Bible Commentaries

Verse 6

(6) And in the fourth month.—Omitted in the Hebrew of 2 Kings 25:3, but supplied in the English version.

Verse 7

(7) Went forth out of the city.—Omitted in 2 Kings 25:4.

They went by the way of the plain.—In 2 Kings 25:4 “the king (not in the Hebrew) went (verb in the singular) the way toward the plain.”

Verse 9

(9) To Riblah in the land of Hamath.—The descriptive words are omitted in 2 Kings 25:6. (See Note on Jeremiah 39:5.)

He gave judgment upon him.—In 2 Kings 25:6, they gave judgment. So in the next verse “the king of Babylon slew” takes the place of “they slew” in 2 Kings 25:7.

Verse 10

(10) He slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah.—The fact is not stated in 2 Kings 25, but is found in Jeremiah 39:6.

Verse 11

(11) And put him in prison till the day of his death.—This also is an additional detail not mentioned in 2 Kings 25, and its absence is probably due to the fact that that was the earlier narrative of the two. The word for “prison” is a peculiar one, and differs from that in Jeremiah 52:31. Literally it means “house of visitation,” and this may imply either stricter custody, or more severe punishment in addition to imprisonment. The LXX. renders it by “house of the mill,” as though Zedekiah, after he had been blinded, had been made to do slave work like that of Samson. Possibly this was merely an inference from Lamentations 5:13. Such treatment of captive kings was, however, quite in keeping with the character of Assyrian and Chaldæan rulers. Thus Assur-bani-pal boasts that he placed a king of Arabia in chains, and bound him with the dogs, and caused him to be kept in one of the great gates of Nineveh (Records of the Past, i. p. 93). So Darius, in the Behistun inscription, boasts of having taken a rebel king of Sagartia, cut off his nose and ears, and kept him chained at his door (Records of the Past, i. p. 119).

Verse 12

(12) In the tenth day of the month.—2 Kings 25:8 gives the “seventh day.” We have no means of ascertaining which of the two statements is the more accurate. The Jews have always kept the ninth day as a commemorative fast. And this date is given in the Syriac version of 2 Kings.

Which served the king of Babylon.—Better, which stand before the king. The Hebrew word is one used continually of honourable service (Jeremiah 35:19; Numbers 27:2; Numbers 27:21; Deuteronomy 1:30). In 2 Kings 25:8 we have the less accurate term of “servant” or “slave,” or “captain of the guard.” (See Note on Jeremiah 39:9.)

Verse 13

(13) All the houses of the great men.—More accurately, all the great houses.

Verse 15

(15) Certain of the poor of the people.—Omitted in 2 Kings 25:11, and probably inserted here by an error of transcription, as the next verse states that the “poor of the land” were left in their own country.

The rest of the multitude.—Better, perhaps, the remnant of the work-people, as in Proverbs 8:30, where many commentators so render the word, “I was with him as a worker” and Song Song of Solomon 7:1. The versions, however, agree in giving “multitude.”

Verses 18-20

(18-20) The caldrons also, and the shovels . . .—The list in 2 Kings 25:14-16 omits the basons, the caldrons, the candlesticks, and the cups; in Jeremiah 52:15 it gives the definite article in the Hebrew “the one sea,” and omits the “twelve brasen bulls. Strictly speaking, the bases (1 Kings 7:27) were under the ten lavers which were used for washing the meat for the sacrifices, and the twelve bulls (1 Kings 7:25) supported the molten sea, or bigger laver, for the priests’ ablutions; 2 Kings 16:17 suggests the thought that the bulk of the bronze had been removed by Ahaz and given to Tiglath Pileser, though possibly not taken away by him.

Verses 21-23

(21-23) And concerning the pillars . . .—In 2 Kings 25:16-17 we have a list abbreviated by the omission of some of the measurements and of the number and arrangement of the pomegranates. “Chapiter” is the old English word for the “capital” of a column.

On a side.—The exact meaning of the Hebrew is towards a (=each) wind—i.e., there were twenty-four pomegranates on each side of the square pillars, with one at each corner, making, as in Jeremiah 52:23, one hundred in all.

Verse 25

(25) An eunuch, which had the charge of the men of war.—Omit the article before “charge.” The Hebrew term (Pakid) conveys the meaning of “deputy,” a superintendent under a chief commander. The officer in question had probably, together with the persons named in Jeremiah 52:24, been more conspicuous than his fellows in resisting the Chaldæans.

Seven men.—2 Kings 25:19 gives “five” as the number. Here also we have to think of the exile as the punishment of prominence in the defence of the city. The chief scribe of the army, the “secretary of war,” would naturally occupy such a position. The description of the men as those “that were near the king’s person” (literally, saw the king’s face) implies a high official rank.

Verse 28

(28) This is the people . . .—Here the parallelism with 2 Kings 25, which goes on to give a brief summary of the history of Gedaliah and Ishmael, as narrated in Jeremiah 40-43, ceases, and the writer of the appendix goes on to give particulars as to the various stages of the deportation of the captives. It presents some difficulties in detail. (1) The date given here, the “seventh year” of Nebuchadnezzar, does not agree with 2 Kings 24:12, which gives the “eighth year” as the time of the first deportation after the defeat of Jehoiachin. (2) The number of the captives then carried into exile, given in 2 Kings 24:14 at 10,000, besides the craftsmen and the smiths, is given here as 3,023. The precision of the number seems to imply reference to a register or record of some kind, and so far bears primâ facie evidence of accuracy. Probably the word “ten” has dropped out before “seven,” and we have here the record of a second deportation in the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, while the siege of Jerusalem was going on, and made up in part of prisoners taken in skirmishes, and partly of the numerous Jews who “fell away to the Chaldæans” (Jeremiah 37:13).

Verse 29

(29) Eight hundred thirty and two persons.—The comparatively small number indicates the ravages of the sword, the pestilence, and the famine to which Jeremiah so often refers. The captives were probably the scanty remnant of the defenders of the city, and the deportation that by Nebuzar-adan narrated in Jeremiah 52:15.

Verse 30

(30) In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar . . .—There is no record of this final deportation, five years after the capture of the city, in the historical books. It probably followed on the conquest of Egypt predicted in Jeremiah 44:11; Jeremiah 44:28, and included some of those who had emigrated to that country; perhaps also on that of the Moabites and Edomites, among whom many Jews had probably taken refuge. The total number, including the 10,000 who are not mentioned here (see Note on Jeremiah 52:28), mounts up to 14,600. In Ezra 2:64-65 the number of those who returned from Babylon is given at 42,360, besides 7,337 male and female slaves, and this, as many remained behind in Babylon, is more than can be accounted for by the natural increase of population. Assuming the correctness of the numbers, we are led to the conclusion that after the exiles were settled in Babylon, and found themselves in a more favourable position than was at first anticipated (Jeremiah 29:5-6), they were joined by friends and kindred, who hoped to be better off there than in the desolation and disorders of their own country.

Verse 31

(31) In the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin . . .—The closing narrative is almost identical with that of 2 Kings 25:27, the only differences being (1) that “five and twentieth” stands for “seven and twentieth,” (2) that in Jeremiah 52:34 we have “the king of Babylon” instead of “the king,” and (3) that the pleonastic words “until the day of his death” are inserted before “all the days of his life.” The reader is referred to the notes on that section. The variations between the two chapters, the most important of which have been noticed in the Notes, are not without importance, though insignificant in themselves, as implying that a consistent belief in the substantial truthfulness of the historical records of the Old Testament is independent of mere verbal accordance in matters of minute detail.