Jeremiah 52:12-16

2. THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CITY AND DEPORTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Jeremiah 52:12-16

12Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzar-adan, captain of the guard [of the halberdiers], who served [stood before]6 the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem. 13And burned the house of the Lord [Jehovah] and the king’s house; and all the houses of Jerusalem, and all the houses of the great men [every great house],7 burned 14he with fire. And all the army of the Chaldeans, that were with the captain of 15the guard, brake down all the walls of Jerusalem, round about. Then Nebuzaradan captain of the guard [halberdiers] carried away captive certain of the poor [a part of the lowest] of the people, and the residue of the people that remained in the city, and those that fell away, that fell to the king of Babylon, and the rest of 16the multitude [work-people].8 But Nebuzar adan the captain of the guard left certain of the poor [part of the meanest]9 of the land for vinedressers and for husbandmen.10

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Jeremiah 52:12-14. Now in the fifth … round about. Instead of the tenth day, 2 Kings (as also Bar 1:2) mentions the seventh, as the same text also states three cubits instead of the five in Jeremiah 52:23, and five men instead of the seven in Jeremiah 52:25. Hitzig, Thenius, Graf, Keil [Blayney, Henderson] rightly suppose that these differences arose from the interchange of the letters of the older alphabet used as numerals. Which statements are correct is not ascertainable. Thenius [comp. also Wordsworth] declares the statement here made to be the correct one, because the Jews afterward kept the ninth day as a fast. But on the other hand comp. Keil on 2 Kings 25:8.

Jeremiah 52:15-16. Then Nebuzar-adan. … husbandmen.—The poor of the people, which is wanting in 2 Ki., has come here either by mistake from Jeremiah 52:16, where it also begins the sentence, or it is to express the thought, that the poor people did not all remain behind, but were partly carried away. the latter is probably the correct view.—Multitude [work-people]. It is difficult to decide which is the correct rendering. Both suit the sense, for a remnant of workpeople might just as well be spoken of as a remnant, of the masses of the people (either in antithesis to the warriors or the population of the city). I prefer to take the word in the sense in which it undoubtedly occurs in Proverbs 8:30 [then was I as a workman with him], and Song of Solomon 7:1.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. “Docemur hoc capite, quod comminationes divinæ rum sint de pelvi fulgura, quodque Deus pro misericordia sua infinita calamitates a se immissas mitigare plerumque soleat, si seria interveniat pœnitentia.” Förster.

2. On Jeremiah 52:1-3. “From this we see why God sometimes places ungodly rulers over a country, who cast it to destruction. It is done on account of the rulers’ and the people’s sins, that they may draw down the well merited punishment, as Sirach says. On account of violence, injustice and avarice, a kingdom passes from one nation to another (Jeremiah 10:8). So also says king Solomon. Because of the sins of a nation occur many changes of rulers, but for the sake of the people who are intelligent and reasonable, the State is prolonged (Proverbs 28:2).” Wurtemb. Summarien.

3. On Jeremiah 52:4. “God allows many slight and mild punishments to come as warnings, till at last comes the finishing stroke. This is a witness to the divine long-suffering (Romans 2:4).” Cramer.

4. On Jeremiah 52:6. “The fact that in this siege compassionate women had to kill and eat their own children (Lamentations 4:10) is a reminder that by bodily hunger God would punish; 1. satiation and disgust towards His holy word and soul-food; 2. the terrible offering up of children to Moloch; 3. the loose discipline of children.” Cramer.

5. On Jeremiah 52:7. “No fortress can protect the ungodly, even though they had their nest in the clouds.” Cramer.

6. On Jeremiah 52:8. “An example of faithless, perjured men of war. But as Zedekiah broke his oath to the king at Babylon, he was paid back in the same coin.” Cramer. “His people forsook the poor king Zedekiah on his flight and he was captured, from which we see that great men cannot depend on their body-guard; these flee in time of need, and leave their masters in the lurch. The surest and best protection is when we have the holy angels for our guard … This angelic protection is, however, to be obtained and preserved by faith and godliness, but is lost by unbelief and ungodly conduct.” Wurtemb. Summ.

7. On Jeremiah 52:9-11. The punishment of perjury. “Ubi monemur, quod fides hosti, etiam barbaro, qualis hodie Turca, a Christianis data, mimine violanda.” Förster.

8. On Jeremiah 52:9. sqq. “God had shown Zedekiah by Jeremiah a way in which he could escape the calamity. But because he forsook the Lord and would not follow it, the others were only leaky cisterns (Jeremiah 2:13). For woe to the rebellious who take counsel without the Lord (Isaiah 30:1). This is useful for an instance against the holy by works, who reject God’s way of escaping the Devil; when they devise other ways for themselves they are caught by the Chaldeans of hell.” Cramer.

9. On Jeremiah 52:12 sqq. “Holy places, external ceremonies and opus operatum do not avail for hypocrites … If God punished His own institution so severely, how shall human institutions remain unpunished?” Cramer.

10. On Jeremiah 52:12. “Quale fatum, ne et nostris obtingat templis … caveamus, ne profanemus templa ulterius tum externa vel materialia, tum interna vel spiritualia in cordibus nostris, de quibus 1 Corinthians 3:16 sqq.; Jeremiah 6:19 sqq.” Förster.

11. On Jeremiah 52:15. “It is another work of mercy that some of Judah were preserved. For God’s grace is always to be found in His punishments.” Cramer.

12. On Jeremiah 52:15. “He who will not serve God and his neighbor at home and in quiet, must learn to do it in a strange land in affliction and distress.” Cramer.

13. On Jeremiah 52:24 sqq. “As teachers are often to blame for their behaviour that sin gets the upper hand in a community, it is exceedingly just when God brings such for an example into great punitive judgment (1 Samuel 2:27-34).” Starke.

14. On Jeremiah 52:24. “The priests are caught and slain; 1. because they could not believe the truth for themselves; 2. because they led others astray; 3. because they appealed to the temple of the Lord; 4. because they persecuted the true prophets; 5. because they troubled the whole church of God. But he who troubleth shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be (Galatians 5:10).” Cramer.

15. On Jeremiah 52:31 sqq. “Sane omnino verisimile videtur judicio Philippi Melanchthonis in Chron. part, I fol. 33 Evilmerodachum amplexum esse doctrinam Danielis de Vero Deo, quam et pater publico edic professus est, eamque ob causam clementiam exercuisse erga regem Jechoniam.” Förster.—“Narrant Hebræi hujusmodi fabulam: Evilmerodach, qui patre suo Nabuchodonosor vivente per septem annos inter bestias, ante regnaverat, postquam ille restitutus in regno est, usque ad mortem patris cum Joakim rege Judæ in vinculis fuit; quo mortuo, quum rursus in regnum succederet, et non susciperetur a principibus, qui metuebant, ne viveret qui dicebatur extinctus, ut fidem patris mortui faceret, aperuit sepulcrum et cadaver ejus unco et funibus traxit.” Jerome on Jeremiah 14:18-19. Josephus speaks of it as follows: “Ἀβιλαμαρώδαχος εὐθὺς τὸν ‘Ιεχωνίαν τῶν δεσμῶν … ‘Ο γὰρ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ τὴν πίστιν οὐκ ἐφύλαξε τῷ ’Ιεχωνία, παραδόντι μετὰ γυναικαῶν καὶ τέκνων καὶ τῆς συγγενείας ὅλης ἑκουσίως ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς πατρἰδος, ὡς ἄν μὴ κατασκαφείη ληφθεῖσα τῇ πολιορκίᾳ.” (Antiqq., X. 11, 21.)

16. On Jeremiah 52:31 sqq. “Ceterum potest hoc exemplo, quod Jechonias rex dignitati suæ in exilio Babylonico restitutus, refutari exceptio Judæorum contra vaticinium Jacobi (Genesis 49:10) de Messia jamdudum exhibito, postquam per Romanos sceptrum de Juda ablatum, id quod τεκμήριον Messiæ jamjam nascituri esse debuit.” Förster.

17. On Jeremiah 52:31 sqq. “No one should despair in misfortune, for the right hand of the Highest can change all (Psalms 77:10) and Christ rules even in the midst of His enemies (Psalms 110:2). For His are the praise, the glory and the power from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.” Cramer.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

1. On Jeremiah 52:1-11. The truth of the word “What a man soweth, that shall he also reap,” exhibited in the example of the Jewish State under Zedekiah.1. The seed (Jeremiah 52:2); 2. The crop (a) the siege, (b) the famine, (c) the capture of the city and flight of the king, (d) the punishment of the king and his princes, (e) the fate of the people (Jeremiah 52:3).

2. On Jeremiah 52:12-20. The rejection of Judah appears at first sight a contradiction. For Jerusalem is the holy city (Matthew 4:5; Nehemiah 11:1; Nehemiah 11:18), the city of God (Psalms 46:5; Psalms 48:2; Psalms 48:9; Psalms 78:3); the temple is the house of Jehovah (Jeremiah 7:2. etc.); God’s service rests on divine authority (Ex. chh. 25–27, 30, 31). But God cannot contradict Himself. We have, therefore, to show “the unity of the divine thoughts in the choice and rejection of Jerusalem.” 1. The rejection was a conditional one (Jeremiah 7:3 sqq). Hence notwithstanding the election the rejection involved nothing contradictory, but was a necessary consequence of the unfulfilled condition.—2. The election remains (a) objectively notwithstanding the rejection; it is (b) subjectively brought to its realization by the rejection; the latter as a means of discipline operating to produce the disposition, from which alone thefulfillment of this condition can proceed. Comp. rems. on Jeremiah 32:41, p. 288.

3. On Jeremiah 52:24-27. “That great lords sometimes make an example of gross miscreants, promotes righteousness, only it must not be done on the innocent, or with such severity that there is no proportion between the crime and its punishment (Joshua 7:25).” Starke.

4. On Jeremiah 52:31-34. The deliverance of Jehoiachin. 1. It shows us that the Lord can help (a) out of great distress (grievous imprisonment of thirty-seven years), (b) in a glorious manner. 2. It admonishes us (a) to steadfast patience, (b) to believing hope, Psalms 13:0 [“It was a prelude and pledge of the liberation and exaltation of the Jewish Nation, when it had been humbled and purified by the discipline of suffering; and of its return to its own land; and a joyful pre-announcement of that far more glorious future restoration which the prophets in the Old Testament, and the Apostles in the New foretell—of Israel to God in Christ; to whom, with the Father and Holt Ghost, be ascribed all honor, glory, dominion, adoration and praise, now and forever. Amen.” Wordsworth.—S. R. A.].

Footnotes:

Jeremiah 52:12; Jeremiah 52:12.—For עָמַד לְבִּנֵי, of which words the former owes its punctuation to the erroneous connection with יִרוּשָלַם (hence also בִּי׳), 2 Kings reads עֶבֶד as a correction, and יר׳ without בִּי. He ought doubtless to read עֹמֵד. Comp. Jeremiah 35:19; Judges 20:28.

Jeremiah 52:13; Jeremiah 52:13.—Before נָדוֹל the article is wanting in 2 Ki. according to rule. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 82, 6. But the construct state of בֵּית is surprising in both cases. Probably it read originally, as Hitzig supposes. כַּיִת גַדוֹל. A mistake (comp. the בֵּית twice before) caused בֵּית, from which came בַּית הַנָדוֹל. This can be taken only in the sense of rhetorical emphasis, הַגָּדוֹל being collective for “the great” (2 Kings 4:8; 2 Kings 5:1). Then certainly the constr. state is perfectly normal, but, in 2 Ki. the traces of an older form of the text are to be recognized. Before חוֹמֹת Jeremiah 52:14 is wanting in 2 Ki. the certainly unnecessary כֹּל, before רַב־ט׳ however the grammatically necessary אֵת.

Jeremiah 52:15; Jeremiah 52:15.—Instead of יֶתֶר־הָמוֹן, 2 Ki. has הֶהָמוֹן. The word אמון must have seemed obscure even to the authors of the text of 2 Kings 25:0. and Jeremiah 39:0, the one rendering it as above, the other by הָעָם חַנִּשְׁאָרִים. In Proverbs 8:30 אָמוֹן and in Song of Solomon 7:1 אָמִן certainly has the sense of work-man, and accordingly we may take the word here as a collective designation of the הָרָשׁ and מַסְגֵר, whose deportation is spoken of in Jeremiah 24:1 and Jeremiah 29:2. Thus Hitzig, Graf, Meier, Keil, on the other hand, appeals to Jeremiah 39:9. But this passage, as well as 2 Kings 25:11, proves only that to both authors the word אָמוֹן appeared strange. Whether they interpreted it correctly is another question. If it should be alleged that it is a word appertaining only to a higher style, we reply that it would not be an easy alteration from הַמוֹן.

Jeremiah 52:16; Jeremiah 52:16.—Instead of מִדַּלּוֹת 2 Ki. has מִדַּלַּת. This also betrays the hand of the corrector, since דַּלּוֹת does not occur elsewhere either as plural or singular (Ewald, §165, c). It is the plural of דַּלָּה (Jeremiah 40:7; 2 Kings 24:14; 2 Kings 25:12)=tenuitates, insignificances.

Jeremiah 52:16; Jeremiah 52:16.—The name Nebuzar-adan appeared superfluous to the author of 2 Kings 25:0., having been mentioned in Jeremiah 52:12. The word יֹגְבִים, which does not occur elsewhere, he altered into נָבִים (from גוּבּ, fodit, aravit). Comp. remarks on Jeremiah 39:10.