‏ Jeremiah 22:20-30

Jer 22:20 The ruin about to fall on Judah. - Jer 22:20. "Go up on Lebanon and cry, and lift up thy voice in Bashan and cry from Abarim; for broken are all thy lovers. Jer 22:21. I spake to thee in thy prosperity; thou saidst: I will not hear; that was thy way from thy youth up, that thou hearkenedst not to my voice. Jer 22:22. All thy shepherds the wind shall sweep away, and thy lovers shall go into captivity; yea, then shalt thou be put to shame and ashamed for all thy wickedness. Jer 22:23. Thou that dwellest on Lebanon and makest thy nest on cedars, how shalt thou sigh when pangs come upon thee, pain as of a woman in travail!" - It is the people personified as the daughter of Zion, the collective population of Jerusalem and Judah, that is addressed, as in Jer 7:29. She is to lift up her wailing cry upon the highest mountains, that it may be heard far and near. The peaks of the mountain masses that bordered Palestine are mentioned, from which one would have a view of the land; namely, Lebanon northwards, the mountains of Bashan (Psa 86:16) to the north-east, those of Abarim to the south-east, amongst which was Mount Nebo, whence Moses viewed the land of Canaan, Num 27:12; Deu 32:49. She is to lament because all her lovers are destroyed. The lovers are not the kings (Ros., Ew., Neum. Näg.), nor the idols (Umbr.), but the allied nations (J. D. Mich., Maur., Hitz.), for whose favour Judah had intrigued (Jer 4:30) - Egypt (Jer 2:36) and the little neighbouring states (Jer 27:3). All these nations were brought under the yoke by Nebuchadnezzar, and could not longer give Judah help (Jer 28:14; Jer 30:14). On the form צעקי, see Ew. 41, c. Jer 22:21-23

The cause of this calamity: because Judah in its prosperity had not hearkened to the voice of its God. שׁלות, from שׁלוה, security, tranquillity, state of well-being free from anxiety; the plur. denotes the peaceful, secure relations. Thus Judah had behaved from youth up, i.e., from the time it had become the people of God and been led out of captivity; see Jer 2:2; Hos 2:17. - In Jer 22:22 תּרעה is chosen for the sake of the word-play with רעיך, and denotes to depasture, as in Jer 2:16. As the storm-wind, especially the parching east wind, depastures, so to speak, the grass of the field, so will the storm about to break on Judah sweep away the shepherds, carry them off; cf. Jer 13:24, Isa 27:8; Job 27:21. The shepherds of the people are not merely the kings, but all its leaders, the authorities generally, as in Jer 10:21; and "thy shepherds" is not equivalent to "thy lovers," but the thought is this: Neither its allies nor its leaders will be able to help; the storm of calamity will sweep away the former, the latter must go captive. So that there is no need to alter רעיך into רעיך (Hitz.). With the last clause cf. Jer 2:36. Then surely will the daughter of Zion, feeling secure in her cedar palaces, sigh bitterly. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are said to dwell in Lebanon and to have their nests in cedars in reference to the palaces of cedar belonging to the great and famous, who at the coming destruction will suffer most. As to the forms ישׁבתּי and מקנּנתּי, see on Jer 10:17. The explanation of the form נחנתּי is disputed. Ros., Ges., and others take it for the Niph. of חנן, with the force: to be compassionated, thus: who deserving of pity or compassion wilt thou be! But this rendering does not give a very apt sense, even if it were not the case that the sig. to be worthy of pity is not approved by usage, and that it is nowhere taken from the Niph. We therefore prefer the derivation of the word from אנץ, Niph. נאנח .hpi, contr. ננח, a derivative founded on the lxx rendering: τὶ καταστενάξεις, and Vulg. quomodo congemuisti. The only question that then remains is, whether the form נחנתּ has arisen by transposition from ננחתּ, so as to avoid the coming together of the same letter at the beginning (Ew., Hitz., Gr.); or whether, with Böttch. ausf. Gramm. §1124, B, it is to be held as a reading corrupted from ננחתּי. With "pangs," etc., cf. Jer 13:21; Jer 6:24.
Jer 22:24-28

Against Jehoiachin or Jechoniah. - Jer 22:24. "As I live, saith Jahveh, though Conjahu, the son of Jehoiakim, the king of Judah, were a signet ring on my right hand, yet would I pluck him thence, Jer 22:25. And give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them of whom thou art afraid, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans; Jer 22:26. And will cast thee and thy mother that bare thee into another land where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. Jer 22:27. And into the land whither they lift up their soul to return, thither shall they not return. Jer 22:28. Is this man Conjahu a vessel despised and to be broken, or an utensil wherein one has no pleasure? Jer 22:29. O land, land, land, hear the word of Jahveh! Jer 22:30. Thus hath Jahveh said: Write down this man as childless, as a man that hath no prosperity in his life; for no man of his seed shall prosper that sitteth upon the throne of David and ruleth widely over Judah."

The son and successor of Jehoiakim is called in 2Ki 24:6., 2Ch 36:8., Jer 52:31, Jehojachin, and in Eze 1:2, Jojachin; here, Jer 22:24, Jer 22:28, and Jer 37:1, Conjahu; in Jer 24:1, Jeconjahu; and in Jer 27:20; Jer 28:4; Jer 29:2, Est 2:6; 1Ch 3:16, Jeconjah. The names Jeconjahu and abbreviated Jeconjah are equivalent to Jojachin and Jehojachin, i.e., Jahveh will establish. Jeconjah was doubtless his original name, and so stands in the family register, 1Ch 3:16, but was at his accession to the throne changed into Jehojachin or Jojachin, to make it liker his father’s name. The abbreviation of Jeconjahu into Conjahu is held by Hgstb. Christol. ii. p. 402, to be a change made by Jeremiah in order by cutting off the y (will establish) to cut off the hope expressed by the name, to make "a Jeconiah without the J, a 'God will establish' without the will." For two reasons we cannot adopt this as the true view: 1. The general reason, that if Jeremiah had wished to adumbrate the fate of the three kings (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin) by making changes in their names, he would then have changed the name of Jehoiakim in like manner as he did that of Jehoahaz into Shallum, and that of Jehoiachin into Conjahu. The argument by which Hgstb. seeks to justify the exception in the one case will not hold its own. Had Jeremiah thought it unseemly to practise a kind of conceit, for however solemn a purpose, on the name of the then reigning monarch, then neither could he have ventured on the like in the case of Jehoiachin; for the present prediction was not, as Hgstb. assumed, uttered before his accession, but, as may be seen from the title king of Judah, Jer 22:24, after he had ascended the throne, was actually king. Besides. 2. the name Conjahu occurs also at Jer 37:1, in a historical heading, as of equal dignity with Jeconjahu, Jer 29:2; Jer 28:4, etc., where a name proper only to prophetic discourse would not have been in place. The passages in which the prophets express the character and destiny of a person in a name specially formed for the purpose, are of another kind. There we have always: they shall call his name, or: his name shall be; cf. Jer 33:16; Isa 9:5; Isa 62:4; Eze 48:35. That the name Jeconjah has not merely the prophet’s authority, is vouched for by 1Ch 3:15; Est 2:6, and by the historical notices, Jer 24:1; Jer 27:20; Jer 28:4; Jer 29:2. And the occurrence of the name Jojachin only in 2 Kings 24; 2Ch 36:1; Jer 52:31, and Eze 1:2 is in consequence of the original documents used by the authors of these books, where, so to speak, the official names were made use of; whereas Jeremiah preferred the proper, original name which the man bore as the prince-royal and son of Jehoiakim, and which was therefore the current and best known one.

The utterance concerning Jechoniah is more distinct and decided than that concerning Jehoiakim. With a solemn oath the Lord not only causes to be made known to him that he is to be cast off and taken into exile, but further, that his descendants are debarred from the throne for ever. Nothing is said of his own conduct towards the Lord. In 2Ki 24:9 and 2Ch 36:9 it is said of him that he did that which was displeasing to the Lord, even as his father had done. Ezekiel confirms this sentence when in Eze 19:5-9 he portrays him as a young lion that devoured men, forced widows, and laid cities waste. The words of Jahveh: Although Conjahu were a signet ring on my right hand, convey no judgment as to his character, but simply mean: Although he were as precious a jewel in the Lord’s eyes as a signet ring (cf. Hag 2:23), the Lord would nevertheless cast him away. כּי before אם introduces the body of the oath, as in Jer 22:5, and is for rhetorical effect repeated before the apodosis, as in 2Sa 3:9; 2Sa 2:27, etc. Although he were, sc. what he is not; not: although he is (Graf); for there is no proof for the remark: that as being the prince set by Jahveh over His people, he has really as close a connection with Him. Hitz.'s explanation is also erroneous: "even if, seeking help, he were to cling so closely to me as a ring does to the finger." A most unnatural figure, not supported by reference to Sol 8:6. As to אתּקנךּ, from נתק with ן epenth., cf. Ew. §250, b. - From Jer 22:25 on, the discourse is addressed directly to Jechoniah, to make his rejection known to him. God will deliver him into the hand of his enemies, whom he fears, namely, into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans, and cast him with his mother into a strange land, where he shall die. The mother was called Nehushta, 2Ki 24:8, and is brought forward in 29:2 as גּבירה. On the fulfilment of this threatening, see 2Ki 24:12, 2Ki 24:15; Jer 24:1; Jer 29:2. The construction הארץ  is like that of הגּפן נכריּה, Jer 2:21; and the absence of the article from אחרת is no sufficient reason for holding it to be a gloss (Hitz.), or for taking the article in הארץ to be a slip caused by על הארץ, Jer 22:27. To lift up their souls, i.e., to direct their longings, wishes, towards a thing, cf. Deu 24:15; Hos 4:8, etc. - The further sentence on Jechoniah was not pronounced after he had been carried captive, as Näg. infers from the perfects הוּטלוּ and השׁלכוּ. The perfects are prophetic. The question: Is this man a vessel despised and to be broken (עצב, vas fictile)? is an expression of sympathising regret on the part of the prophet for the unhappy fate of the king; but we may not hence conclude that Jeremiah regarded him as better than his father. The prophet’s sympathy for his fate regarded less the person of the unfortunate king than it did the fortunes of David’s royal seed, in that, of Jechoniah’s sons, none was to sit on the throne of David (Jer 22:30). Ew. has excellently paraphrased the sense: "Although there is many a sympathising heart in the land that bitterly laments the hard fate of the dear young king, who along with his infant children has been (? will be) dragged away, yet it is God’s unchangeable decree that neither he nor any of his sons shall ascend the throne of David." נפוּץ, not: broken, but: that shall be broken (cf. Ew. §335, b). Wherefore are they - he and his seed - cast out? At his accession Jehoiachin was eighteen years old, not eight, as by an error stands in 2Ch 36:9, see on 2Ki 24:8; so that when taken captive, he might well enough have children, or at least one son, since his wives are expressly mentioned in the account of the captivity, 2Ki 24:15. That the sons mentioned in 1Ch 3:16 and 1Ch 3:17 were born to him in exile, cannot be inferred from that passage, rightly understood, see on that passage. The fact that no sons are mentioned in connection with the carrying captive is simply explained by the fact that they were still infants.
Jer 22:29-30

The land is to take the king’s fate sore to heart. The triple repetition of the summons: Land, gives it a special emphasis, and marks the following sentence as of high importance; cf. Jer 7:4; Eze 21:32; Isa 6:3. Write him down, record him in the family registers, as childless, i.e., as a man with whom his race becomes extinct. This is more definitely intimated in the parallel member, namely, that he will not have the fortune to have any of his posterity sit on the throne of David. This does not exclude the possibility of his having sons; it merely implies that none of them should obtain the throne. ערירי sig. lit., solitary, forsaken. Thus a man might well be called who has lost his children by death. Acc. to 1Ch 3:16., Jechoniah had two sons, Zedekiah and Assir, of whom the former died childless, the second had but one daughter; and from her and her husband, of the line of Nathan, was born Shealtiel, who also died childless; see the expos. of 1Ch 3:16. Jechoniah was followed on the throne by his uncle Mattaniah, whom Nebuchadnezzar installed under the name of Zedekiah. He it was that rose in insurrection against the king of Babylon, and after the capture of Jerusalem was taken prisoner while in flight; and being carried before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, saw his sons put to death before his eyes, was then made blind, thrown in chains, and carried a prisoner to Babylon, 2Ki 25:4.

Copyright information for KD