babylonian guard, burnt with fire the house of the Lord and the king"s house and all the principal houses of the city. The men of war had deserted their pests and fled from the city. All who remained there were taken captive. The poor of the land only were left to be vinedressers and husbandmen. What were the causes of this sad downfall.
I THE WICKEDNESS OF ITS RULERS. One after the other, the kings of Judah had done evil in the sight of the Lord.
1. They disobeyed God"s commands. They imitated the idolatry and the vices of the heathen.
2. They ill-treated God"s prophets. When men begin to despise and ill-treat God"s messengers, those who are trying to lead them to what is fight, they are blind to their own true interests. The treatment which the Prophet Jeremiah in particular received showed how low in degradation the kingdom of Judah had sunk. After the prophet"s fearless denunciations of national sin (Jeremiah 13-19.), Pashur, who was chief governor of the temple, smote Jeremiah, and put him in the stocks, or pillory, that was in the high gate of Benjamin, near the temple, where all men might see him and mock at his disgrace. We have seen how Jehoiakim cut the roll of Jeremiah"s prophecies with his penknife, and burned its leaves. Jeremiah"s last years at Jerusalem were years of increased suffering and persecution. Zedekiah actually put him in prison. The princes cast him to perish in a hideous pit in the prison-house, where he sank in the mire, but at the intercession of an Ethiopian officer, Ebed-Melech, the king rescued him. Wickedness in high places soon proves to be a nation"s ruin.
II THE CORRUPTION OF ITS PEOPLE. Unhappily, the people were just as corrupt and as godless as their rulers. A nation is responsible for its national sins. The sins of Judah cried aloud to Heaven for vengeance. And in the days of the Captivity they were taught to feel that there is a God that reigneth in the earth. We learn from the fate of Judah and Jerusalem:
1. The danger of forsaking God. They forsook God in the day of their prosperity. And when the hour of their need came, the gods whom they served were not able to deliver them.
2. The danger of disregarding God"s Word. How often, in these later years of Judah"s history, was the Law of God utterly neglected and forgotten: No life can be truly happy which is not based on the Word of God. No home can be truly happy where the Bible is not read. No nation can expect prosperity which disregards the Word of God.
3. The danger of despising God"s warnings. Every message God sends us is for our good. If it is worth his while to speak to us, it is worth our while to listen. Neglected warnings what guilt they revolve! what danger they threaten. Because I have called, and. ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded... I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh. C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR Vers. 1-10. The fall and destruction of Jerusalem.
With this account of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar should be compared the narrative of its later destruction by Titus (A.D. 70). History does not always repeat itself; but in this instance it does so with marvelous fidelity. The close investment of the city, the desperate resistance, the horrors of famine within, the incidents of the capture, the burning of the temple, the demolition of the walls, and the captivity of the people, present striking parallels in the two cases. By one of those rare coincidences that sometimes occur, it was on the very same month and day of the month on which the temple was burned by Nebuchadnezzar, that the sanctuary was fired by the soldiers of Titus. The earlier destruction fulfilled the predictions of the prophets; the later the predictions of our Lord. (Mt 24)
I THE LAST SIEGE.
1. Fatal dates. The days which mark the different stages of this terrible siege of Nebuchadnezzar are minutely recorded and carefully remembered. "The ninth year" of Zedekiah, "in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month," Nebuchadnezzar came, he and his host, against Jerusalem (ver. 1); in the eleventh year of Zedekiah "on the ninth day of the fourth month the-famine prevailed in the city" (ver. 3), and a breach was affected; "in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar," the temple and other buildings were burned by Nebuzar-adan (ver. 8). We have the same careful dating in Jer_39:1, 2 52:4, 12. (in the latter passage "tenth" for "seventh" as above) These were dates which burned themselves into the very memories of the wretched people crowded in the city, and could never be forgotten. Indirectly they testify to the intensity of misery which was endured, which made them so well remembered. They were observed afterwards as regular days of fasting. (Zec_7:3, 5 8:19)
2. The enemy without. Nebuchadnezzar"s army came up against the city, and closely invested it, building forts against it round about. Eze 21 is a vivid prophecy of what was about to happen. The prophet announces the impending capture of the holy city. A sword was furbished which would work terrible destruction. Ezekiel is directed to mark off two ways along which this sword was to travel the one leading to Jerusalem, and the other to Rabbath of Ammon. The scene changes, and we see the King of Babylon standing at the head of the ways, deliberating, which one he shall choose. He shakes the arrows, consults images, looks for omens m the liver of dead beasts. The decision given is for advancing first against Jerusalem. Now he is at its gates, and has appointed captains "to open the mouth in the slaughter, to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering-rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort". (Eze_21:21, Eze_21:22)
3. The famine within. For a year and five months the weary siege dragged itself on, the people within well knowing that, when once it was captured, they could expect no mercy. The writings of Jeremiah give us a vivid picture of the city during this period. From the first the prophet held out no hope. When Zedekiah, at the beginning of the siege entreated him, "Inquire, I pray thee, of the Lord for us," Jeremiah plainly told him that the city was delivered to the Chaldeans, and that Nebuchadnezzar would not spare them, "neither have pity, nor have mercy". (Jer_21:1-7) Life was promised, however, to those who should surrender themselves to the enemy (vers. 8-10). This strain was kept up throughout, in spite of imprisonment, threats, and the contrary testimony of false prophets (cf. Jer_32:1-5 Jer_34:1-7 Jer_37:6-21 Jer 38, etc.) At one point an Egyptian army came forth to arrest the Chaldeans, and great hopes were raised, but Jeremiah bade the people not deceive themselves, for the Chaldeans would prevail, as indeed they did, in spite of a temporary raising of the siege. (Jer_37:5-11) By-and-by, as in the previous long siege of Samaria by the Syrians, (2Ki_6:24-33) the misery of the people became extreme. The bread was "spent" in the city. (Jer_37:21) The Book of Lamentations gives vivid glimpses of the horrors the young children fainting for hunger at the top of every street; (Lam_2:11, Lam_2:19) crying to their mothers. Where is corn and; (Lam_2:12) and asking bread, and no mall breaking it to them; (Lam_4:4) the delicately nurtured lying on dunghills; (Lam_4:5) women eating their own offspring, (Lam_2:20) etc.
II THE FATE OF ZEDEKIAH. AS the vigor of the defense slackened, the besiegers redoubled their energies, till, on the ninth day of the fourth month, a breach was made in the walls, and Nebuchadnezzar"s princes penetrated as far as the middle gate. (Jer_29:1-3) The stages that follow are, as respects Zedekiah, those of:
1. Flight. The besiegers had entered by the north side of the city, and the king, with his men of war, feeling that all was lost, made their escape by night through a gate of the city on the south the gate between the two walls, which is by the king"s garden and, evading the Chaldeans in the darkness, fled towards the Jordan. By a symbolic action Ezekiel had foretold this flight, and the actual manner of the escape, down to its minutest details a singular instance of the unerring prescience of these inspired prophets. (Eze_12:1-16) What the king"s thoughts were as he fled that night with beating heart and covered face, who can tell? Jeremiah had been vindicated, and the prophets who had buoyed the people up with so many false hopes were now shown to be miserable deceivers.
2. Capture. The flight of the king was soon discovered, and a contingent of Chaldeans was dispatched in pursuit. It was not long ere they overtook the fleeing monarch, no doubt faint with hunger, unnerved by fear, and exhausted with the miles he had already traversed, unable therefore to make any defense. If his followers made any stand, they were speedily scattered, and the king was taken on the plains of Jericho. His hopes, his plans, his intrigues with Egypt, all had come to nothing. He stood there, a prisoner of the Chaldeans, as Jeremiah declared he would be. It is God"s Word that always comes true. Would that Zedekiah had believed it in time!
3. Punishment. The fate which awaited Zedekiah was not long deferred. With his sons, and the nobles who were with him, (Jer_39:6 Jer_52:10) he was taken to Riblah, to have judgment passed on him by Nebuchadnezzar. Little mercy had he to look for from the haughty, infuriate king, who had given him his throne, and whose covenant he had broken, entailing on him the trouble and delay of a sixteen months" siege. Tortures, perhaps, and death in protracted agonies. The wonder is that Zedekiah escaped as mercifully as he did. But his punishment was, nevertheless, heart-breaking in its severity.
(1) He saw his own sons slain before his eyes. It was the last spectacle he ever beheld; for
(2) his own eyes were next put out. Then
(3) he was bound with fetters of brass, and carried to Babylon, where he remained a prisoner all the rest of his life. (Jer_52:11; cf. Jer_34:5-8) The nobles of Judah were at the same time slain. (Jer_39:6 Jer_52:10) Life thus ended for Zedekiah when he was yet a young man of little over thirty years of age. His sons must have been mere boys, and their pitiable death would be a pang in his heart greater even than the pain of the iron which pierced his eyes. The joy of life was lost to him, like the darkness which had now fallen forever on the outer world. The dreary living death of the prison was all that was left to him. Miserable man, how bitterly he had to expiate his sin, and mourn over past errors and self-willed courses! Will it be otherwise with those who stand at the last before the judgment-seat of God, if their lives are spent in disobedience? If it was hard to face Nebuchadnezzar when he was "full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed", (Dan_3:19) how shall men endure "the wrath of the Lamb"? (Rev_6:16)
III JERUSALEM DESTROYED. A month elapsed before the destruction of the now captured city was carried out. It was probably during this interval that Jeremiah composed his passionate and pathetic Lamentations. When at length the work was taken in hand by Nebuzaradan, an officer deputed for the purpose, it was done with characteristic thoroughness, amidst the glee of Judah"s hereditary enemies, whose shouts, "Raze it, ruse it, even to the foundations thereof!", (Psa_137:7) stimulated the work of demolition. We see:
1. The temple burned. "He burnt the house of the Lord," etc. Thus came to an end the great and beautiful house of God, built by Solomon, consecrated by so many ceremonies and prayers, (1Ki 8) and whose courts had so often resounded with the psalms and shouts of the multitude that kept holy day. (Psa_42:5) But idolatry and hypocrisy had made "the house of prayer" into "a den of robbers" (Isa_56:7; Mat_21:13) and God"s glory had been seen by the prophet on the banks of the Chebar departing from it. (Eze_11:22, Eze_11:23) The temple had been the special boast of the godless people. They had trusted in lying words, saying, "The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these". (Jer_7:4) This was to make the temple a fetish, and, as Hezekiah had broken the brazen serpent in pieces when it began to be worshipped, (2Ki_18:4) it had become necessary to destroy the temple also.
2. The buildings burned. "The king"s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man"s house burnt he with fire." When the central glory of the city had perished, secular palaces and houses could not expect to escape. They also were set on fire, and the ruddy blaze, spreading from street to street, would consume most of the humbler houses as well. How faithfully had all this been foretold, yet none would believe it! Literally had Jerusalem now become heaps. (Mic_3:12)
3. The walls broken down. "All the army of the Chaldeans... brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about." This completed the catastrophe, made the holy city a heap of ruins, and rendered it impossible for inhabitants any longer to dwell in it. Gedaliah made his headquarters at Mizpah (ver. 23). The center of Judah"s nationality was destroyed. Jerusalem had been emptied, "as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down". (2Ki_21:13) One stands appalled at so complete a wreck of a city which God had once honored by making it the place of his abode, and for which he had done such great things in the past. But the lesson we are to learn from it is that nothing can reverse the action of moral laws. God is terrible in his justice. Though a person or place is as "the signet upon his right hand," yet will he pluck it thence, if it abandons itself to wickedness. (Jer_22:24, Jer_22:28) J.O.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 18, 27 And it came to pass in the ninth year…
2Ki_25:1-21
And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign.
Read full note →
Captivity of Judah
We have two prominent characters in this lesson--Zedekiah King of Judah, and Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon. The latter was one of the remarkable men of the world, not only as a military conqueror, but as a ruler of great genius and executive power. Zedekiah was the youngest son of Josiah, and was placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar at the age of twenty-one. He reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord (2Ki_24:19). At length he revolted against the King of Babylon, and this revolt was the beginning of the end, which was the captivity of Judah. It was in the year 589 b.c., in the month of January, that the siege of Jerusalem commenced, and it lasted one year five months and twenty-seven days. During this time the besieging army, or a part of it, marched to meet the Egyptians, who were coming to the help of the Jews, and with the retreat of the Egyptians the siege was continued even more rigorously. As the Jews were accustomed to observe the anniversary of national disasters with lastings, the dates of such disasters were preserved accurately. (See Zec_7:3-5; Zec_8:19.) By turning to Jer_34:7 we learn that the army of Nebuchadnezzar also besieged the cities of Lachish and Azekah, which were the only strongholds remaining to the Jews, so that with their capture the victory was complete and the humiliation of Gods people perfected (verses 1-3). It is interesting to study the life of Jeremiah in connection with the events of this lesson (Jeremiah chaps, 37., 38.), for it was he who prevented for some time the revolt of the king against the yoke of Babylon by counselling submission and patience, and after the siege he urged Zedekiah to surrender to the enemy, assuring him, by the word of the Lord, that there was nothing to be gained by resistance, and that the end would be the burning of the city and the kings capture and death. And now commenced the afflictions of Zedekiah--afflictions which were the fulfilment of Divine prophecy, in which fulfilment the King of Babylon was unconsciously the instrument in Gods hand in the punishment of this wicked monarch of Judah. And notice how terrible the punishment was. In the first place, his sons were put to death before his eyes, the purpose being to put an end to the dynasty. Then we learn from Jer_12:10 that his daughters were carried into captivity. In addition to this, Zedekiah himself was bound in chains, fetters of brass, and double fetters too, so that he was bound hand and foot, making escape impossible. His trial took place in the royal camp at Riblah, but we may suppose that it was a mere form, since the guilt of Zedekiah in breaking his oath of allegiance to the King of Babylon was known to all. Now let us consider what sins Zedekiah had committed, which brought down upon him and his family and the people of God this terrible punishment.
1. We know from 2Ki_24:19 that he did not seek the glory of God in his reign. He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all which Jehoiakim had done. By studying the history of the reign of his brother Jehoiakim we know that this evil consisted in the fact that he did not oppose and overthrow idolatry in the kingdom. We have no evidence that Zedekiah was himself an idolater, but we are responsible to God not only for what we say and do, but for our influence over others.
2. Another sin of Zedekiahs was his revolt from the King of Babylon, and we learn from the punishment visited upon Judahs king the sacredness of an oath in Gods sight.
3. Zedekiah broke a solemn covenant which he had made with the people, that all Jews held in bondage should be set free. In accordance with the kings command, this degree of emancipation was carried out, and no Jew throughout Judah was a slave. But when it was known that the Egyptian army was coming to help them, then Zedekiah thought that he would not need the assistance of these freedmen in the battle with the enemy, and so the order of emancipation was revoked, and slavery was re-established in the land (Jer_34:16-17).
4. Zedekiahs treatment of the prophet was another cause which led to his overthrow. Although in the beginning of the national peril he had sent to Jeremiah with the urgent message, Pray now unto the Lord our God for us, yet we read (Jer_37:2), Neither he, nor his servants, nor the people of the land, did hearken unto the words of the Lord, which he spake by the prophet Jeremiah. And not only did he refuse to follow the prophets advice, but he yielded to the enemies of this fearless man of God, and suffered them to imprison and maltreat him. There are some very solemn lessons which we learn from the sad life and tragic end of this last king of Judah.
They are--
1. The first and indispensable requisite to success is for one to gain the victory over his own lower nature. So long as we are slaves to sin, we cannot be great in any path of life, but he who keeps self under, who has conquered passions and appetites for the sake of God and His cause, is sure to live a royal life, though he may never sit on a throne.
2. The fact that any one is our enemy does not relieve us from the obligation to keep faith with him (Jos_9:19). Perjury is always a terrible sin.
3. If our trust is in God, we need never fear what our enemies may do, for with God on our side all must be well. Zedekiah feared his nobles because he had no faith in God.
4. The Christian is the only one who can be absolutely fearless of the future, for around him are the everlasting arms. Zedekiah put his trust in the fortifications around Jerusalem; if he had trusted in Jehovah and believed the words of Jeremiah, his life would have been safe and his kingdom would have been preserved. David sang: In God is my salvation and my glory; the rock of my strength and my refuge is in God.
5. We never gain by doing wrong. When we do evil that good may come, we are always disappointed.
6. God is not mocked. If He determines to punish, no walls or weapons can defeat His purpose. When He says to us that all other paths but the one which he has marked out lead to destruction, we may be sure that our disobedience will in the end prove His words to be true (Jer_2:17; Hos_13:9). (A. E. Kitteridge, D. D.)
The captivity of Judah
The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and the removal of the Jews into the Babylonish captivity, were a Divine judgment. Nebuchadnezzar was an unconscious agent of God in destroying, as Cyrus was in rebuilding and restoring. This judgment was not final Terrible as it was, it was a chastisement rather than a punishment. As such it illustrates some features of the Divine method in disciplinary judgment.
I. It is a Divine method to delay judgment, not only final, but also partial judgment. The instructions of Moses had been clear. His warnings had been full and explicit. He had gathered in the Book of Deuteronomy a complete presentation of the conditions upon which his people would alone be blessed; failing to comply with which they would be afflicted and cursed. When the people began to transgress, God began to afflict them; first, however, reviewing the warning of Moses by His prophetic messengers. He was prompt to chide them. As a father He chastised them.
II. The Divine judgments are certain. We do not know the time of them, but God does. It is delayed, but it is not indefinite. It is fixed. There are many hints in the Scripture at the exact timing of events in Gods government. The Saviour began early to speak of His hour. At times He said it was not yet come. The night was coming, but it had not come. Then the fateful announcement fell from His lips in a prayer: Father, the hour is come! One chapter in Ezekiel, pointing to the culmination of judgment upon Judah, has for its awful refrain, It is come. The notes of time in the history grow definite. Nebuchadnezzar came in the ninth year of Zedekiahs reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month. In the eleventh year, the fourth month, the ninth day, the supply of food gave out, and famine prevailed. In the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzars reign, in the fifth month, in the seventh day of the month, the city was destroyed. The very hour when the Chaldeans broke into the city is recorded. So certain are the delayed judgments of God, if men do not repent. They impend. They are withheld. They may be withdrawn. God would withdraw them. It grieves Him to inflict them. But when a certain definite hour is reached, and His people is still incorrigible, they must fall. A thousand years may pass. Men may grow bold, and say, Since the fathers fell asleep, all things remain as they were from the beginning. But not when the hour strikes. Then, punctually, the fire falls upon the cities of the plain, and the floods of the deluge are poured out, and Shiloh falls, and Samaria falls, and Jerusalem falls. Here is a lesson for all nations, all families, all individuals, under the Divine government. To remain unsubmissive under the government of God is to expose ourselves to His judgments. These may be delayed. Not so, they will be delayed. But their time is not indefinite: it is fixed. When the hour is reached the blow will fall. It may be a trial; it may be an affliction! it may be a tragedy. It may be all these three, for disciplinary judgments are cumulative.
III. The judgments of God are thorough. It is true of those that are final, it is true also of those that are partial. When Nebuchadnezzar came, he had a force equal to his needs. He came in person with all his host. Jeremiah says more explicitly, All his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people. This immense host was the Lords messenger. It seemed, says Stanley, to those who witnessed it, like the rising of a mighty eagle, spreading out its vast wings, feathering with the innumerable colours of the variegated masses which composed the Chaldean host, sweeping over the different countries, and striking fear in his rapid flight. If this array had not been sufficient for the conquest, God would have brought new levies; for the day was come. The siege was thorough. The city was surrounded. It was assailed from huge mounds and towers built up for the purpose. For a year and a half it held out. Then its store of provisions failed. Fathers devoured the flesh of their own sons and daughters. The hands even of pitiful mothers have sodden their own children, the mere infants just born. When the city still stubbornly held out, the siege was pressed more fiercely. At last the wall was pierced. At midnight the breach was made. The Chaldeans swarmed in. The destruction was complete. The, ark now disappeared, to be seen no more. Tradition says that Jeremiah buried it. Probably the fire destroyed it. It could not have been taken to Babylon with the spoil of the temple, the pillars of Solomon, and the molten sea, whose loss Jeremiah so bitterly bewailed; for otherwise it would have been returned with the other temple furniture by Cyrus. It was not needed longer. Religion had not disappeared from the nation. It is of much consequence to observe, in the light of this history, that a certain proportion of religious life is necessary to save a nation or an individual. There were individuals like Jeremiah and Baruch and their friends. There were youths like Daniel and his companions. There were others, perhaps even numerous, who cherished the law so recently discovered by Josiah, and whose recovery was so joyfully regarded as an event of national importance. But it was not enough to save the nation that there were good men and women in it, or that it had the Bible.
IV. The purpose of a disciplinary judgment is kept ever in view. Though the judgment of Judah was terribly thorough it was not final. Its aim was to save the nation, if possible, and as many of its individual citizens as possible. A considerable remnant of the poorer classes was left on the land to keep it in tillage. Those taken into captivity were told that it should only be of limited duration. After seventy years they should return. They were permitted to have prophets and religious teachers with them in Babylon and in Judah. (Monday Club Sermons.)
Captivity of Judah
If we come to the fall of Jerusalem with the desire to see not merely a special judgment of God, but to gain lessons from the operation of what are commonly called natural causes, we shall discover three facts to which it was largely due.
1. Bad economic conditions. Judah fell into the hands of the Babylonians because her kings had wasted bet resources. David gave a united nation to Solomon, who in turn passed it, still entire, to Rehoboam. Under this its fourth king the nation was broken into two hostile kingdoms. The narrative gives the cause explicitly,--unendurable taxation. The glory of Solomon, his navy and palaces and harem and chariots, had been purchased at the price of great suffering on the part of the people. Had Rehoboam followed the advice of his older counsellors and lightened taxation, Jeroboam would never have become his rival, and the confederation of the twelve tribes, none too strong at best, would not have wasted its strength in civil war.
2. Moral degeneracy. But back of the bad financial policy of the nation lay its moral weakness. For a nation whose God was Jehovah, the Jews were wonderfully prone to idolatry. If we except a few years of Davids reign, there was not a moment, from the Call to the Return, when Israel was not itching to run after strange gods. Solomon was a typical eclectic in religion, permitting heathen divinities to be worshipped by the side of his great temple. The reforms of such kings as Hezekiah and Josiah were short-lived, and served but to set in strange contrast the popular worship in the high places and the groves.
3. Disregard of religious teachers. Nothing is more dramatic than the struggle between the prophets and the kings of Israel. Samuel with the gigantic Saul cowering at his feet; Elijah defying Ahab, slaying the prophets of Baal, and running from Jezebel; Elisha travelling up and down a half-converted land; Isaiah outspoken and dying a martyrs death; Jeremiah deep in the filth of his prison,--are but leaders in the noble army of prophets whom God sent to guide Israel through the paths of national success, in the face of the bitterest opposition. Each of them was faithful and spoke his message; but his words passed unheeded, or only excited anger and persecution. Neither people nor king cared to follow the stern words of their religious teachers except as they were threatened by some overwhelming disaster. Then perhaps, for a few days or months, the worship of Jehovah was reinstated in its proper place, and the prophetical office was again honoured. Judah is the type of the world. Had its king listened to Gods servants, the nation would have weathered its financial distress and been cured of its wickedness. In their words lay the only hope; and Judah laughed at them and stoned them. Jerusalem, the Zion of David, became the execution city of the prophets. Judah fell, just as any nation will fall that fails to apply religion to national problems. The one great lesson of the captivity of Judah is this: the fearless application of Christianity to living questions is the duty of both clergy and laymen, and the hope of the state. (S. Matthews.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 22
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM
B.C. 586
Read full note →
2Ki_25:1-21
"In that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all nations."
- Zec_12:3
"An end is come, the end is come; it awaketh against thee: behold the end is come."
- Eze_7:6
"Behold yon sterile spot Where now the wandering Arabs tent Flaps in the desert blast; There once old Salems haughty fane Reared high to heaven its thousand golden domes, And in the blushing face of day Exposed its shameful glory."
- SHELLEY
AFTER the siege had lasted for a year and a half, all but one day, at midnight the besiegers made a breach in the northern city wall. It was a day of terrible remembrance, and throughout the exile it was observed as a solemn fast. {Zec_8:19}
Nebuchadrezzar was no longer in person before the walls. He had other warlike operations and other sieges on hand-the sieges of Tyre, Asekah, and Lachish-as well as Jerusalem. He had therefore established his headquarters at Lachish, and did not superintend the final operations against the city. But now that all had become practically hopeless, and the capture of the rest of Jerusalem was only a matter of a few days more, Zedekiah and his few best surviving princes and soldiers fled by night through the opposite quarter of the city. There was a little unwatched postern between two walls near the kings garden, and through this he and his escort fled, hoping to reach the Arabah, and make good his escape, perhaps to the Wady-el-Arish, which he could reach in five hours, through the wilds beyond the Jordan. The heads of the king and his followers were muffled, and they carried on their shoulders their choicest possessions. But he was betrayed by some of the mean deserters, and pursued by the Chaldaeans. His movements were doubtless impeded by the presence of his harem and his children. His little band of warriors could offer no resistance, and fled in all directions. Zedekiah, his family, and his attendants were taken prisoners, and carried to Riblah to appear before the mighty conqueror. Nebuchadrezzar showed no pity towards one whom he had elevated to the throne, and who had violated his most solemn assurances by intriguing with his enemies. He brought him to trial, and doomed him to witness with his own eyes the massacre of his two sons and of his attendants. After he had endured this anguish worse than death, his eyes were put out, and, bound in double fetters, he was sent to Babylon, where he ended his miserable days. To blind a king deprived him of all hope of recovering the throne, and was therefore in ancient days a common punishment. The LXX adds that he was sent by the Babylonians to grind a mill. This is probably a reminiscence of the blinded Samson. But thus were fulfilled with startling literalness two prophecies which might well have seemed to be contradictory. For Jeremiah had said, -{Jer_34:3}
"Thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the King of Babylon, and he shall speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon."
Whereas Ezekiel had said, {Eze_12:13} -
"I will bring him to Babylon, the land of the Chaldaeans; yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there."
Henceforth Zedekiah was forgotten, and his place knew him no more. We can only hope that in his blindness and solitude he was happier than he had been on the throne of Judah, and that before death came to end his miseries he found peace with God.
The conqueror did not come to spoil the city. He left that task to three great officers, -Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, or chief executioner; Nebushasban, the Rabsaris, or chief of the eunuchs; and Nergalshareser, the Rabmag, or chief of the magicians. They took their station by the Middle Gate, and first gave up the city to pillage and massacre. No horror was spared. {Psa_79:2-3} The sepulchers were rifled for treasure; the young Levites were slain in the house of their Sanctuary; women were violated; maidens and hoary-headed men were slain. "Princes were hanged up by the hand, and the faces of elders were dishonored; priest and prophet were slain in the Sanctuary of the Lord," {2Ch_36:17; Lam_2:21; Lam_5:11-12} till the blood flowed like red wine from the winepress over the desecrated floor. The guilty city drank at the hand of God the dregs of the cup of His fury. It was the final vengeance. "The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion. He will no more carry thee away into captivity." {Lam_4:22} And, meanwhile, the little Bedouin principalities were full of savage exultation at the fate of their hereditary foe. {Psa_79:1} This was felt by the Jews as a culmination of their misery, that they became a derision to their enemies. The callous insults hurled at them by the neighboring tribes in their hour of shame awoke that implacable wrath against Gebal and Ammon and Amalek which finds its echo in the Prophets and in the Psalms. After this the devoted capital was given up to destruction. The Temple was plundered. All that remained of its often-rifled splendors was carried away, such as the ancient pillars Jachin and Boaz, the masterpieces of Hirams art, the caldron, the brazen sea, and all the vessels of gold, of silver, and of brass. Then the walls of the city were dismantled and broken down. The Temple, and the palace, and all the houses of the princes were committed to the flames. As for the principal remaining inhabitants, Seraiah the chief priest, perhaps the grandson of Hilkiah and the grandfather of Ezra, Zephaniah the second priest, the three Levitic doorkeepers, the secretary of war, five of the greatest nobles who "saw the kings face," {Comp. Est_1:14} and sixty of the common people who had been marked out for special punishment, were taken to Riblah, and there massacred by order of Nebuchadrezzar. With these Nebuchadrezzar took away as his prisoners a multitude of the wealthier inhabitants, leaving behind him but the humblest artisans. As the craftsmen and smiths had been deported, these poor people busied themselves in agriculture, as vine-dressers and husbandmen. The existing estates were divided among them; and being few in number, they found the amplest sustenance in treasures of wheat and barley, and oil and honey, and summer fruits, which they kept concealed for safety, as the fellaheen of Palestine do to this day. {Jer_41:8; Jer_40:12} According to the historic chapters added to the prophecies of Jeremiah, the whole number of captives carried away from Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar in the seventh, the eighteenth, and the twenty-third years of his reign were 4,600. The completeness of the desolation might well have caused the heartrending outcry of Psalms 79. "O God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy Temple have they defiled; they have made Jerusalem a heap of stones. The dead bodies of Thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of heaven, and the flesh Of Thy saints unto the beasts of the land. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was no man to bury them."
Among the remnant of the people was Jeremiah. Nebuzaradan had received from his king the strictest injunctions to treat him honorably; for he had heard from the deserters that he had always opposed the rebellion, and had prophesied the issue of the siege. He was indeed sent in manacles to Ramah; but there Nebuchadnezzar gave him free choice to do exactly as he liked-either to accompany him to Babylon, where he should be well treated and cared for, or to return to Jerusalem, and live where he liked. This was his desire. Nebuchadnezzar therefore dismissed him with food and a present; and he returned. The LXX and Vulgate represent him as sitting weeping over the ruins of Jerusalem, and tradition says that he sought for his lamentations a cave still existing near the Damascus Gate. Of this Scripture knows nothing. But the melancholy prophet was only reserved for further tragedies. He had lived one of the most afflicted of human lives. A man of tender heart and shrinking disposition, he had been called to set his face like a flint against kings, and nobles, and mobs. Worse than this, being himself a prophet and priest, naturally led to sympathize with both, he was the doomed antagonist of both-victim of "one of the strongest of human passions, the hatred of priests against a priest who attacks his own order, the hatred of prophets against a prophet who ventures to have a voice and a will of his own." Even his own family had plotted against his life at humble Anathoth, {Jer_11:19-21} and when he retreated to Jerusalem, he found himself at the center of the storm. Now perhaps he hoped for a gleam of sunset peace. But his hopes were disappointed. He had to tread the path of anguish and hatred to the bitter end, as he had trodden it for nearly fifty years of the troubled life which had followed his call in early boyhood.
"But, in the case of Jerusalem," says Dean Stanley, "both its first and second destruction have the peculiar interest of involving the dissolution of a religious dispensation, combined with the agony of an expiring nation, such as no other people has survived, and, by surviving, carried on the living recollection, first of one, and then of the other, for centuries after the first shock was over."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Ki_25:1. In the ninth year of his reign—The revolt…
THE UTTER DESOLATION OF JERUSALEM
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—
Read full note →
2Ki_25:1. In the ninth year of his reign—The revolt of Zedekiah so incensed Nebuchadnezzar that he determined on the final act of the utter spoliation of Judah. With an immense army, which he conducted in person, he swept down upon the northern parts of the country, taking almost all the forced cries (Jer_34:7), and marched direct against Jerusalem to besiege it. He was drawn aside temporarily from the siege to oppose the coming of the Egyptian army to the relief of the Jews. This prolonged the siege to a year and a half. At length (date given in Jer_29:2), at midnight, in our month of July, B.C. 587, when the city was reduced to misery and starvation, an entrance was forced into the lower city on the north side. It was a moment for fearful slaughter (2Ch_36:17; Lam_1:15). Zedekiah, with his wives and children and guards, fled through an opening made in the wall (Eze_12:12), but were captured in the plains of Jericho, his troops scattered (Jer_52:8), he and his family manacled, and marched to Riblah to confront the wrathful Nebuchadnezzar (Jer_39:5). Doomed for his violation of his oath of allegiance to Babylon, Zedekiah was first made to behold the slaughter of his family and courtiers, then his own eyes were put out, and he was carried in chains to Babylon.
2Ki_25:8. Came Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard—A month elapsed, during which the Chaldean princes had probably gone to Riblah to consult the king as to the fate of the city; and they then returned with orders to destroy Jerusalem with fire. While fire consumed the city, foul ravages were committed upon the inhabitants (Lam_5:11-12), and desecration heaped upon the dead.
2Ki_25:11. Did Nebuzar-adan carry away—Among these captives carried off to Ramah (Jer_39:9) was Jeremiah the prophet (Jer_40:1). Pilgrims from around afterwards came to wonder and bewail over the ruined city (Jer_41:5-6).
2Ki_25:21. So Judah was carried away out of their land—This was the end of the Israelitish monarchy; but the last king who occupied the throne of the House of David, and called himself “The Righteousness of God,” צִדְקִיָּהוּ (Tsidkiyahu), but falsified such a name, left the throne vacant until He should come who was truly “The Righteousness of God,” and the Eternal King, predicted by Jeremiah as יְהֹוָה צִדְקֶנוֹ (Jehovah Isidkener), “THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 2Ki_25:22-26. Gedaliah’s rule—This Gedaliah had been Jeremiah’s firm and trusted friend through the period of the prophets’ struggles (comp.Jer_26:24), and is described by Stanley as “a man of a generous, genial nature, such as might have rallied the better spirits of the men around him, and taken the place of the fallen dynasty.” Against him Ishmael conspired. This Ishmael was the most conspicuous of a band of chiefs who fled across the Jordan during the siege. There he became closely leagued with Baalis, king of Ammon (Josephus, Antiq. x. 9, 2); and prompted by him, as well also as coveting Gedaliah’s power, he plotted his assassination (Jer_40:1). Then, contrary to Jeremiah’s dissuasions, the whole people turned to Egypt for protection against the Chaldean king.
2Ki_25:27. Evil-merodach did lift up the head of Jehoiachin—It was on the occasion of his accession to the throne of Babylon, upon Nebuchadnezzar’s death. Spake kindly to him, &c. (2Ki_25:26)—Gave him liberty upon parole. This kindness is traced to a record that Evil-merodach himself was a fellow-prisoner with Zedekiah, in consequence of some antipathy of Nebuchadnezzar towards him, and that a sympathetic goodwill towards the captive king was engendered. Yet had not God declared that though, for their apostasy the seed of David should be severely chastised, yet they should not be utterly abandoned (2Sa_7:14-15)? And to the captives in Babylon it was a promise of good things to come, when the term of their exiled lot should close, and merciful deliverance should reach them according to the good promises of the Lord God.—W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki_25:1-30
THE LAST DISMAL SCENES IN A NATION’S OVERTHROW
Nothing of interest remains to be recorded of king or people. The historian is chiefly concerned in this chapter in relating how unmistakeably the Divine Word was fulfilled in the total overthrow of Jerusalem. The city was sacked, its palaces and public buildings demolished, and its massive walls pulled down. And the Temple—the house of Jehovah, the pride of the Hebrews, the pivot of their national history, the lament of the pious to this day—was pillaged, dismantled, burnt to the ground, and its sacred vessels and furniture broken and scattered.
I. Here we have all the horrors of siege and famine (2Ki_25:1-3). The Babylonish hosts, like a flock of vultures with outspread wings, closely invested the fated Jerusalem as if eager to devour it. The hour of final doom rapidly approached. A sword furbished, sharpened, and glittering, seemed to leap from the Divine scabbard, like that which, in the siege of Titus, was believed to flame across the heavens. The blockade was so complete that the besieged were reduced to great extremities. Hunger fastened upon them with its remorseless grip, and under its maddening torture the most inhuman atrocities were committed. The fathers ate their sons, and sons their fathers; and the pestilence consumed what hunger spared (Lam_2:20; Lam_2:22; Lam_4:9-10; Eze_5:10). In all this we see the dire fulfilment of the prophetic denunciations hurled against an apostate people (Lev_26:29; Deu_28:53-57; Jer_15:2; Jer_27:13; Eze_4:16).
II. Here we have a desperate but unavailing effort to escape (2Ki_25:4-6). The ponderous enginery of the Chaldees battered down the outer wall, and admitted a stream of the besieging forces into the northern part of the city. Seized with fear and weakened with famine, the king and his brave defenders made a night sally towards the Jordan Valley, with the hope of effecting an escape. But too many Chaldean eyes were awake, the retreat was cut off, and the king and his party captured. The toils of the Babylonian net were too thickly and widely spread to admit of successful flight; and the military strategy of Nebuchadnezzar was favoured by the avenging power of heaven.
III. Here we have a king cruelly degraded (2Ki_25:7). Perfidious and rebellious as Zedekiah undoubtedly was, his punishment was a horrible example of the barbarity of the times. The last sight on which he gazed was the butchery of his own sons, and then he was rendered for ever incapable of ruling by his eyes being gouged; that—as Bishop Hall strongly puts it—“his sons might be ever dying before him, and himself in their death ever miserable.” This painful incident fulfilled two prophecies that were apparently contradictory of each other: that Zedekiah should come to Babylon, but should not see it (Jer_32:5; Jer_34:3; Eze_12:13; Eze_17:16). The last vassal king of Judah perished in a Babylonian prison. His was a life of religious vacillation, of stirring incident, of frightful carnage, of suffering and shame.
IV. Here we have a great and world-famed city utterly demolished (2Ki_25:8-12). The Babylonian conqueror was not satisfied with the subjection of the Jewish people; his rage extended to the buildings in which they lived and worshipped. The celebrated buildings for which David had made such elaborate and wealthy preparations, and which Solomon had erected with infinite labour, and adorned with so much pomp and magnificence, were ruthlessly destroyed with fire and crowbar. Jerusalem, which was invincible, and had for centuries maintained a proud pre-eminence, while Jehovah was acknowledged and worshipped within its walls, was no sooner forsaken by that guardian Presence, than it shared the fate of many a great heathen city, and was levelled with the dust. The mightiest city cannot long survive the loss of virtue and religion; walls and bastions are no protection when the garrison is demoralised.
V. Here we have the sacred vessels of the Temple contemptuously broken, and the chief officers of religion savagely massacred (2Ki_25:13-21). Persons, places, and things lose the sacredness which, like the delicate bloom of fruit, was their adornment and glory, when they are Divinely abandoned. The blessing changes into a curse that blackens, disfigures, and destroys. Years before Jeremiah had predicted that even the vessels of the Temple should be carried away to Babylon; but, like Cassandra, though he spake the truth, he was fated not to be believed. Little did the sacrilegious Babylon care for the sacred uses and hallowed associations of the Temple furniture and little did he understand that he was, after all, to be the safe custodian of those relics till better days should dawn for Israel, when they should again resume their place and office in a purified temple (Jer_27:21-22). The priests and other temple officers were nothing in the eyes of the exasperated destructionists but so many rebels and instigators of sedition; and they shared the same fate as the shrine they had disgraced.
VI. Here we have, as the last record of the national remnant, a scene of conspiracy, assassination, and flight (2Ki_25:22-26). The sagacious Nebuchadnezzar did not leave the country without some form of government, and Gedaliah was perhaps, the best adapted for the post of governor or overseer. He saw it was infatuation to contend with the Chaldees, and was disposed to rule the land in submission to their authority. But the prospect of rest and peace was dissipated with the plottings of envy. Once more the land is torn with faction and stained with bloodshed. Stricken with fear and despair, the feeble remnant fled into Egypt, where their forefathers had been enslaved, and from which they had been miraculously delivered, and where greater troubles awaited them than those from which they sought to escape. Such is the grim irony of history; the people who had sprung from poverty and serfdom, after a brilliant career among the foremost nations of the earth, sank again into poverty and serfdom!
VII. Here we have, as a relief to the dismal series of panoramic pictures, a commendable instance of royal clemency towards a captive prince (2Ki_25:27-30). It could not but add bitterness to the grief of the exiles, as they sat by the waters of Babylon and wept, to know that two of their monarchs were miserable tenants in prison garments, in one of the dungeons of the city—the lamented Jehoiachin and the sightless Zedekiah. After thirty-seven years’ imprisonment, on the death of Nebuchadnezzar, his captor, Jehoiachin was released, and treated with great kindness and distinction by the successor to the Chaldean throne. It was some compensation for the dreary years of humiliation he had endured, that the last years of his life were spent amid brighter surroundings. Jehoiachin represented the faded glory of Israel; and the last reference made to him in the history suggests a faint hope of the future restoration and elevation of his unhappy people. “Doubtless, the improvement in Jehoiachin’s condition is to be traced to the overruling providence and grace of Him who still cherished purposes of love to the House of David” (2 Samuel 14, 15).—Jamieson. The longest, weariest, darkest night comes to an end, and the long looked for dawn breaks at length, bringing rest, and hope, and gladness with its expanding light.
LESSONS:—
1. The power of a great conqueror is sometimes used to inflict Divine punishment for sin.
2. The destruction of the most highly favoured nation does not frustrate the progress and triumph of the Divine purpose.
3. In national as in individual life, the greatest sufferings are not unmixed with blessings.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki_25:8-21
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM
I. Was a calamity of world-wide significance. It was the grand catastrophe of the Jewish nation. The other cities of Palestine were insignificant: they were all subsidiary to, and received the law from, the great Metropolitan. Its influence dominated and governed the nation. In its midst the Temple reared its stately pile, the political and religions centre of the State, the basis and bond of the national unity. When the Temple fell, the national life was smitten, the national hope extinguished. The Jews fought with unexampled desperation, and endured incredible sufferings (2Ki_25:3; 2Ki_25:18-21) in defence of the holy city; and to the last clung with dogged pertinacity to the very ruins of the Temple (2Ki_25:18). Other great cities have fallen; but their loss has not been mourned with a pathos and a grief like that which is continued by the wailing Israelites to this day. The significance of such a downfall dilates itself through the centuries, and stands out as a warning-beacon to the great cities of modern times.
II. Was a Divinely-declared punishment for persistent disobedience. The decline and fall of great cities have been traced to the inevitable operation of natural and universal forces. Gibbon attributes the ruin of Rome to the injuries of time and nature, the hostile attacks of the barbarians and Christians, the use and abuse of the materials, and the domestic quarrels of the Romans; and thus he seeks to eliminate the Operation of a Divine retributive Providence. But the movements of the Divine Hand cannot be eliminated from the fall of Jerusalem, though we may trace the action of similar causes to those which have wrecked the fortunes of other great cities. While Israel remained true to Jehovah, the city was invincible and impregnable; and it was only after un-paralleled obstinacy in sin that Jerusalem was abandoned to its fate (Amo_3:2; Lev_26:2; 2Ch_36:14-17; Jer_25:8-9). This mournful truth is admitted by the Jews with sighs and tears.
III. Was a solemn and impressive proof to all ages of the Divine fidelity and justice. The promises and threatenings of the Divine Word have been faithfully fulfilled, and the Divine justice fully vindicated. “In the history of the Jewish State this great truth is clearly and powerfully impressed, that, as “righteousness exalteth a nation, so sin is the reproach of any people”—(Pro_14:34)—a lesson which, but for the immediate and extraordinary Providence displayed in this awful dispensation, could never have been so forcibly inculcated, or so clearly understood”—(Graves). The Jews are living witnesses to-day of the truth and faithfulness of God—
Amazing race! deprived of land and laws,
A general language, and a public cause;
With a religion none can now obey,
With a reproach that none can take away;
A people still, whose common ties are gone;
Who, mixed with every race, are lost in none.—Crabbe.
LESSONS:—
1. A city where piety predominates is a great power for God.
2. The most strongly-fortified city may become a tomb in which its wicked inmates are interred.
3. The holiest and most renowned city is degraded and ruined by sin.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki_25:3. Famine.
1. A more formidable enemy to contend with than an armed force.
2. Shows how rapidly consumption follows in the wake of production—it is like the Salt Sea swallowing the Jordan.
3. One of the most dreaded evils of war.
2Ki_25:7. A suffering captive.
1. To the humiliation of defeat is added the excruciating agony of destroyed eye-sight.
2. It would intensify the pangs of the sufferer that the last sight on which his eye rested was the cruel massacre of his own sons.
3. The man who acts the traitor and rebel exposes himself to severe penalties.
4. It tarnishes the reputation of the mightiest conqueror to needlessly torture his helpless victim.
5. War is a prolific source of human misery.
—The eyes of whose mind had been put out long before, else he might have foreseen and prevented this evil—as prevision is the best means of prevention—had he taken warning by what was foretold (Jer_32:4; Jer_34:3; Eze_12:13). The Dutchmen have a proverb: When God intends to destroy a man, He first puts out his eyes.—Trapp.
2Ki_25:8-17. Three other like events of parallel magnitude have been witnessed: the fall of Babylon, as the close of the primeval monarchies of the ancient world; the fall of Rome, as the close of the classical world; and, in a fainter degree, the fall of Constantinople, as the close of the first Christianized empire. But, in the case of Jerusalem, both its first and second destruction have the peculiar interest of involving the dissolution of a religious dispensation, combined with the agony of an expiring nation, such as no other people or city has witnessed, such as no other people have survived, and, by surviving, carried on the living recollection, first of one, then of the other, for centuries after the first shock was over.—Stanley.
2Ki_25:9. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the wonder of all times, the paragon of nations, the glory of the earth, the favourite of heaven, how art thou now become heaps of ashes, hills of rubbish, a spectacle of desolation, a monument of ruin! If later, yet no less deep hast thou now pledged that bitter cup of God’s vengeance to thy sister Samaria! Four hundred and thirty-six years had that temple stood, and beautified the earth, and honoured heaven; now, it is turned into rude heaps. There is no prescription to be pleaded for the favour of the Almighty: only that temple not made with hands is eternal in the heavens. Thither he graciously brings us, for the sake of the glorious High Priest, that hath once for all entered into that holy of holies.—Bp. Hall.
—Those of the captivity bewailed the destruction of Jerusalem by an annual fast (Zechariah 7.; Psalms 137.) The Jews at this day, when they build a house, leave one part of it unfinished, in remembrance that Jerusalem and the Temple lie desolate. At least they leave about a yard square of the house unplastered, on which they write in great letters: “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, &c.;” or else the words, “The memory of the desolation.”—Trapp.
2Ki_25:13-17. The changing aspects of religious work.
1. That religious work is carried on with a great variety of instrumentalities (2Ki_25:14-15).
2. That the value of religious work depends on the strength and symmetry of moral character (2Ki_25:13; 2Ki_25:16-17).
3. That there are Chaldean enemies ever ready to destroy character and depreciate religious work (2Ki_25:13).
2Ki_25:18-21. Official responsibility.
1. Demands that the post of duty should be the more tenaciously held in time of danger.
2. Exposes to the first and fiercest attacks of the enemy.
3. Involves great suffering, and even death itself (2Ki_25:21), in trying times.
4. Often makes one long for the peace and security of the poor and obscure (2Ki_25:12).
2Ki_25:18. These likely were fired out of those secret corners of the temple where they lay hid. Our chroniclers tell us that William the Conqueror, firing the city Mayence in France, consumed a church there, in the walls whereof were enclosed an anchoret, who might but would not escape, holding it a breach of his religious vow to forsake his cell in that distress. At the last destruction of Jerusalem, certain Jews who had taken sanctuary in the Temple came forth when it was on fire, and besought the emperor Titus to give them quarter for their lives; but he refused so to do, giving this for a reason, which, indeed, was no reason—Ye deserve not to live, who will not die with the downfall of your Temple.—Trapp.
2Ki_25:21. “So Judah was carried away out of their land.” The curse and the blessing of the exile. I. The curse consisted in this, that the Lord removed the people from before his face (chap. 2Ki_23:27; 2Ki_24:3; 2Ki_24:20); that is, He removed them from the land of promise, in which he gave them his gracious blessings, and placed them in a distant country, where nothing was known of the true and living God. This curse, which had long been threatened (Lev_26:33; Deu_4:27; Deu_28:26; Dan_9:11) is a proof of the truth of the words, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked, &c.” (Gal_6:7). God still does spiritually to individuals and to nations what he did to Judah—He removes them from before His face; He removes from them His word and His means of grace, if they do not repent, and leaves them to live in darkness, without Him. II. The curse became a blessing for this people. It humiliated itself and repented. It experienced that there was no greater curse than to live far from its gracious God, and it longed for the land of promise. When it had lost its earthly kingdom and its earthly king, it learned to look for the kingdom of heaven, and for that One in whom all God’s promises to man are fulfilled. The exile became a blessing for the whole world, for the Jewish nation was thereby made fit to fulfil its destiny in the redemptive plan of God. It was “a great opportunity, by which the name and glory of Jehovah were spread abroad, as a preparation for the preaching of the gospel of Christ” (Starke). “We all lay under the curse of the law, but Christ has redeemed us (Gal_3:13-14).—Lange.
—The mercy, the justice, and the wisdom of God are all equally displayed in this event. His mercy appears in bringing this judgment so gradually—from less to greater, during the space of twenty-two years—so that most ample warning was given, and abundant opportunity of repentance was afforded. That it was a most just punishment for their sins no one ever questioned, and the Jews themselves have constantly admitted it, even with tears. It was, in particular, a most righteous punishment of their idolatry, as Moses had long ago foretold in Leviticus 26., where the succession of the Divine judgments is most remarkably traced out. But the wisdom of God is also seen here. He did not mean utterly to cast off His people, and he therefore brought them under this great affliction, because, as had too plainly appeared, nothing less would suffice to purify them, and turn their hearts from the love of idols. It is certain that after this captivity—and under occasional inducements, as strong as any to which they had ever been subjected in former times—there was never among them the least tendency to idolatry, but the most intense and vehement abhorrence of it, as the true cause of all their ancient miseries—so deep and salutary was the impression made upon them by this great affliction, and so effectual the cure.—Kitto.
—While the work of destruction was carried on by the Chaldean army, it was viewed with malignant exultation by the nations which had so long chafed beneath the yoke of their kinsman Israel. The Ammonites cried “Aha!” against the sanctuary, when it was profaned; and against the land of Israel when it was desolate; and against the house of Judah when they went into captivity. Moab and Seir said, “Behold the house of Judah is like unto all the heathen.” The more active enmity, which was but natural in the Philistines, who “took vengeance with a despiteful heart, to destroy it for the old hatred,” was emulated by Edom, the nearest kinsman and bitterest rival of his brother Israel. All these nations soon fell victims to the like fate, which the prophets again and again denounce upon them.—Dr. Smith’s Student’s Scrip. History.
2Ki_25:22-26. The last vestige of government in Judah.
1. Might have been an important rallying point for the scattered remnant.
2. Was destroyed by the blind infatuation of envy.
3. When destroyed, completed the desolation of the country.
2Ki_25:25. We see by the example of Israel, how envy and jealousy, pride in high descent, and destiny, and love of power, lead to the most utter ruin. Passion makes men fools. Ishmael could not hope with his small company to resist the Chaldean power.—Lange.
—Self-love and envy teach men to turn the glass to see themselves bigger and others lesser than they are.
—An envious spirit.
1. Cannot brook a superior.
2. Is disquieted with ambitious and wicked designs.
3. Does not hesitate to commit the worst crimes to attain its ends.
4. Loses the prize at which it clutches. (Jer_41:15).
2Ki_25:26. When the godless attempt to flee from a calamity they plunge themselves into it (Isa_24:17).—Starke.
—Jeremiah lived on in the land to see the misery and anarchy which followed the murder of Gedaliah; to tell the Jews who were flying to Egypt that if they stayed in the land they would be safe, that in Egypt they would meet with destruction—for that Egypt had been given up to the king of Babylon—finally to sing the future ruin of Babylon itself; the confusion and breaking in pieces of her idols, the deliverance of those in whose destruction and desolation she had rejoiced.—Maurice.
2Ki_25:27-30. The release and preferment of Jehoiachin suggestive of the future restoration of his exiled people.
1. Their captivity, like his, might be painful and prolonged.
2. As in his case, a prince might arise who would have compassion on their sufferings.
3. As in his experience, they might be restored to freedom and comparative prosperity.
4. The darkest distress is not without some ray of hope.
—The new king, Evil Merodach, having no such personal feeling against Jehoiachin as had swayed his father, strove to atone for the long sufferings of the unfortunate exile by setting him free, and entertaining him thenceforward at the royal table in suitable splendour. Legend has brightened the story of his last days, describing him as living on the Euphrates, in a sumptuous house, surrounded by a spacious paradise, and married to the fairest woman of his day, the chaste Susannah, the companion of the king of Babylon, and the chief personage of and high judge among the captives. It is added, moreover, that amidst all, he was still mindful of his native land, listening, with his brethren, to Baruch at he read the prophecies before them, and amidst weeping, fasting, and prayer, sending off help to the remnant of his people in Jerusalem. But this touching picture is only a creation of national pride, to adorn with a fictitious prosperity the closing years of the last direct heir to the Jewish crown.—Geikie.
2Ki_25:29. The like whereto befel Joseph, whose fetters one hour changed into a chain of gold, his rags into robes, his stocks into a chariot, his goal into a palace. So God turned again the captivity of Job, as the streams in the South.—Trapp.
2Ki_25:30. So is, or might be, every true believer’s portion; who should therefore “eat his bread with joy, and drink his wine with cheerfulness all the days of his life,” which are not to be numbered by the hours, but measured by spiritual mirth; as monies are not by tale, but by value.—Ibid.
Great principles illustrated in the books of Kings.
I. That the Divine purpose in raising up the Jewish nation as a means of conveying greater blessing to the world is steadily kept in view.
II. That the nation is prospered and strengthened in proportion to its fidelity to the Divine purpose.
III. That the ambition to form foreign alliances was contrary to the fundamental law of the theocracy, and led to the introduction of the idolatry which ultimately wrought the nation’s ruin.
IV. That a nation, as an individual, cannot be purged of great evils without great suffering.
V. That God is slow to punish, and delays the final blow till all possible means of reclamation are exhausted.
VI. That great emergencies bring to the front the noblest and most highly gifted talent of the nation.
VII. That the unfaithfulness and vice of the Jewish people did not prevent the carrying out of the Divine purpose.
VIII. That true religion can alone give greatness and permanent to national life.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v1 2 Kings
2 Kings
THE END
Read full note →
2Ki 25:1 - 2Ki 25:12.
Eighteen months of long-drawn-out misery and daily increasing famine preceded the fall of the doomed city. The siege was a blockade. No assaults by the enemy, nor sorties by the inhabitants, are narrated, but the former grimly and watchfully drew their net closer, and the latter sat still in their despair. The passionless tone of the narrative here is very remarkable. Not a word escapes the writer to show his feelings, though he is telling his country’s fall. We must turn to Lamentations for sighs and groans. There we have the emotions of devout hearts; here we have the calm record of God’s judgment. It is all one long sentence, for in the Hebrew each verse begins with ‘and,’ clause heaped on clause, as if each were a footstep of the destroying angel in his slow, irresistible march.
The narrative falls into two principal parts-the fate of the king and that of the city. It is unnecessary to dwell on the details. The confusion of counsels, the party strife, the fierce hatred of God’s prophet, the agony of famine, are all suppressed here, but painted with terrible vividness in the Book of Jeremiah. At last the fatal day came. On the north side a breach was made in the wall, and through it the fierce besiegers poured-the ‘princes of the king of Babylon,’ with their idolatrous and barbarous names, ‘came in, and sat in the middle gate.’ It was night. The sudden appearance of the conquerors in the heart of the city shot panic into the feeble king and his ‘men of war’ who had never struck one blow for deliverance; and they hurried under cover of darkness, and hidden between two walls, down the ravine to the king’s garden, once the scene of pleasure, but waste now, and thence, as best they could, round or over Olivet to the road to Jericho. The king’s flight by night had been foretold by Ezekiel far away in captivity {Eze 12:12}; and the same prophet received on that very day a divine message announcing the fall of the city, and bidding him ‘write thee the name of the day, even of this selfsame day,’ as that on which the king of Babylon ‘drew close unto Jerusalem’ {Eze 24:1 et seq.}.
Down the rocky road went the flying host, with ‘their shaftless, broken bows’ closely followed by the avenging foe with ‘red pursuing spear.’ Where Israel had first set foot on its inheritance, the last king of David’s line was captured and his monarchy shattered. The scene of the first victory, when Jericho fell before unarmed men trusting in God, was the scene of the last defeat. The spot where the covenant was renewed, and the reproach of Israel rolled away, was the spot where the broken covenant was finally avenged and abrogated. The end came back to the beginning, and the cradle was the coffin.
Away up to Riblah, in the far north, under the shadow of Lebanon, the captive was dragged to meet the conqueror. The name of each is a profession of belief. The one means ‘Jehovah is righteousness’; the other, ‘Nebo, protect the crown.’ The idol seemed to have overcome, but the defeat of the unbelieving confessor of the true God at the hands of the idolater is really the victory of the righteousness which the name celebrated and the bearer of the name insulted. His murdered sons were the last sight which he saw before he was blinded, according to the ferocious practice of the East. It was ingenuity of cruelty to let him see for so long, and then to give him that as the last thing seen, and therefore often remembered. Note how the enigma of Ezekiel’s prophecy {Eze 12:13} and its apparent contradiction of Jeremiah’s {Jer 32:4; Jer 34:3} are reconciled, and learn how easily the fact, when it comes, clears the riddles of prophecy, and how easily, probably, the whole facts, if we knew them, would clear the difficulties of Scripture history. The blinded king was harmless, but according to Jewish tradition, was set to work in a mill {though that is probably only an application of Samson’s story}, and according to Jeremiah {Jer 52:11}, was kept in prison till his death. So ended the monarchy of Judah.
The fate of the city was not settled for a month, during which, no doubt, there was much consultation at Riblah whether to garrison or destroy it. The king of Babylon did not go in person, but despatched a force commanded by a high officer, to burn palace, Temple, the more important houses {the poorer people would probably be lodged in huts not worth burning}, and to raze the fortifications. In accordance with the practice of the great Eastern despotisms, deportation followed victory-a clever though cruel device for securing conquests. But some were left behind; for the land, if deserted, would have fallen out of cultivation, and been profitless to Babylon. The bulk of the people of Jerusalem, the fugitives who had joined the invaders during the siege, and the mass of the general population, were carried off, in such a long string of misery as we may still see on the monuments, and a handful left behind, too poor to plot, and stirred to diligence by necessity. So ended the possession by Israel of its promised inheritance.
Now this fall of Jerusalem is like an object-lesson to teach everlasting truth as to the retributive providence of God. What does it say?
It declares plainly what brings down God’s judgments. The terms on which Israel prospered and held its land were obedience to God’s law. We cannot directly apply the principles of God’s government of it to modern nations. The present analogue of Israel is the Church, not the nation. But when all deductions have been made, it is still true that a nation’s religious attitude is a most potent factor in its prosperous development. It is not accidental that, on the whole, stagnant Europe and America are Roman Catholic, and the progressive parts Protestant. Nor was it causes independent of religion that scattered a decaying Christianity in the lands of the Eastern Church before the onslaught of wild Arabs, who, at all events, did believe in Allah. So there are abundant lessons for politics and sociology in the story of Jerusalem’s fall.
But these lessons have direct application to the individual and to the Christian Church. All departure from God is ruin. We slay ourselves by forsaking Him, and every sinner is a suicide. We live under a moral government, and in a system of things so knit together as that even here every transgression receives its just recompense-if not visibly and palpably in outward circumstances, yet really and punctually in effects on mind and heart, which are more solemn and awful. ‘Behold the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.’ Sin and sorrow are root and fruit.
Especially does that crash of Jerusalem’s fall thunder the lesson to all churches that their life and prosperity are inseparably connected with faithful obedience and turning away from all worldliness, which is idolatry. They stand in the place that was made empty by Israel’s later fall. Our very privileges call us to beware. ‘Because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.’ That great seven-branched candlestick was removed out of its place, and all that is left of it is its sculptured image among the spoils on the triumphal arch to its captor. Other lesser candlesticks have been removed from their places, and Turkish oppression brings night where Sardis and Laodicea once gave a feeble light. The warning is needed to-day; for worldliness is rampant in the Church. ‘If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee.’ The fall of Jerusalem is not merely a tragic story from the past. It is a revelation, for the present, of the everlasting truth, that the professing people of God deserve and receive the sorest chastisement, if they turn again to folly.
Further, we learn the method of present retribution. Nebuchadnezzar knew nothing of the purposes which he fulfilled. ‘He meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so.’ He was but the ‘axe’ with which God hewed. Therefore, though he was God’s tool, he was also responsible, and would be punished even for performing God’s ‘whole work upon Jerusalem,’ because of ‘the glory of his high looks.’ The retribution of disobedience, so far as that retribution is outward, needs no ‘miracle.’ The ordinary operations of Providence amply suffice to bring it. If God wills to sting, He will ‘hiss for the fly,’ and it will come. The ferocity and ambition of a grim and bloody despot, impelled by vainglory and lust of cruel conquest, do God’s work, and yet the doing is sin. The world is full of God’s instruments, and He sends punishments by the ordinary play of motives and circumstances, which we best understand when we see behind all His mighty hand and sovereign will. The short-sighted view of history says ‘Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem B.C. so and so,’ and then discourses about the tendencies of which Babylonia was exponent and creature. The deeper view says, God smote the disobedient city, as He had said, and Nebuchadnezzar was ‘the rod of His anger.’
Again, we learn the Divine reluctance to smite. More than four hundred years had passed since Solomon began idolatry, and steadily, through all that time, a stream of prophecy of varying force and width had flowed, while smaller disasters had confirmed the prophets’ voices. ‘Rising up early and sending’ his servants, God had been in earnest in seeking to save Israel from itself. Men said then, ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’ and mocked His warnings and would none of His reproof; but at last the hour struck and the crash came. ‘As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord! when Thou awakest, Thou shalt despise their image.’ His judgment seems to slumber, but its eyes are open, and it remains inactive, that His long-suffering may have free scope. As long as His gaze can discern the possibility of repentance, He will not strike; and when that is hopeless, He will not delay. The explanation of the marvellous tolerance of evil which sometimes tries faith and always evokes wonder, lies in the great words, which might well be written over the chair of every teacher of history: ‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward.’ Alas, that that divine patience should ever be twisted into the ground of indurated disobedience! ‘Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.’
God’s reluctance to punish is no reason for doubting that He will. Judgment is His ‘strange work,’ less congenial, if we may so paraphrase that strong word of the prophet’ s, than pure mercy, but it will be done nevertheless. The tears over Jerusalem that witnessed Christ’s sorrow did not blind the eyes like a flame of fire, nor stay the outstretched hand of the Judge, when the time of her final fall came. The longer the delay, the worse the ruin. The more protracted the respite and the fuller it has been of entreaties to return, the more terrible the punishment. ‘Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: towards them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Fall of Jerusalem
The Fall of Jerusalem
This chapter relates the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, the capture of king Zedekiah, and the deportation of most of the Jewish people.
Read full note →
1. In the tenth day] The successive stages in the overthrow of the city are carefully marked by the historian: cp. 2Ki_25:3, 2Ki_25:8. Forts] perhaps movable towers for throwing troops upon the walls.
3. The famine] the sufferings of the besieged are described in Jer_21:7-9; Lam_4:8; Lam_5:10.
4. The city was broken up] RV 'a breach was made in the city.' Before this happened an Egyptian force had advanced to the relief of Jerusalem, and the Babylonians in consequence retired (Jer_37:5-11), but the relief was only temporary (as Jeremiah had predicted) and the siege was resumed. The king's garden] S. of the city near the pool of Siloam (Neh_3:15). The plain] RV 'the Arabah': i.e. the valley of the Jordan. The design of the fugitives was to cross the river by the fords of Jericho.
7. Put out the eyes] Zedekiah was taken to Babylon, but he did not see it, just as Ezekiel had predicted (2Ki_12:13). An Assyrian king is represented on one of his monuments as blinding a captive with the point of his own spear.
11. The rest of the people] i.e. those that remained in the country after the deportation related in 2Ki_24:14, 2Ki_24:15. Of the multitude] better, 'of the artificers.' In addition to this deportation in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year Jeremiah (Jer_52:29) mentions one that occurred in his 18th year and another in his 23rd year, though the first of these may be identical with the one here described.
13. The pillars of brass, etc.] see 1Ki_7:15.; Jer_52:17-23, where some of the details are given differently.
15. In gold.. in silver] better, 'as so much gold.. as so much silver.'
18. The second priest] i.e. the high priest's deputy. For Zephaniah cp. Jer_29:25; Jer_29:29.
Keepers of the door] i.e. of the entrance of the Temple.
19. That.. presence] i.e. those of the king's ministers who enjoyed freedom of access to him. The principal scribe, etc.] RM 'the scribe of the captain of the host': i.e. the official who superintended the conscription. Nebuchadnezzar, instead of consigning the citizens to indiscriminate massacre, selected for punishment only the most responsible personages.
21. So Judah was carried away] The destruction of Jerusalem and the final deportation of its chief inhabitants took place in 586 b.c. The kingdom of Judah, like the kingdom of the ten tribes, now came to an end, as Jeremiah (Jer_20:4) had predicted; and its historian here brings his record to a close, only pausing to describe the arrangements made for the government of the desolated country and the treatment received from Nebuchadnezzar's successor by the captive Jehoiachin. The mention of the latter fact is probably due to the writer's desire to show that the divine mercy attended the house of David even in the time of its deepest humiliation.
22. The son of Ahikam] Ahikam had befriended Jeremiah when the people sought to put him to death (Jer_26:24).
23. And when all the captains, etc.] For a fuller account of the events recounted in 2Ki_25:23-26 see Jer_40:7 to Jer_43:13, from which it appears that Ishmael was instigated by Baalis the king of Ammon, and murdered Gedaliah treacherously. Mizpah] perhaps Mizpah in Benjamin (1Ki_15:22).
25. In the seventh month] subsequently observed as a fast (Zec_7:5).
26. Came to Egypt] In doing this the people acted in defiance of the counsel of Jeremiah, whom they took with them: see Jeremiah 42, 43.
27. Evil-merodach] son of Nebuchadnezzar, succeeding to his throne in 561 b.c. It was in the first year of his reign that he manifested to Jehoiachin the leniency here recorded.
Did lift up the head] i.e. showed favour to: cp. Gen_40:13.
28. The kings that were with him] possibly other captive sovereigns.
29. Did eat bread.. before him] i.e. was a guest at the royal table. For a like privilege see 2Sa_19:3; 1Ki_2:7.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 8, 25, 27 i.e. January.
tenth
i.e. January.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 3. The Siege of Jerusalem and Judah’s Complete Overthrow
3. The Siege of Jerusalem and Judah’s Complete Overthrow
CHAPTER 25
Read full note →
1. The last siege and complete overthrow (2Ki 25:1-21; 2Ch 36:17-20)
2. Gedaliah (2Ki 25:22-26)
3. Jehoiachin’s captivity and release (2Ki 25:27-30)
Zedekiah’s rebellion was a great offence. He had sworn in Jehovah’s name to be loyal to Nebuchadnezzar (2Ch 36:13; Eze 17:13). We find more light thrown upon this king and his rebellion in the book of Jeremiah. Ambassadors from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon came to Jerusalem to see Zedekiah (Jer. 27). A combined revolution was probably contemplated. Zedekiah sent at the same time a message to Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon (Jer 29:3); the prophet Jeremiah used this opportunity to send a God-given communication to the exiles in Babylon (Jer 29:1, etc.). The news of Zedekiah’s schemes must have reached the captives, for they expected an early return. (The prophet Ezekiel was especially used to warn against these false hopes. See annotations on Ezekiel.) False prophets, Satan’s instruments, gave them their lying messages. Prominent among them was Hananiah who received his deserved punishment for his lying words (Jer. 28). Once more the city was besieged. A great famine prevailed. What happened in the doomed city and Jeremiah’s great ministry as well as suffering may be learned from his prophecies. Consult especially the following passages: Jer. 21:1-2; 37:3; 34:2-6; 38. Jeremiah charged with treacherous designs had been cast into a dungeon, but was later delivered out of the miry pit and brought before the king, who declared himself willing to follow Jeremiah’s advice. What followed we give from Edersheim’s Bible History:
Meantime the siege was continuing, without hope of relief. Tyre suffered straits similar to those of Jerusalem, while Ammon, Moab, Edom and the Philistines had not only withdrawn from the alliance, but were waiting to share in the spoil of Judah (Ezek. 25). At length a gleam of hope appeared. An Egyptian army, under their King Hophra, the grandson of Necho, advanced through Phoenicia, and obliged the Chaldeans to raise the siege of Jerusalem (Jer 37:5-7). The exultation and reaction in Jerusalem may be imagined--and it was probably in consequence of it that Jeremiah, who still predicted calamity, was cast into prison (Jer 37:4). But the relief of Jerusalem was brief. The Egyptian army had to retire, and the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was resumed, and that under even more disadvantageous circumstances to the besieged.
To the other calamities that of famine was now added (2Ki 25:3). Of the horrors of that time Jeremiah has left a record in the Book of Lamentations (comp. 1:19, 2:11, 12, 20; 4:3-10). The last resistance was soon overcome. On the ninth day of the fourth month (Tammuz), in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the enemy gained possession of the northern suburb (2Ki 25:4; Jer 39:2-3; Jer 52:6-7). Before the middle gate the Babylonian captains held a council of war (Jer 39:2-3). Then the king and all the regular army sought safety in flight during the darkness of the night (Jer 39:4). As the Chaldeans held the northern part of the city, they fled southwards. Between the two walls, through the Tyropoeon, then out of the “fountain-gate,” and through the king’s garden, they made haste to gain the Jordan.
But their flight could not remain unobserved. They were pursued and overtaken in the plains of Jericho. The soldiers dispersed in various directions. But the king himself and his household were taken captives, and carried to the headquarters at Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar himself was at the time. Here Zedekiah was formally arraigned and sentence given against him. His daughters were set free, but his sons were slain before him. It was the last sight the king saw. His eyes were put out; he was bound hand and feet with double fetters of brass, and so carried to Babylon. There he died in ward (Jer 52:11).
The remainder of this mournful tale is soon told. After the flight and capture of the king, the city could not long hold out. A month later, and on the seventh day of the fifth month (Ab) Nebuzar-adan (‘Nebo gave posterity’) penetrated into the city. The temple was set on fire, as well as the king’s palace. The whole city was reduced to ruins and ashes, and the walls which had defended it were broken down (2Ki 25:9-10). After three days the work of destruction was completed; and ever afterwards was the 10th (9th) of Ab mourned as the fatal day of Jerusalem’s fall (Jer 52:12; Zec 7:3; Zec 7:5; Zec 8:19). The rest of the people left in the city, and those who had previously passed to the enemy, together with the remnant of the multitude, were carried away (2Ki 25:11). We can scarcely be mistaken in regarding these captives as the chief part of the non-combatant population of Jerusalem and Judah.
Jeremiah’s history and how he was found in prison when Jerusalem fell we shall learn from his book.
The administration of the conquered country was then entrusted by Nebuchadnezzar to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam (2Ki 22:12; Jer 26:24). Gedaliah dwelt on Mizpah. He held his office only two months and was murdered by Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah (Jer 40:8-16; Jer 41:1-9).
Jehoiachin’s release needs no further comment. In the second book of Chronicles we shall follow again this mournful history. The seventy year captivity was on. The Word of the LORD through Jeremiah that “the land should enjoy her Sabbaths, for as long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill three score and ten years” (2Ch 36:21).
We add the words of another:
Again is the land keeping Sabbath, And again is it “stillness unto God,” till His voice shall waken land and people, Whose are land and people, dominion and peace: till He shall come who is alike the goal and the fulfillment of all past history and prophecy--”a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.”
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 22 Judah Carried into Captivity
Judah Carried into Captivity
v. 1. And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, when Zedekiah had rebelled against the Babylonian supremacy, that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came, he and all his host, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it, encamped round about it; and they built forts against it round about, bulwarks with watch-towers, such as were used in besieging a city. Although Nebuchadnezzar was not present in person, or at least did not remain, yet he directed all the operations, carrying them forward with all energy.
Read full note →
v. 2. And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of King Zedekiah, for the walls and fortifications of the city were very strong.
v. 3. And on the ninth day of the fourth month, after almost a year and a half, the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land, the common people were in such sore straits on account of the severity of the famine that they resorted to the most horrible means of sustaining life, Lam 2:11-19; Lam 4:3-10; Eze 5:10; Jer 37:21.
v. 4. And the city was broken up, the breach being made on the north side of the outer wall, Jer 39:3-5, and all the men of war, the soldiers who were defending the city, fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls, the outer and the inner wall, which is by the king’s garden, in the lower part of the city, for they believed that escape to the south might still be possible; (now the Chaldees were against the city round about, although their lines may not have been so strong on this side;) and the king went the way toward the plain, Jer 39:4, the meadows of the Jordan near Jericho.
v. 5. And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho, for the king’s intention evidently was to escape beyond the river into the desert country; and all his army were scattered from him. Cf Eze 12:3-16.
v. 6. So they took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon, to Riblah, a city in a fruitful plain in the north, where the headquarters of Nebuchadnezzar had been established; and they gave judgment upon him, namely, a tribunal appointed by the king, since Zedekiah had broken his oath of allegiance and revolted.
v. 7. And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, for they were guilty with their father and might have continued the dynasty, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, they blinded him, probably by passing a heated metal rod over his open eyes, and bound him with fetters of brass, doubly fettered hand and foot, and carried him to Babylon. Thus Zedekiah was maimed for life and had to give up all hope of ever being able to rule again.
v. 8. And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, one of his chief officers and most trusted officials, unto Jerusalem;
v. 9. and he burned the house of the Lord, the wonderful Temple of Solomon, whose upper structure was all of wood, and the king’s house, the beautiful royal palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem, all the palaces of the rich, and every great man’s house burned he with fire, thus completing the taking of the city, and leaving houses only for the poor people of the land.
v. 10. And all the army of the Chaldees that were with the captain of the guard, placed under his command for this purpose, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about, the fortifications which had rendered the city almost impregnable.
v. 11. Now, the rest of the people that were left in the city, the few who had escaped the ravages of the sword and of famine, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, those who had deserted to the enemy during the siege, with the remnant of the multitude, probably the remaining able-bodied men who might have been able to bear arms, did Nebuzar-adan, the captain of the guard, carry away.
v. 12. But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land, those without landed possessions, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen, they received orders to cultivate the vineyards and fields, lest the country revert to its wild state.
v. 13. And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, the two conspicuous hollow columns, 1Ki 7:15, and the bases, 1Ki 7:22, of which Ahaz had removed the borders, 2Ki 16:17, and the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord, resting on a stone base since the oxen had been removed, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon.
v. 14. And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, those used in the service, of the altar of burnt offering in the court, took they away. Cf Exo 27:3; 1Ki 7:45-50.
v. 15. And the fire-pans, and the bowls, 1Ki 7:50, and such things as were of gold, the appointments used in the Sanctuary proper, in gold, and of silver, in silver, including all vessels made of precious metals, the captain of the guard took away.
v. 16. The two pillars, one sea, and the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the Lord, the brass of all these vessels was without weight; its amount was so great that it was useless to attempt to weigh it, 1Ki 7:47.
v. 17. The height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, and the chapiter, the capital,upon it was brass, and the height of the chapiter three cubits, or five cubits over all, 1Ki 7:16; 2Ch 3:15; Jer 52:22; and the wreathen work, and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass, this artistic work making the columns very costly; and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work. Cf Jer 52:17-22.
v. 18. And the captain of the guard took Seraiah, the chief priest, and Zephaniah, the second priest, one of those ordinarily engaged in the work of sacrifice, but evidently a person of importance, and the three keepers at the door, the chief officers of the Temple guard, one of whom was stationed at each of the three main entrances, Cf Jer 38:14.
v. 19. And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war, the commander of the city, and five men of them that were in the king’s presence, which were found in the city, of the king’s intimate counselors, and the principal scribe of the host, an officer in the direct service of the commander-in-chief, which mustered the people of the land, enrolling them for military service, these seven representing the civil population, and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city, either the leaders in the rebellion or such as had distinguished themselves in the defense of the city;
v. 20. and Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the king of Babylon, to Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar was still encamped.
v. 21. And the king of Babylon smote them, for participating in the rebellion, and slew them at Riblah, in the land of Hamath, the Syrian province in the extreme northern part of Palestine. So Judah was carried away out of their land. This was the beginning of the great captivity, wherewith the ancient glory of Judah faded away, for it never again regained its position of independence and power. The destruction of Jerusalem is a type of the last great Judgment which will come upon the world.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28 in the ninth year
in the ninth year
(See: Ordinal Numbers)
Read full note →
in the tenth month, and on the tenth day of the month
This is the tenth month of the Hebrew calendar. The tenth day is near the end of December on Western calendars. This is during the cold season when there may be rain and snow. (See: Ordinal Numbers and Hebrew Months)
came with all his army against Jerusalem
The name "Jerusalem" is a metonym for the people who lived in it. AT: "came with his whole army to fight against the people of Jerusalem" or "came with his whole army to conquer Jerusalem" (See: Metonymy)
the ninth day of the fourth month
This is the fourth month of the Hebrew calendar. The ninth day is near the end of June on Western calendars. This is during the dry season when there is very little or no rain. (See: Ordinal Numbers and Hebrew Months)
the people of the land
These are the inhabitants of Jerusalem, including refugees from the surrounding villages that fled to Jerusalem when the war started.
translationWords
year
reign
king
Zedekiah
day
Nebuchadnezzar
Babylon
Jerusalem
siege
famine
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27 25:1 Siege ramps were characteristic of ancient Near Eastern…
25:1 Siege ramps were characteristic of ancient Near Eastern warfare. Attackers built tall earthen ramps and towers to give them a more advantageous position (see Jer 52:14; Ezek 21:22).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.