The Book of Jeremiah

By J. A. Thompson

Thompson's study on the Book of Jeremiah is part of The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Like its companion series on the New Testament, this commentary devotes considerable care to achieving a balance between technical information and homiletic-devotional interpretation.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Sep 12, 1980
• ISBN: 9781467423038

Book preview

The Book of

JEREMIAH

---

J. A. THOMPSON

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

© 1980 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /

P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.

All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Thompson, John Arthur, 1913

The book of Jeremiah.

(The New international commentary on the Old Testament) Bibliography: p. 131

Includes indexes.

1. Bible. O.T. Jeremiah—Commentaries. I. Title.

II. Series: New international commentary on the Old Testament.

BS1525.3.T47 224´.2´077 7916510

eISBN 978-1-4674-2303-8

ISBN 0-8028-2530-3

TO MARION

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

It is many years now since the late Professor E. J. Young invited me to write a commentary on the books of Samuel for this series. On his death there were some changes in his original assignments and I was invited to transfer to Jeremiah. I was more than happy to make the change since I had worked on the Hebrew text of Jeremiah in my student days while studying for both Arts and Divinity degrees, and later, when I became a teacher, it was a continuing delight over some years to teach both the Hebrew text and the English version of Jeremiah to theological students.

Over the years I have set foot in Jerusalem, Shiloh, Bethel, Dan, and other places known to Jeremiah. Archeological work carried out in these and other sites has had a particular fascination for me. The reader will discover many references to archeological discoveries in the pages that follow.

I can still recall quite vividly the first visit I made to the modern Arab village of ‘Anata, which must represent the approximate site of Jeremiah’s village of Anathoth. The whole village seemed to be a blaze of almond blossoms in every direction. I climbed a high fence and plucked a half dozen almond kernels left over from the last season to take home to Australia as a useful teaching aid. In fancy I saw Jeremiah toiling across the intervening hills on his three-mile walk into Jerusalem to take up his stand in the temple courtyard and preach his Temple Sermon. I have returned again and again to that sermon for my own preaching over the years, but not alone to the Temple Sermon. The whole book still seems alive and is a never ending source of instruction to me, and I would hope to those whom I have taught.

It has been a rare privilege to write the commentary that follows. It is my hope and prayer that readers of this volume may enter a little into the experiences of that lonely figure of the late seventh and early sixth centuries B.C. and to catch something of the deep significance of his call to his own people to be true to their covenant Lord and to live in conformity with his covenant.

Clearly, no writer can produce a commentary without the help of others. Much of the work for this volume was carried out in the University Library in Cambridge, England, where I spent three happy and profitable years on a research project. I knew that few libraries could provide more source material than the Cambridge University Library.

Special thanks are due two who have helped in the preparation of the manuscript, Mrs. Pal Johnson of the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Melbourne, and my wife, who has been critic and proofreader of the numerous manuscripts I have written during nearly forty years. She has once again shown patience and understanding as I have devoted the long hours necessary to complete such a task. If my readers can enter in some measure into the profound thinking of Jeremiah, our toil will not have been in vain.

J. A. THOMPSON

CONTENTS

Author’s Preface

Principal Abbreviations

INTRODUCTION

I. Jeremiah among the Prophets

II. Jeremiah in His Historical Setting

III. The Book of Jeremiah

IV. Some Important Issues for Exegesis

V. The Life of Jeremiah

VI. The Message of Jeremiah

VII. The Text

VIII. Poetic Forms

IX. Analysis of Contents

X. Select Bibliography

TEXT AND COMMENTARY

Superscription (1:1–3)

I. The Call of Jeremiah and the Two Visions (1:4–19)

II. The Divine Judgment on Judah and Jerusalem (2:1–25:38)

III. Jeremiah’s Controversy with False Prophets (26:1–29:32)

IV. The Book of Consolation (30:1–33:26)

V. Incidents from the Days of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (34:1–39:18)

VI. Jeremiah’s Experiences after the Fall of Jerusalem (40:1–45:5)

VII. Oracles against the Nations (46:1–51:64)

VIII. Appendix: The Fall of Jerusalem (52:1–34)

NOTES

INDEXES

I. Subjects

II. Authors

III. Persons and Places

IV. Scripture References

V. Nonbiblical Texts

MAPS

PRINCIPAL ABBREVIATIONS

ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages

Akk. Akkadian

ANET (S) J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts (²1955, ³1969); Supplement (1969)

Arab. Arabic

ARAB D. D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 2 vols. (1926–27)

ARM Archives Royales de Mari

ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch

AV Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible

BA Biblical Archaeologist

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

E.T. English Translation

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

GNB Good News Bible

HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IB Interpreter’s Bible

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JA Journal Asiatique

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBC The Jerome Bible Commentary (1969)

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

KB Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros

LXX Septuagint

MT Masoretic Text

NBD J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary (1962)

NEB The New English Bible

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

OTS Oudtestamentische Studien

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

RB Revue Biblique

RHPR Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses

RSV Revised Standard Version of the Bible

RV Revised Version of the Bible

SVT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

Syr. Syriac

UF Ugarit-Forschungen

Ugar. Ugaritic

UT C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook

VT Vetus Testamentum

Vulg. Vulgate

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

The Book of

JEREMIAH

INTRODUCTION

I. JEREMIAH AMONG THE PROPHETS

It is not an empty truism to say that Jeremiah was one of the prophets of Yahweh in Israel, of whom there were a great number. The canonical books of the OT have preserved the memory of only a small number of them. But the biblical references to prophets are persistent over many centuries.

Leaving aside Moses, the first clear picture of prophecy in Israel comes from the age of Saul, some four hundred years before Jeremiah. In those years there were groups of prophets who travelled about delivering oracles at the request of those who sought them out (1 Sam. 10:5–13).¹ The behavior of these prophets seems to have been unusual, for they danced around to the accompaniment of music. Saul himself was seized by the Spirit and began to prophesy in their midst (1 Sam. 19:18–24). It was an ecstatic manifestation which was unusual and in later times was virtually unknown. Perhaps these were men who were stirred up in order to urge the nation to fight Yahweh’s holy war against his foes.²

Samuel himself is described as a man of God (1 Sam. 9:6–10) and a seer (rōʾeh, 1 Sam. 9:9). In the same general period we meet a man of God who came to Eli with a message from Yahweh (1 Sam. 2:27). By the age of David it is clear that a prophet like Nathan could rise to some prominence and become involved in the affairs of the nation. Nathan’s oracle to David (2 Sam. 7) promising him divine support and the establishment of his descendants on the throne of Israel was important for the whole future of Israel. Nathan also rebuked the king in the matter of Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12) and took part in the anointing of Solomon (1 K. 1:38–39). His contemporary, Gad, likewise brought an oracle from Yahweh to David (2 Sam. 24:10–19). In the days of Jeroboam I (c. 922–901 B.C.), Ahijah of Shiloh spoke of Jeroboam’s future position as a ruler of the northern part of the Israelite state, an encouragement to rebellion (1 K. 11:29–39). A nameless man of God also delivered a word from Yahweh to Jeroboam (1 K. 13), while in Judah Shemaiah, a man of God, forbade Rehoboam to fight Jeroboam (1 K. 12:22). Elijah and Elisha in the ninth century continued the tradition. Elijah appeared as the champion of Yahweh to challenge the priests of Baal (1 K. 18) at a time when Jezebel the queen sought to slay the prophets of Yahweh (1 K. 18:3, 4, 13). In those days the prophet Micaiah ben Imlah³ stood in Ahab’s court and prophesied disaster in sharp contrast to all the other prophets who prophesied victory for Ahab (1 K. 22:5–28). Elisha, who was Elijah’s protege and successor, was a strong nationalist at a time when Israel was beset by constant border clashes with the Arameans (2 K. 6:8–23; 13:14–19). Both he and Elijah were the leaders of bands of prophets (benê hanneḇî’îm, 2 K. 2:1–5; 9:1).

All these references are to prophets or men of God who addressed a word from Yahweh to the people of their day, often to men of importance like kings. It seems clear that there were numerous unnamed prophets as well as large groups of prophets who constituted a body of supporters of the Yahwistic religion. This was not unique; Baal too was served by groups of prophets (1 K. 18:19). But Yahweh’s prophets were quite specifically the spokesmen of Yahweh to his people.⁴ The question of whether they had some connection with the official cult in Israel need not occupy us here except to say that some like Ezekiel were priests, some may have had intercessory or teaching functions in the official cult, but many of them like Amos were free agents. Presumably they all regarded their work as a divine vocation and believed that they had been called to it, whether through some religious experience or as a consequence of family background. The precanonical prophets we have referred to above spoke to the people in terms both of salvation and judgment. One significant feature about these early prophets was that they established the principle that it was part of the prophetic calling to criticize the king and his policies in the light of ancient traditional beliefs and to seek to correct them, by political action if necessary. Nathan rebuked David (2 Sam. 12:1–14). So did Gad (2 Sam, 24). Ahijah was outraged by Solomon’s tyrannical practices and religious laxity and announced to Jeroboam the destruction of his kingdom (1 K. 11:26–40). Elijah challenged Ahab time and again and Elisha and his associates were implicated in the Jehu revolution (2 K. 9–10). By contrast, some of the prophets surrendered their independence and spoke to the king only the things that pleased him (e.g., 1 K. 22:5–6). As a result it sometimes happened, as it did in the case of Jeremiah, that prophet spoke against prophet (ch. 28). It would seem that the prophetic orders very often surrendered their original function and it was left to individuals to declare the word of Yahweh. This was true no less in the days of the precanonical prophets than in the days of the canonical prophets.

About the middle of the eighth century B.C., approximately a century before Jeremiah began his ministry, the prophetic movement in Israel entered a new phase. Henceforth prophets ministered to Israel but their words were carefully recorded, at least in part. In the first group of classical prophets were Amos and Hosea, whose ministry was largely to Northern Israel. These were followed after a short time by Isaiah and Micah, who preached mainly to Judah. None of these could be classed as a representative of the prophetic orders that had functioned up till then. Clearly Amos regarded himself as a prophet although he did not identify with any prophetic guild (Amos 7:14–15).⁵ Yet in a real sense Amos and his contemporaries continued an ancient tradition. They were not ecstatics but they sometimes performed symbolic acts. Isaiah gathered disciples (e.g., Isa. 8:16) but preached independently. They preached at sanctuaries, Amos at Bethel, Isaiah at Jerusalem. They may have used the language of the cult at times, but they did not speak officially in the name of the cult. They rebuked kings, as did Nathan and Elijah, for their crimes against the people. They attacked the worship of other gods than Yahweh as Elijah had done, and like him deplored empty rituals. It is clear that both Amos and Hosea held the tradition that Israel had become the people of Yahweh through divine election at the Exodus, and referred at times to the wilderness period (Amos 2:9–10; 9:7; Hos. 11:1; 12:9; 13:4; cf. Hos. 7:16; 8:13; 9:3, 10; 11:5). Both Hosea and Amos understood their own mission in the light of the particular privileges and responsibilities of Israel, the people to whom they preached. There was evidently no need to teach the people these facts as though they had never heard them. And when the prophets castigated the people because of their disloyalty and neglect of the obligations which lay upon them because of their privileged position, they were not preaching in a vacuum. Rather, the people were reminded of what they knew, or should have known.

Isaiah and Micah stressed another aspect of election, the divine choice of David and his dynasty to rule Yahweh’s elect people and the related choice of Mount Zion as the place where the Ark of the Covenant rested, the place where Yahweh’s dwelling place was to be found. Amos was not unaware of these traditions (Amos 1:2; 9:11–12).⁶ Isaiah, however, made a good deal of reference to them. Yahweh’s presence in Jerusalem was the hope for the future of Israel and the nations (Isa. 2:2–4). He would fight for Israel from Mount Zion (Isa. 14:32; 17:12–14; 28:14–18; 29:5–8). At the same time Isaiah could preach judgment against Judah (Isa. 1:21–26) and against Jerusalem (Isa. 29:1–4), a theme taken up by Micah (Mic. 3:9–12). The use by these eighth-century prophets of these traditions with their stress on the Exodus and on the covenant between Yahweh and the house of David points to ancient traditions which they inherited. There was, in fact, a double tradition of a covenant, the covenant of Sinai which brought Israel into its privileged position and laid a heavy obligation upon her, and the covenant which Yahweh made with the house of David (2 Sam. 7).⁷ Even though the term covenant is seldom used there is no escaping its reality, with its emphasis on the divine grace which originated it and the privilege and obligations resting on those who regarded themselves as members of the covenant family. The two covenants were not unrelated. In the age of David the older Sinai Covenant tradition was extended to provide a divine authorization for the new state with its territorial and political claims. The dual election of the Davidic house to rule over Israel and of Mount Zion to be Yahweh’s dwelling place was not intended to overshadow the Sinai Covenant. Indeed, the presence of the Ark of the Covenant in Jerusalem was a permanent reminder of the obligations of Israel to acknowledge Yahweh’s lordship and to obey his covenant law. There was uneasiness about the covenant between Yahweh and David, and also about the unique claims of Jerusalem among the northern tribes, because the doctrine seemed to overshadow the Sinaitic covenant. In Judah the two covenants existed side by side and had done so since David’s time. But the double tradition was the cause of a great deal of tension over the centuries, and part of the prophetic task was to remind the people of the primacy of the Sinai Covenant.⁸

There was another aspect to the doctrine of covenant which loomed large in the prophets of the eighth century, namely, the obligations imposed upon the nation and upon individuals in the nation. These were expressed in the basic covenant law. Behind these prophets we must certainly recognize the existence of a well-developed tradition of law which embraced the whole area of Israelite life. There were ethical claims upon Israel of the strongest kind. When that law was held lightly and openly disregarded, Israel placed herself under the judgment of that law. Failure to fulfil the demands of the covenant law would result in the divine judgment falling on the offenders. Instead of the law being a guide to national welfare and happiness it became a curse and a threat to national existence.

The greatest offense of all was the rejection of Yahweh himself as Israel’s sovereign Lord. There could be no shared allegiance between Yahweh and any other god. The cry of Elijah was If Yahweh be God, follow him (1 K. 18:21). The spirit of that cry, if not the exact words, is found again and again in the prophets of Israel. To worship any other god was to violate Yahweh’s covenant and to lay oneself open to Yahweh’s wrath. All the eighth-century prophets gave warning of judgment to come, not in some distant future but in the context of historical events. At the same time they looked beyond judgment to a better future.

It was against the background of a long prophetic tradition that Jeremiah was called to preach. Like his predecessors he had a profound sense of divine vocation, of being called even before his birth. He felt the divine hand upon his life and knew that the divine word had been placed in his mouth. When he spoke he could say, This is what Yahweh has said, or he even spoke in Yahweh’s name using the first person I. Like his contemporaries and predecessors he drew upon the great traditions of the past such as Israel’s election in the Exodus period (2:2–8; 7:21–22; 16:14–15; 23:7–8; 31:31–34) and Yahweh’s covenant with the house of David (23:5–6; cf. 22:30). He was deeply aware of the demands of the covenant and the dangers that lay in the breach of covenant law. For him there was no God but Yahweh. Any kind of syncretism was intolerable and fraught with great peril, the peril of divine judgment. He rejected every glib attitude, every wanton disregard of the divine law, every false and immoral trust in a cult or a temple (7:1–15; 25:1–29). He took up much of the symbolism of Hosea. Like Hosea⁹ he depicted the relationship between Yahweh and Israel as a marriage relationship (2:2; 3:6–14) and called Israel Yahweh’s sons (3:19, 22; 4:22). Like Hosea he traced this relationship back to the Exodus and the deliverance from Egypt (2:6). Like Hosea he limited the period of unclouded fellowship between Israel and Yahweh to the days of Moses and the desert period (7:22). It was in the land that apostasy began (2:7), and he described that apostasy in natural rather than historical terms (2:2–3, 7–8; 3:19–20; 8:4–7). Like his predecessors he saw that the only possibility of escape from the impending disaster lay in repentance and return to Yahweh (e.g., 3:6–13; 3:21–4:2; 4:3–4; 23:3–7).

There is much else that might be said about Jeremiah and this will emerge in the commentary. He was a prominent representative of one of the most remarkable groups of men in the whole of history, the prophets of Israel, whose words have come down the centuries. Though addressed to specific situations in an ancient past, their words still nurture the faith of many and bring instruction, courage, and inspiration to a better life. Somehow the specific words of Jeremiah, addressed to specific situations at the end of the seventh and the early part of the sixth centuries B.C., come alive as guidelines for believers in every age. It is a fruitless endeavor to try to defend the proposition that Jeremiah spoke a true word from God. For Jeremiah there was no doubt. If we would understand him we need to take up a position alongside him and read his utterances with both empathy and sympathy.

II. JEREMIAH IN HIS HISTORICAL SETTING

The prophets were not merely religious teachers or philosophers in the abstract, but saw themselves as the messengers of God commissioned to convey to the people of their own day the word that God had given them. They had a specific message to a specific people at a specific point in history. It was a message which would interpret the events through which their people were passing, or would pass, in the light of the demands and promises which God had given to their people. Clearly, this dimension of a prophet’s ministry cannot be understood unless the historical background of his times is known.

The book of Jeremiah makes contact with historical events at many points. In many cases precise dates and otherwise known events are referred to. It was Jeremiah’s responsibility to proclaim a message about nations and kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant (1:10). It was an age of crises. As Jeremiah began to preach, the Assyrian empire was in decay. At the collapse of Assyria, Egypt, and then Babylon, the kingdom of the Medes stood waiting to pick the spoils of war. Judah herself was caught up in the drama. To begin she was nominally a vassal of Assyria, then for a brief period independent, then a vassal of Egypt, and finally a vassal of Babylon, under whom Judah lost even her identity as a nation when Nebuchadrezzar took her king into exile and destroyed her city and temple. Jeremiah lived through all this, and much of the drama of those years is reflected in his book. It was a time of agony for Jeremiah himself and for his people. Anyone who attempts to read the book without knowing something of the times will be more bewildered than ever. The arrangement of the book is complex and the variety of materials is considerable. If one lacks any sort of historical anchorage as well, the book is a bewildering one.

We have a good deal of biblical material to help fill in some of the historical background to Jeremiah. There are the narratives in 2 K. 21–25, supplemented by the account in 2 Chr. 33–36. Further material is available from the books of contemporary prophets Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Ezekiel. Then we have the Babylonian Chronicle for the years 617 B.C. on. Archeological discoveries of one kind and another, including some small but important written items, add to our knowledge. There are, alas, many gaps in our knowledge in spite of these sources, but such information as we have enables us to make some headway in understanding the period.

It will help our understanding of this complex period if we systematize our discussion under six sections: (i) Judah up to the accession of Josiah in 640 B.C.; (ii) the nations at the time of Assyrian power; (iii) Josiah’s reign 640–609 B.C. and the final collapse of Assyria; (iv) from Josiah’s death to the fall of Jerusalem in 597 B.C.; (v) the period 597–587 B.C.; (vi) post 587 B.C.

A. JUDAH UP TO THE ACCESSION OF JOSIAH IN 640 B.C.

If the date at which Jeremiah commenced his ministry¹ was the thirteenth year of Josiah (1:6), i.e., 627 B.C. when he was a mere lad of 16 to 18 years of age, his birth may be set toward the end of the reign of the notorious Manasseh (687–642 B.C.). He would have known nothing at first hand about Manasseh, of whom the writer of 2 Kings said that he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the abominable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel (2 K. 21:2). In many ways Manasseh, the grandfather of Josiah, was the catalyst to many of the evils in Judah to which Jeremiah drew attention in his preaching. In his day Judah was a vassal state of Assyria, and had been since 732 B.C. A brief review of the history of Judah from the death of Solomon in about 922 B.C. to the accession of Josiah in 740 B.C. will help to explain how it was that Manasseh behaved as he did and why it was that Josiah was seen in such sharp contrast.

After the death of Solomon his kingdom fell apart into two rival states, Israel and Judah, with two capitals, Samaria and Jerusalem, two administrations, two armies, and two kinds of religious practice. Of the two, Israel was the larger and the wealthier state. The two states were kingdoms so that there were two kings in this tiny area. For almost two hundred years they coexisted, sometimes at war and sometimes living on peaceful terms. They lived independently and fought their own wars with their neighbors. Sometimes they had to pay dearly because of enemy invasion but maintained their independence till the middle of the eighth century. Both experienced an Egyptian invasion. Israel suffered from the Arameans a good deal. Judah was troubled by Edomites, Israel by Moab. But it was a world in which no great empire forced its control on Western Asia. Only Assyria gave signs of rising to become a great power, and during the ninth century probed into areas to her west to be resisted by coalitions of small states. King Ahab of Israel was involved in the battle of Qarqar with eleven other kings in 853 B.C., against Shalmaneser III (859–825 B.C.).² During the first half of the eighth century B.C., a period of Assyrian withdrawal to defend her own frontiers to the north and a time when Aramean states to Israel’s northeast were at war with one another, both Israel and Judah prospered greatly. The prophet Amos was active toward the end of this period.

But all changed with the rise of the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 B.C.) just over a century before Jeremiah lived. It was a vital century which saw the introduction into Israel and Judah of a great many political and religious problems. When Tiglath-pileser turned westward the small nations tended to group as of old into coalitions. One such coalition was formed by Rezin of the Aramean state of Damascus and Pekah ben Remaliah (737–632 B.C.), who had usurped the throne of Israel from the previous king. These two sought to draw Ahaz king of Judah (735–715 B.C.) into the coalition. Ahaz refused and his land was invaded. His throne was threatened, for Pekah and Rezin planned to replace him with a certain Tabeel. In his helplessness he appealed for help to Tiglath-pileser against the advice of Isaiah (Isa. 7:1–8:18). Ahaz persisted in his plan and sent a large gift to the Assyrian king (2 K. 16:7–8), who acted promptly. He fell upon the coalition, marched into Israel, overran Israelite lands in Galilee and Transjordan and turned them into three Assyrian provinces, and finally destroyed Damascus in 732 B.C. But Judah thereby became a vassal of Assyria and remained so till Assyria herself collapsed.

As a result of Ahaz’ policy Judah was compelled to undertake the obligations of a normal vassal, which involved the paying of tribute and the recognition of Assyria’s gods in the temple in Jerusalem. Ahaz was obliged to appear before Tiglath-pileser in Damascus and to pay homage to the Assyrian gods at a bronze altar that stood there. A copy of this altar was then made and set up in the Jerusalem temple (2 K. 16:10–15). It was a humiliating position and not likely to win the approval of the people of Judah. But Judah was spared military occupation and even loss of their territory as had happened to Israel and Damascus. Perhaps this submission helped Judah escape the fate of Samaria in 722/1 B.C. when, because of renewed rebellion, Tiglath-pileser’s successor Shalmaneser V (727–722 B.C.) invaded Israel.

Ahaz’ son Hezekiah (715–687 B.C.) probably reflected the discontent of many in the nation and he took steps to reverse his father’s policy, undertaking sweeping religious reforms and making a sufficient display of his desire to regain the independence of Judah to draw the attention of the Assyrian ruler Sennacherib (705–681 B.C.) in 701. Hezekiah was encouraged by unrest all over the empire and seems to have joined a coalition of states in open rebellion. In a strong campaign, his third to the west, Sennacherib ousted the opposition, besieged Jerusalem, forced Hezekiah’s surrender, and laid a heavy tribute on Judah (2 K. 18:9–19:37). Hezekiah’s efforts to break free from Assyria failed. After his death, his son Manasseh (687–642 B.C.) once again led Judah to the position of a loyal vassal state of Assyria. He probably had no choice. During the period of his reign Assyria attained her height. Sennacherib’s successors Esarhaddon (681–669 B.C.) and Ashurbanipal (669–627 B.C.) were able to invade Egypt and even to sack the ancient capital Thebes in 663 B.C.

Manasseh in Judah returned to the pro-Assyrian policy of his grandfather Ahaz. This involved not merely political subservience but also some recognition of the gods of Assyria. But he went much further than this and seems to have opened the door to all kinds of religious practices of an irregular kind. He cancelled the reform measures of Hezekiah, allowed the restoration of local shrines, gave full rein to pagan practices of all kinds, tolerated the fertility cult with its sacred prostitution in the very temple precincts (2 K. 21:4–7; Zeph. 1:4–5). Even the cult of Molech which practiced human sacrifice was allowed (2 K. 21:6), Old Canaanite practices, the worship of Baal, the erection of an Asherah, the worship of astral deities, and a host of other practices which were an offense to all true Yahwists were unleashed in Judah once again. All this led to a blurring of the distinction between Yahwism and paganism, and to a wholesale disregard of covenant law. Indeed, the tolerance of all these pagan practices was tantamount to a rejection of the sole sovereignty of Yahweh, Israel’s covenant God. Once the law of the covenant was rejected violence and injustice abounded (2 K. 21:16). The later editors of the books of Kings saw in the enormity of Manasseh’s misdeeds an adequate explanation for the judgment that befell the nation (2 K. 21:9–15; 24:3–4).

It was conditions like these which prevailed when Jeremiah was called to preach. Manasseh’s long reign ended in 642 B.C. His son Amon evidently followed his father’s policy but reigned only briefly (642–640 B.C.) before being assassinated, probably by high officials who may have been trying to organize an anti-Assyrian revolt. The assassins were executed and the eight-year-old Josiah, grandson of the notorious Manasseh, was placed on the throne. In his day Judah’s independence became a fact. The accession of Josiah heralded a new age in all kinds of ways. It was, in particular, the period when Jeremiah commenced his ministry.

B. THE NATIONS IN THE DAYS OF ASSYRIAN POWER

Assyria’s power began to wane after the death of Ashurbanipal in 627 B.C., the year in which Jeremiah began his career as a prophet.³ But it is important to understand something of the story of other nations during the seventh century B.C., since this may throw light on some of the references to these nations in the book of Jeremiah, particularly in the section comprising oracles addressed to the nations—Egypt, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Arab tribes, Elam, and Babylon (chs. 46–51).

At her greatest extent Assyria held sway from Egypt to Lake Van and Lake Urmia and from the Mediterranean Sea to regions to the east of the Tigris River. Such a vast area was beyond her control permanently, and it is little wonder that at about the time of Jeremiah’s birth there were signs of collapse. Peoples on her northern and eastern frontiers had become a major threat.

To the northwest lay the Gimirrai people of whom we hear nothing in Jeremiah. The Urartu people in the region of Lake Van were a continuing problem. Late in the ninth century, Shamshi-adad I (824–812 B.C.) had to withdraw from activities to the west to contain the Urartu people. It was continuing pressure from the Urartu that kept Assyria away from the Aramean and Phoenician and Israelite areas early in the eighth century. The Urartu were expanding to the east and to the west and trying to extend southward into northern Syria. It was Tiglath-pileser (745–727 B.C.) who crushingly defeated the Urartian king Sardur II and besieged his capital. The Urartu people ceased to be a rival to Assyria when Sargon II (721–705 B.C.) broke their power completely. In doing so he removed a useful buffer between Assyria and the Indo-Aryan barbarians, the Cimmerians, who were moving down from the Caucasus. There is a reference to Urartu under the name Ararat in 51:27.⁴

A second group that became a serious problem was the Medes (51:11, 28), one of the more significant of the Indo-Aryan peoples. The annals of Shalmaneser III (859–825 B.C.) and Shamshiadad V (824–12 B.C.) give the first references to the Medes, who settled in the area of northwestern Iran. Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 B.C.) campaigned against the Medes in northern Iran as far as Mount Demavend, south of the Caspian Sea. Sargon II (721–705 B.C.) had troubles with Medean chiefs southeast of Lake Urmia. According to 2 K. 17:24 he deported some of the people of Samaria to Media. Tiglath-pileser (745–727 B.C.) had further campaigns in northwestern Iran and established Assyrian control there. The Medes were to play a prominent role in the destruction of Assyria before another century had passed. The last important king of Assyria, Ashurbanipal (668–627 B.C.), actually allied with the Scythians against the Medes and the Cimmerians.

The Cimmerians and Scythians were two other barbarian groups. The Cimmerians were an Indo-Aryan group who moved down from the Caucasus in the late eighth century B.C. and settled in large parts of eastern Anatolia. They ravaged Urartu in the reign of Sargon II (721–705 B.C.), then pressed on into Asia Minor and destroyed the kingdom of Midas in Phrygia. Other Cimmerians settled in northwestern Iran. Both Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal had campaigns against them, but they remained as a threat on the borders of Assyria.

The Scythians are of particular interest since earlier commentators on Jeremiah identified the foe from the north in the early chapters of the book with this group. Esarhaddon (680–669 B.C.) allied with Scythians to contain the Cimmerians and Medes. The Greek historian Herodotus⁵ tells of a Scythian invasion of Western Asia, probably about 625 B.C., at the time when Assyria was starting to collapse. But the significance of Herodotus’ remark is not at all clear, and even if there was a Scythian irruption into Palestine the description of the foe from the north in the early chapters of Jeremiah is far too orderly for a marauding horde of barbarians.⁶ The Scythians helped the Assyrians beat off a Medean attack in about 625 B.C. The Ashkenaz (= Ashguzai) of 51:27 may have been the Scythians.⁷

The Elamites (49:34–39) constituted a problem to the east of Babylonia. Already in the third millennium B.C. they were a power to be reckoned with. They enter the horizon of this review in the days of Sargon II (721–705 B.C.) about a century before the fall of Nineveh. The Chaldean prince Marduk-apal-iddina, the Merodach-baladan of the Bible (2 K. 20:12; Isa. 39:1), had the help of Elam in his revolt against Assyria. It was some years before the Assyrians could drive him out of Babylonia. In about 694/3 B.C. there was another revolt, again with the assistance of Elam, and when Sennacherib moved to quell it in 691 B.C. he was met with a coalition of Babylonians, Elamites, and others, who defeated him in battle. The incident may have encouraged others in the empire to revolt, e.g., Hezekiah (2 K. 18:9). At the same time Egypt was in revolt to the west. Later, Ashurbanipal (668–627 B.C.), after quelling yet another revolt in Babylonia, turned on Elam, took Susa the capital, and brought the Elamite state to an end about 640 B.C., deporting and resettling some of the citizens in Samaria (Ezra 4:9ff.).⁸

Further west the Arab tribes were likely to pose a problem at any time (49:28–33). Assyrian records show that Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon all had contact with Arab tribes and took away their gods and booty.⁹ When Ashurbanipal’s brother, who ruled in Babylon, rebelled in 642 B.C., Arab tribes of the Syrian desert seized the opportunity to overrun Assyrian vassal states in eastern Palestine from Edom and Moab northward, spreading havoc everywhere. It was a disaster from which Moab seems never to have fully recovered. Some of the poems of ch. 48 may have been produced at the time and were re-used later.

Moab, Edom, and Ammon were within the orbit of Assyrian control and are referred to in Assyrian texts¹⁰ from the time of Adadnirari III (801–783 B.C.) to Ashurbanipal (668–627 B.C.). They, too, were likely to be drawn into anti-Assyrian coalitions, and later, anti-Babylonian coalitions (ch. 27).

One of the most troublesome of the nations that lay on the frontiers of Assyria’s empire was Egypt. Over the centuries Egypt regarded Western Asia as an area in which she might exercise some control, and she encouraged many revolts in this area. An Egyptian army was lurking on the borders of Palestine not long after the fall of Samaria, and in 720 B.C. Sargon crushed an Egyptian force which had come to assist the Philistine city of Gaza. By 716 B.C. an Ethiopian founded the Twenty-fifth Dynasty in Egypt, and by 710/9 B.C. all Egypt was united under his control. This gave Assyrian vassals of the west some hope of Egyptian help in case of an uprising. Ashdod rebelled in 714 B.C. but was soon crushed. Egypt provided no help. When Hezekiah of Judah was under attack from Sennacherib in 701 B.C. Tirhakah of Egypt marched to help him (2 K. 19:9). The result of the encounter of Assyria with Egypt is not known, but Jerusalem was preserved and Sennacherib returned home where he was later murdered (2 K. 19:37).¹¹ A younger son, Esarhaddon (680–669 B.C.), returned to deal with Egypt, which was still encouraging rebellion in Western Asia. Eventually in 671 B.C. his troops routed Tirhakah and occupied Memphis. Local Egyptian princes accepted Assyrian overlordship. Tirhakah stirred up more trouble and Ashurbanipal (668–627 B.C.) crushed the rebellion in 667 B.C., took Egyptian princes to Nineveh as captives, but spared Necho of Sais and his son Psammetichus. When trouble broke out again the Assyrians marched south as far as Thebes, the ancient capital, and destroyed it in 663 B.C. (cf. Nah. 3:8). This display of Assyrian might made Manasseh king of Judah (687/6–642 B.C.) less inclined to rebel. He lived through those years. But the days were drawing in for Assyria. In Egypt, when Psammetichus I (664–610 B.C.), whom Assyria spared as a boy, became a local ruler, he extended his control gradually and about 655 B.C. withheld tribute; and Ashurbanipal was in no position to deal with him because of troubles nearer home. The son of Psammetichus, Necho II (610–594 B.C.), was to prove a friend to Assyria in her dying agonies.

Finally we should take a brief glimpse at events in Babylonia, which had been under Assyrian domination. It was Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 B.C.) who brought Babylonia under Assyrian control. In 729 B.C. he took the throne of Babylonia himself and ruled under the name Pulu (2 K. 15:19). Sargon II (721–705 B.C.) had scarcely ascended the throne of Assyria when the Chaldean prince Marduk-apal-iddina (Merodach-baladan, 2 K. 20:12; Isa. 39:1), assisted by Elam, seized Babylonia and defeated Sargon’s army so that Assyria lost control for a dozen years before Sargon regained control. Then under Sennacherib (704–681 B.C.) Marduk-apal-iddina again seized Babylon with the help of Elam until he was thrown out in 702 B.C. In such uncertain years revolt was in the air. Hezekiah of Judah also rebelled. In the days of Manasseh of Judah, Esarhaddon the Assyrian ruler (680–669 B.C.) stabilized the situation in Babylon and restored the city and the temple of Marduk destroyed by his father. But unrest continued in Babylonia. In the days when Shamash-shumukin ruled as deputy for his brother Ashurbanipal, he rebelled with the support of the Chaldean population of the area, the Elamites, and others. The revolt was quelled by Ashurbanipal in 648 B.C. after a two-year struggle. On the surface it seems that Ashurbanipal’s campaigns during these years reduced Babylon, Elam, and the Arab tribes, and Assyria was able to enjoy a measure of peace for a few years. But when he died in 627 B.C. Assyria failed rapidly. These were critical years in Judah. Manasseh (687/6–642 B.C.) had proved a loyal vassal of three Assyrian kings. His son Amon (642–640 B.C.) followed in his steps. Josiah (640–609 B.C.) was cast in a different mold. He was only eight years old when he became king. When Ashurbanipal died in 627 B.C., Josiah was twenty-one and ready to lead Judah to independence from Assyria, whose far-flung empire was collapsing everywhere.

C. JOSIAH’S REIGN, 640–609 B.C., AND THE FINAL COLLAPSE OF ASSYRIA

Josiah quickly became emboldened to express his independence of Assyria. Ashurbanipal’s son Sin-shar-ishkun was co-regent with his father 629–627 B.C. When his father died there was general rebellion and civil war in Assyria, which seems to have lasted about four years (627–624 B.C.). This weakened Assyria still further. The Medes made an assault on Nineveh which was repelled with the help of the Scythians. The Median king Phraortes was slain. Within a few years his son Cyaxares (c. 625–585 B.C.) defeated the Assyrian army near Babylon and seized the throne. Hence by about 625 B.C. it was clear that Assyria could no longer survive.

In Judah we may assume that a Council of State cared for the affairs of state while Josiah was a child. In the eighth year of his reign he began to seek the God of David his father (2 Chr. 34:3a), that is, when he was sixteen. This may be an indication of his intention to change the direction of national policy in Judah as soon as he was able. In the twelfth year of his reign (629/8 B.C.) he began to act by commencing some sweeping reforms (2 Chr. 34:3b–7). This would coincide in time with the accession of Sin-shar-ishkun to the throne of Assyria. Josiah moved into areas which had been Assyrian provinces for a century or more, namely, Samaria and Gilead, and even reached the Mediterranean Sea.¹² But there was no Assyrian resistance.

The account of Josiah’s reform is given in 2 K. 22–23 and 2 Chr. 34–35. The accounts differ somewhat and the exact chronology of events escapes us, although the reform no doubt took some time. The reform was already well in progress before the law book was found in the temple in 622 B.C. This discovery did not spark off the reform but certainly gave impetus to the program.

In its initial stages the reform was concerned with the purging of foreign cults of all kinds both in the Jerusalem temple and further afield. The repairs to the temple (2 K. 22:3–7) no doubt involved the removal of evidences of Assyrian religion, notably the bronze altar (2 K. 17:12–16). But all the paraphernalia of the foreign cults and practices, the solar and astral cults largely of Mesopotamian origin (2 K. 23:4–5, 11–12), the native pagan cults, some introduced by Manasseh (2 K. 23:6, 10) and some more ancient (vv. 13–14), were removed. The personnel associated with these cults were put to death. Divination and magic were banned. The cult places in Northern Israel were likewise destroyed (2 K. 23:15–20) as far north as Galilee (2 Chr. 34:6). In Judah itself Yahweh shrines throughout the land were closed and all public worship was centralized in Jerusalem. Country priests were invited to come to Jerusalem and take their place among the priests there (2 K. 23:8).

It was in the course of these sweeping reforms that the book of the law was found in the temple in Jerusalem. There is good reason to think that this book was some form of the book of Deuteronomy¹³ or of the Covenant Law, since a number of Josiah’s actions are consistent with the requirements of Deuteronomy: centralization of the cult, the concentration of the priests at the central sanctuary (e.g., Deut. 12:13–14, 17–18; 18:6–8), the rejection of idolatry (Deut. 13) and the operation of the death penalty for idolaters, Josiah’s concern about curses that may fall on the nation (2 K. 22:11–13). We ought not to accept the view that the teaching of Deuteronomy was something new. Even if it reached its final form in the period preceding the reform, its teaching and much of its content were ancient. It would be impossible to say how this homiletical presentation of covenant law came into being since it was the result of a long period of transmission. Some have argued¹⁴ that it stemmed originally from Northern Israel and had come to Jerusalem after the fall of Samaria, where, at some time between the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, it was completed. The truth of the matter cannot be known. But the heart of Deuteronomy was not a completely new law. It was known in Israel for centuries past with roots going back to Moses. It was the covenant law of Yahweh, who alone was Israel’s sovereign Lord. Israel must worship him alone and no other. She must obey his law or face destruction.

The reform was comprehensive and far-reaching. But there were other factors than the religious one. The reform was a principal expression of a resurgent nationalism. Subservience to the Assyrians resulted in the syncretism of Ahaz and Manasseh. Nationalists like Hezekiah and Josiah sought to reverse Assyrian domination, and as part of that to remove religious symbols from the temple which reminded the people of their subservience to Assyria. Josiah’s annexation of Northern Israel gave political expression to a renewed nationalism. Political unification and cultic unification went hand in hand. There may have been another factor too in the form of a general world anxiety and a sense of impending doom.¹⁵ Perhaps the revival of prophetic preaching after a comparatively long gap had something to do with the unease of the times. The nations were passing through a period of unrest. Some, at least, in Judah were well aware of the religious apostasy and syncretism of the times. We sense that there were those in the nation who kept alive the pure faith of Yahweh. In that setting the canonical prophets Jeremiah,Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk arose. Our present concern is with Jeremiah, but his contemporary Zephaniah also attacked Judah for the religious and moral decay which Manasseh had allowed to flourish. It was a rebellion against Yahweh which could only result in a display of his wrath (e.g., Zeph. 1:4–6, 8–9, 12; 3:1–4, 11). Judgment was at hand (1:2–3, 7, 14–18) and repentance was called for (2:13). The reforms of Josiah gave hope of a change, and both Zephaniah and Jeremiah were in favor of the reform program, even though Jeremiah discovered later that it was all too temporary and superficial. Josiah’s reforms went on while Assyria slowly collapsed. Unfortunately we have little information about the latter years of Josiah’s reign between the finding of the book of the law in 622 and his death in 609 B.C. The prophets Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk give a glimpse of prophetic activity and most commentators allow that at least some of Jeremiah’s preaching came from Josiah’s day.¹⁶ But externally things moved rapidly. Nabopolassar the Chaldean, who drove the Assyrians from Babylon in 626 B.C.,¹⁷ was ready to attack the heart of the Assyrian homelands by 616 B.C., and he advanced far up to the Euphrates and defeated the Assyrians in that year. At that stage the Egyptian ruler Psammetichus I (664–610 B.C.), who had once been spared by the Assyrians, and probably fearing that the rising Babylonians and Medes would be a greater danger than a weak Assyria, determined to help Assyria. By 616 B.C. there was an Egyptian army in Assyria in time to check Nabopolassar’s further advance.

By then the Medes began to press in on the east and in 614 B.C. Cyaxares took Ashur, the ancient Assyrian capital. Nabopolassar’s army arrived too late to help but the two rulers made a formal treaty. Two years later in 612 B.C. the two allies attacked Nineveh and took it after a three-month siege. The new Assyrian ruler Ashuruballit II fled west to Haran after Sinsharishkun had perished in the flames of the burning city. In 609 B.C. the Babylonians, assisted by the Umman Manda peoples (possibly the Scythians and other Indo-Aryan groups) took Haran despite the Egyptian presence. Ashur-uballit retired beyond the Euphrates to the Egyptians. An attempt to retake Haran in 609 B.C. failed. Assyria’s days were over.¹⁸

We know virtually nothing concerning Judah during these dramatic years. What steps Josiah took to maintain the momentum of the reform we do not know. Presumably he preserved all his gains while he lived. But it was, of course, an imposed reform, and we may well wonder whether the great bulk of the people underwent any change in heart at all. To judge from Jeremiah’s later preaching many of them did not, and once Josiah passed from the scene they reverted to their old ways under Jehoiakim. One cannot change people’s hearts by government regulation. No doubt there were many good results in areas of national morality and justice. The abolition of pagan cults would have been a moral and spiritual benefit. But there were, no doubt, problems too. The closing of the country shrines created problems for the country priests, and many village people were deprived of at least some form of public worship. The temple in Jerusalem gained in prestige, but participation in the official services in the temple led to complacency and under the cover of religious observances many people indulged in blatant violations of covenant law (7:1–15, cf. vv. 21–31). A man like Jeremiah saw through the whole sham of external conformity without inward change, and as the years went by he became disillusioned. Alongside increased cultic activity (6:16–21) was ingrained rebellion (7:1–5; 8:4–9). There was also a smug complacency arising out of Yahweh’s having given the people a new independence and having preserved the temple, the king, and the state. Somehow they believed that the whole scandalous eclipse of religion and state hardly mattered since Yahweh guaranteed the inviolability of both temple and state. The death of Josiah came as a rude shock, but not of such a kind as to lead the nation to repentance.

D. FROM JOSIAH’S DEATH TO THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN 597 B.C.

For reasons that are not clear, Josiah opposed the passage of Pharaoh Necho II through Palestine on his way to bring help to the Assyrians (2 K. 23:29–30; 2 Chr. 35:20–24). At Megiddo, now part of the territory of a reunited Israel, Josiah was killed in battle. Perhaps he feared an Assyrian-Egyptian victory which would have placed him at the mercy of Egypt. Necho marched on Carchemish on the Euphrates to help Ashuru-ballit in his attempt to recapture Haran from the Babylonians. What Josiah feared took place. Judah fell under Egyptian control. As for Assyria, she could not be saved. Her great empire was carved up as the Medes extended their control through areas to the north and east of Assyria in Iran, Armenia, and Asia Minor, Babylon took the whole of the Mesopotamian plain, and Egypt held areas to the west of the Euphrates including Palestine.

On Josiah’s death his son Jehoahaz became king (2 K. 23:31). After three months he was summoned to Riblah by Necho, and sent in bonds to Egypt (22:10–12; 2 K. 23:31–35). His brother Eliakim, assuming the throne name Jehoiakim, was set in his place as an Egyptian vassal. Judah was laid under heavy tribute (2 K. 23:34–35). Judah’s short independence of twenty years was ended.

Pharaoh Necho was able to hold his position in Western Asia for a few years until the Babylonians were ready to challenge him. During 608/7 and 607/6 B.C. Nabopolassar campaigned in the Armenian mountains, no doubt to secure this northern flank. Egyptians and Babylonians made raids across the Euphrates on one another, the Egyptians seeking a bridgehead north of Carchemish from which to attack the Egyptians and the Egyptians counter-attacking to prevent this.

Meantime Jehoiakim remained a loyal vassal of Egypt. He was a poor replacement for Josiah. He was personally extravagant and built a fine palace with forced labor (22:13–19).¹⁹ He allowed Josiah’s reform to lapse and played into the hands of those who had always opposed it. There may not have been the excesses of Manasseh’s reign but popular pagan practices were introduced again (7:16–18; 11:9–13; Ezek. 8). Public morality deteriorated (5:26–29; 7:1–15). Prophets who resisted these tendencies were harassed and even put to death (26:20–23). Despite this, priests and prophets continued to assure the people that all was well (5:12; 7:4; 14:13; etc.). Jeremiah’s exposure of the evil of all this led him into deep personal persecution, even in his own village Anathoth (11:18–23).

In 605 B.C. Judah was again at the crossroads. In that year Nebuchadrezzar fell upon the Egyptian garrison at Carchemish and routed it (46:2ff.). The Egyptians fled, pursued by the Babylonians. They were defeated again at Hamath²⁰ and the way lay open to Syria and Palestine. Nebuchadrezzar could not take advantage of the opportunity at once since his father’s death in August 605 B.C. required his return to Babylon to assume the throne. By the end of 604 B.C. the Babylonians were in the Philistine plain where they took and destroyed Ashkelon (47:5–7) and deported leading members of the city’s population. Consternation overtook Judah, and the fast of December 604 B.C. (36:9) may have been one result. But some of the prophetic utterances of the day also throw light on Judah’s concern (5:15–17; 6:22–26; Hab. 1:5–11; etc). Jehoiakim transferred his allegiance to Nebuchadrezzar and became his vassal (2 K. 24:1). Once again Judah was subject to a Mesopotamian power. It seems clear that Jehoiakim’s loyalty was not with Nebuchadrezzar, however. He hoped for rescue from Egypt but lay quiet meanwhile. Later in 601 B.C. Nebuchadrezzar moved against Egypt but suffered badly in a battle against Necho near the Egyptian border and did not campaign the next year, 600/599 B.C., at least in that area. Jehoiakim rebelled (2 K. 24:1) and Nebuchadrezzar sent a punitive force of some Babylonians along with guerrilla bands (35:11; 2 K. 24:2). But in December 598 B.C. the Babylonian army set out again. That very month Jehoiakim died; since he was a rebel against Babylon he may have been assassinated (22:18–19; 36:30) in the hope that Judah might be treated lightly. Perhaps she was, for the capital city was not destroyed. The new king, the eighteen-year-old Jehoiachin (2 K. 24:8), was taken captive after a mere three months on the throne, along with the queen mother, state officials and leading citizens, and a vast booty (2 K. 24:10–17). The king’s uncle Mattaniah (Zedekiah) was installed as ruler (2 K. 24:17–18). The exact date of the fall of Jerusalem is attested in the Babylonian Chronicle. It was the second day of Adar, 15/16th March 597 B.C.²¹ Had Judah learned her lesson then, she might have been spared the disaster of 587 B.C.

E. THE PERIOD 597–587 B.C.

Zedekiah’s reign (597–587 B.C.) proved that Judah had not learned her lesson, and within ten years she was destroyed. Babylon was too powerful to permit any light assessment of Judah’s obligations to her. The deportation of 597 B.C., though not large, was significant, for it removed many of Judah’s key personnel.²² Those who now led the government were ultranationalists lacking in both experience and caution. Zedekiah was young (2 K. 24:18) and may have wished for better things; more than once he consulted Jeremiah (37:17–21; 38:7–28; cf. 21:1–7; 37:3). But he was too weak to control the officials and too fearful of public opinion (38:5, 19, 24). Moreover, it seems clear that many in Judah still regarded Jehoiachin as king²³ and hoped for his speedy return (ch. 27). Prophets forecast that the exile would be over in two years (28:2–4). Jeremiah spoke of seventy years. Plots were the order of the day. In 595/4 B.C. there had been an uprising in Babylon²⁴ in which some of the exiles may have been implicated (29:20–23). Then in 594/3 B.C., in Zedekiah’s fourth year, plans for revolt were discussed among the small states in the west, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon, and Judah (27:3). Prophets in both places were encouraging revolt (29:20–23; 28:2–4). The plans for rebellion in the west were abandoned, and it seems possible that Zedekiah sent envoys to Babylon (29:3) or even went himself (51:59) to assure Nebuchadrezzar of his loyalty. But this was not the end of plans for rebellion. By 589 B.C. Judah was again speaking of revolt. They may have been encouraged by some alliance with Pharaoh Hophra (Apries, 589–570 B.C.), who was again interfering in Asia. It may be that Tyre and Ammon were involved, for Nebuchadrezzar attacked Tyre after the fall of Jerusalem and Ammon’s involvement may be inferred from Ezek. 21:18–32 and Jer. 40:13–41:15. Edom was not involved since she was an ally of Babylon (Obad. 10–14). Finally Zedekiah rebelled (2 K. 25:1).

The response of Babylon was prompt. By autumn of 589 B.C. their army was in Palestine and by January 588 B.C. Jerusalem was under siege. The Babylonians did not attack the city at once but slowly eliminated the fortified cities throughout Judah. We have two glimpses into the progress of the action in the country areas. From 34:6–7 we learn that only Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) and Azekah (Tell ez-Zakariyah) remained. And from ostraca found in excavations at Lachish,²⁵ ostracon IV seems to indicate that only Lachish remained when this letter was written. Ostracon VI, incidentally, refers to the fact that officials in Jerusalem had weakened the hands (i.e., the morale) of the people; cf. 38:4.

Hope of relief came in the summer of 588 B.C. when an Egyptian army entered the land. Another Lachish letter (III) tells of the visit of the commander of the Judean army to Egypt about that time. At Jerusalem the Babylonians raised the siege in order to meet the Egyptian threat (37:5). One senses in Jeremiah that hopes were high in the city (34:8–11; 37:3–10). Jeremiah warned the people against undue optimism since the city was doomed. In a very brief time, perhaps only a few weeks, the siege was resumed. Jerusalem hung out for approximately another year. Jeremiah urged surrender and Zedekiah was willing (38:14–23) but feared to do so. Finally in July 587 B.C. (52:5) the walls of the city were breached just as the supply of food ran out. Zedekiah and his family with some Judean troops managed to flee by night toward the Jericho plains (52:7ff.; 2 K. 25:3ff.), but they were captured near Jericho and taken to Nebuchadrezzar’s headquarters at Riblah in central Syria. Zedekiah’s sons were slain before his eyes, and