Jeremiah 52:24

Jer 52:24-25. And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest — 1Ch 6:14, he was the father of Ezra; Ezr 7:1. And Zephaniah the second priest — See note on Jer 29:26; 2Ki 25:18. And the three keepers of the door — These were not the ordinary porters, who were taken from among the Levites, but were priests who stood at the door to receive the offerings of the people, and thus were keepers of the sacred treasury, an office of high trust and consideration: see 2Ki 12:9; 2Ki 23:4. He took also out of the city a eunuch —

An officer: so it is in the parallel place, 2Ki 25:19, where, instead of seven men, we read five. Josephus agrees with the reading here. And the principal scribe of the host — The muster-master-general, as we style him, or secretary of war. And threescore men that were in the midst of the city — Of whom see note on 2Ki 25:19.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. THE EXECUTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE AND STATEMENT OF THE NUMBER OF THE CAPTIVES

Jer_52:24-30

24And the captain of the guard [halberdiers] took Seraiah the chief priest, and 25Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the door: He took also out of the city a eunuch [court officer], which had the charge [was25 overseer] of the men of war; and seven men of them that were near the king’s person, which were found in the city; and the principal scribe26 of the host [the scribe, the prince of the host], who mustered the people of the land; and three-score men of the people 26of the land, that were found in the midst of the city. So Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard took them and brought them to the king of Babylon to Riblah.27And the king of Babylon smote them, and put them to death in Riblah in the land 28of Hamath. Thus Judah was carried away captive out of his own land. This is the people whom Nebuchadrezzar carried away captive: in the seventh year three 29thousand Jews and three and twenty: In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he carried away captive from Jerusalem eight hundred and thirty and two persons: 30In the three and twentieth year of Nebuchadrezzar Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carried away captive of the Jews seven hundred forty and five persons: all the persons were four thousand and six hundred.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Jer_52:24-27. And the captain … out of his own land. These verses differ from the corresponding verses in 2 Kings 25, with the exception of some trifling variations in language, only in the statement of a, number (seven instead of five in Jer_52:25), of which hereafter. It is related that representatives of all classes of the people, priests, officials and simple citizens had to suffer death, evidently in token that Nebuchadnezzar held not only the king but the people guilty of rebellion. At the head of those executed stands the high-priest Seraiah, who is nowhere mentioned in the book of Jeremiah. According to 1 Chron. 5:40 he was the son of Azariah and grandson of Hilkiah; according to Ezr_7:1, Ezra was descended from him.—After Seraiah is mentioned Zephaniah, doubtless the same who is mentioned in Jer_21:1; Jer_29:25; Jer_29:29; Jer_37:3 as priest simply and son of Maaseiah. Here he is called the second priest, but in 2 Kings 25. second priest only without the article. As according to 2Ki_23:4 (where as here three grades of priests are enumerated) there were several second priests, the reading of the Book of Kings is probably the correct one. Comp. Oehler in Herzog, R.-Enc. VI. S. 203, 4.—The keepers of the door [or threshold] are also mentioned in 2Ki_12:10; 2Ki_22:4; 2Ki_23:4; Jer_35:4. As only three of them are mentioned, we must regard these as the superiors of the four thousand Levitical שֹׁעֲרִים (1Ch_23:5). For further details consult Oehler in Herz., R.-Enc. VIII. S. 354–6.—In the second category of those executed are mentioned certain inhabitants of Jerusalem, who held offices at court, especially in the war-department. The city here seems to stand in antithesis both to the temple (Jer_52:24) and to the country (Jer_52:25 b). The one סָרִים (court-officer, but possibly at the same time eunuch, comp. rems. on Jer_29:2) was not the overseer, but only an overseer, etc. He was therefore one of the generals, perhaps commander of the city garrison.—And seven men. In 2 Kings 25 we read five men, whether correctly or incorrectly cannot here be decided as in Jer_52:12; Jer_52:22. The analogy of these cases however favors our text.—That were near the king’s person, literally, “that saw the king’s face,” viz. in the sense of a daily custom, is a designation of high, yea, highest position (Est_1:14; comp. Mat_18:10). These were therefore officials of high rank, and as it is not said that they were endued with military functions, they may be regarded as representatives of the civil authorities.—Scribe, the prince of the host. Scribe is not a writer in our sense. The title belongs not only, as Graf supposes, to the “people of the pen,” but is given to the highest officers of State. Comp. 2Sa_8:7; 2Sa_20:25; 2Ki_12:11; 1Ch_18:16; 1Ch_27:32. And in 2Ch_26:11 it is expressly recorded that Uzziah’s army went out “by the hand of Jeiel the scribe.” This Sopher was not the leader of the host, but chief of the war-department, minister or secretary of war. Comp. Saalschuetz, Mos. Recht. S. 63.—And threescore men. These sixty men appear as the third class of persons executed, and representatives of the country population, as is indicated by their number and the remark that they were found in the midst of the city (2Ki_25:19 “in the city”). This remark would be altogether superfluous, if the object was not to set forth that these men did not originally belong to the city.—On Riblah comp. rems. on Jer_39:5.—The words, Thus Judah was carried away captive out of his land, are found in both texts and in both places are appropriate. For in Jeremiah they form the transition to the numbering of the deported, and in 2 Kings they lead to the account of what happened in the country after the deportation. They therefore furnish no data for the solution of the question which of the two recensions is the original. Moreover, there seems to be an allusion in them to Jer_1:3.

Jer_52:28-30. This is the people … four thousand and six hundred. This section is entirely wanting in 2 Kings. It is difficult to bring it into harmony with the other statements respecting the deportations. The differences are as follows: 1. This section speaks of three deportations, while according to the other testimonies of the Old Testament there were only two (under Jehoiakim and Zedekiah). 2. The section follows a divergent chronology, stating that the deportations took place in the seventh, eighteenth and twenty-third years of Nebuchadnezzar, while this very chapter (Jer_52:12) and 2Ki_24:12; 2Ki_25:8 name the eighth and nineteenth years of Nebuchadnezzar as the dates of the deportation, but know nothing of any in the twenty-third year of this king. 3. According to this passage three thousand and twenty-three were carried away the first time, eight hundred and thirty-two the second time, seven hundred and forty-five the third time, total four thousand six hundred, which sum is expressly given at the close of Jer_52:30. According to 2Ki_24:14-16, however, eighteen thousand souls were carried away at the first deportation alone. There are no counter-statements with regard to the other numbers, but their smallness is surprising; of this hereafter. On these points we make the following remarks: 1. By the seventh year in Jer_52:28, we are certainly to understand the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, since both the other deportations are dated in years of this monarch. 2. These statements are not necessarily erroneous, but may possibly follow another reckoning of the years, and perhaps the same as Josephus follows (Antiqq. X., 8, 6; C. Ap. I., 21), though evidently only on the basis of this passage. Comp. Niebuhr, Ass. u. Bab., S. 68 sqq. 3. Jer_52:29 mentioning the eighteenth year after Jer_52:12 has stated the nineteenth as the date of the same fact, shows that we have here another author. 4. The view of Ewald (Gesch. d. V. Isr., III., 1 S. 435) which Graf also adopts, that in Jer_52:29 we are to read שֶׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה, that accordingly one year before the last capture of Jerusalem three thousand and twenty-three were carried captive from the country (hence הוּדִים),after the capture eight hundred and thirty-two from the city (hence מִירוּשָׁלַם, Jer_52:29), and finally five years later from the land already somewhat repopulated seven hundred and forty-five, has much in its favor, but is yet not perfectly satisfactory. For the circumstance that the difference between the eighth and nineteenth, and the seventh and eighteenth years of Nebuchadnezzar is the same, does not authorize us to supply a word עֶשְׁרֵה, fallen out after שְׁבַע. Then, too, the deportation of the mass of the people during the war, at a time when the Egyptian army was to be feared (comp. Jer_37:5), is scarcely probable. Finally the assumption of a deportation five years after the capture of the city is pure hypothesis, for which there is no positive testimony. It is also not to be supposed that five years after the destruction, admitting the return of a few scattered individuals, an almost equally great number could be carried away as after the destruction of the capital. Would not these have rather again betaken themselves to flight? 5. Even if we grant that the strikingly small numbers of the exiles are to be judged from a specific point of view, and therefore do not necessarily imply an error, any more than the number of the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, yet the differences between Jer_52:12; Jer_52:28 still remain, with the exceedingly obscure third deportation, as irremovable stones of stumbling, and I therefore agree with Niebuhr, when he says, “it cannot be a subject of doubt that Jer_52:28-30 in the fifty-second chapter of Jeremiah are a gloss.”

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 Jer_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 (Jer_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 (Pro_28:2).” Wurtemb. Summarien.

3. On Jer_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 (Rom_2:4).” Cramer.

4. On Jer_52:6. “The fact that in this siege compassionate women had to kill and eat their own children (Lam_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 Jer_52:7. “No fortress can protect the ungodly, even though they had their nest in the clouds.” Cramer.

6. On Jer_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 Jer_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 Jer_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 (Jer_2:13). For woe to the rebellious who take counsel without the Lord (Isa_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 Jer_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 Jer_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 1Co_3:16 sqq.; Jer_6:19 sqq.” Förster.

11. On Jer_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 Jer_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 Jer_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 (1Sa_2:27-34).” Starke.

14. On Jer_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 (Gal_5:10).” Cramer.

15. On Jer_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 Jer_14:18-19. Josephus speaks of it as follows: “Ἀβιλαμαρώδαχος εὐθὺς τὸν ‘Ιεχωνίαν τῶν δεσμῶν ἀφεὶς ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαιοτάτοις φίλοις εἱχε … ‘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 Jer_52:31 sqq. “Ceterum potest hoc exemplo, quod Jechonias rex dignitati suæ in exilio Babylonico restitutus, refutari exceptio Judæorum contra vaticinium Jacobi (Gen_49:10) de Messia jamdudum exhibito, postquam per Romanos sceptrum de Juda ablatum, id quod τεκμήριον Messiæ jamjam nascituri esse debuit.” Förster.

17. On Jer_52:31 sqq. “No one should despair in misfortune, for the right hand of the Highest can change all (Psa_77:10) and Christ rules even in the midst of His enemies (Psa_110:2). For His are the praise, the glory and the power from everlasting to everlasting. Amen.” Cramer.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

1. On Jer_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 (Jer_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 (Jer_52:3).

2. On Jer_52:12-20. The rejection of Judah appears at first sight a contradiction. For Jerusalem is the holy city (Mat_4:5; Neh_11:1; Neh_11:18), the city of God (Psa_46:5; Psa_48:2; Psa_48:9; Psa_78:3); the temple is the house of Jehovah (Jer_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 (Jer_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 Jer_32:41, p. 288.

3. On Jer_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 (Jos_7:25).” Starke.

4. On Jer_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 [“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:

[25]Jer_52:25.—In 2 Kings 25 we findהוּא for הָָיה. The former does not necessarily, as Hitzig asserts, signify “which is.” הוּא takes the place of the copula generally, without reference to time. Comp. Ewald, § 297 b.

[26]Jer_52:25—ואת ספר. In 2 Kings 25 הַסֹּפר, which I regard as the more correct reading.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Which served in the high Priest’s stead, if he had any necessary impediment.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

We have here a very melancholy account, 1. Of the slaughter of some great men, in cold blood, at Riblah, seventy-two in number (according to the number of the elders of Israel, Num 11:24, Num 11:25), so they are computed, Kg2 25:18, Kg2 25:19. We read there of five out of the temple, two out of the city, five out of the court, and sixty out of the country. The account here agrees with that, except in one article; there it is said that there were five, here there were seven, of those that were near the king, which Dr. Lightfoot reconciles thus, that he took away seven of those that were near the king, but two of them were Jeremiah himself and Ebed-melech, who were both discharged, as we have read before, so that there were only five of them put to death, and so the number was reduced to seventy-two, some of all ranks, for they had all corrupted their way; and it is probable that such were made examples of as had been most forward to excite and promote the rebellion against the king of Babylon. Seraiah the chief priest is put first, whose sacred character could not exempt him from this stroke; how should it, when he himself had profaned it by sin? Seraiah the prince was a quiet prince (Jer 51:59), but perhaps Seraiah the priest was not so, but unquiet and turbulent, by which he had made himself obnoxious to the king of Babylon. The leaders of this people had caused them to err, and now they are in a particular manner made monuments of divine justice. 2. Of the captivity of the rest. Come and see how Judah was carried away captive out of his own land (Jer 52:27), and how it spued them out as it spued out the Canaanites that went before them, which God had told them it would certainly do if they trod in their steps and copied out their abominations, Lev 18:28. Now here is an account, (1.) Of two captivities which we had an account of before, one in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar (the same with that which is said to be in his eighth year, Kg2 24:12), another in his eighteenth year, the same with that which is said (Jer 52:12) to be in his nineteenth year. But the sums here are very small, in comparison with what we find expressed concerning the former (Kg2 24:14, Kg2 24:16), when there were 18,000 carried captive, whereas here they are said to be 3023; they are also small in comparison with what we may reasonably suppose concerning the latter; for, when all the residue of the people were carried away (Jer 52:15), one would think there should be more than 832 souls; therefore Dr. Lightfoot conjectures that, these accounts being joined to the story of the putting to death of the great men at Riblah, all that are here said to be carried away were put to death as rebels. (2.) Of a third captivity, not mentioned before, which was in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, four years after the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 52:30): Then Nebuzaradan came, and carried away 745 Jews; it is probable that this was done in revenge of the murder of Gedaliah, which was another rebellion against the king of Babylon, and that those who were now taken were aiders and abetters of Ishmael in that murder, and were not only carried away, but put to death for it; yet this is uncertain. If this be the sum total of the captives (all the persons were 4600, Jer 52:30), we may see how strangely they were reduced from what they had been, and may wonder as much how they came to be so numerous again as afterwards we find them; for it should seem that, as at first in Egypt, so again in Babylon, the Lord made them fruitful in the land of their affliction, and the more they were oppressed the more they multiplied. And the truth is, this people were often miracles both of judgment and mercy.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Seraiah--different from the Seraiah (Jer 51:59), son of Neriah; probably son of Azariah (Ch1 6:14).

Zephaniah--son of Maaseiah (see on Jer 21:1; Jer 29:25).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 24. The second priest] 2Kg 25:18.

The three keepers] The priests who stood at the door to receive the offerings of the people, see 2Kg 20:9; 2Kg 23:4.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

24. Seraiah the chief priest] probably identical with the ancestor of Ezra, mentioned Ezr_7:1.

Zephaniah] See on Jer_21:1.

keepers of the door] Heb. threshold. See on Jer_35:4.

24–27. Omitted in ch. 39, but cp. with it 2Ki_25:18-21.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He took also out of the city an eunuch, which had the charge of the men of war,.... The master-master-general of the army:

and seven men of them which were near the king's person which were found in the city; or, "saw the face of the king": or rather, "made to see his face" (h); these were ministers of state, who were always at court, and assisted in councils of state, and introduced persons into the king's presence; in Kg2 25:19; they are said to be but "five"; but Josephus (i) has seven, as here; perhaps two of them were of less note, and so not reckoned, as Jarchi observes: some will have it, that the two scribes of the judges are left out; but others, more probably, Jeremiah and Baruch, who were first taken, and afterwards dismissed:

and the principal scribe of the host, who mustered the people of the land; or the scribe of the prince of the army, as the Targum; the general's secretary:

and threescore men of the people of the land, that were found in the midst of the city: persons of prime note, who, upon the invasion, betook themselves from the country to the city of Jerusalem with their effects, and to defend it. Josephus (k) calls them rulers or governors.

(h) "ex videntibus facies, vel faciem regis", Montanus, Piscator; "de videre facientibus facies regis", Schmidt. (i) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 8. sect. 5. (k) Ibid.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Second in dignity to the high priest, a chief officer of the temple.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

See Poole "2Ki 25:18", where we have the same words. This Seraiah was not he mentioned Jer 51:59, but the son of Azariah, 1Ch 6:14. By the

second priest, interpreters understand him that supplied the place of the high priest in case he were sick, &c., he that was sent by Zedekiah to the prophet, Jer 21:1, and whom Jeremiah chose by his letters, Jer 29:25, for not setting Jeremiah in the stocks. It is probable there were more keepers of the door, but the captain of the guard took only three of the principal.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Three - It is probable there were more keepers of the door, but the captain of the guard took only three of the chief.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The account given regarding the arrest of the chief officers of the temple and of the city, and concerning their transportation to Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar caused them to be executed, agrees with Kg2 25:18-21, except in some unimportant variations, which, however, do not alter the sense; the explanation has been already given in the commentary on that passage. In 2 Kings, the account of the appointment of Gedaliah as the governor of Judah, together with that of his assassination by Ishmael, which follows the narrative just referred to, is here omitted, because the matter has bee already more fully stated in the passage Jer 40:7 on to Jer 43:7, and had no close connection with the object of the present chapter. Instead of this, there follows here, in Jer 52:28-30 (as a continuation of the remark made, Jer 52:27, "Thus was Judah carried away captive out of his own land"), a calculation of the number of the Jews taken to Babylon at the three deportations: in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, 3023 Jews; in the eighteenth year, 832 souls from Jerusalem; and in the twenty-third year, 745 souls, - in all, 4600 persons. The correctness of these data is vouched for by the exactness of the separate numbers, and the agreement of the sum with the individual items. In other respects, however, they present various difficulties. There is, first, the chronological discrepancy that the second deportation is here placed in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, in contradiction with Jer 52:12, according to which, the deportation after the taking of Jerusalem occurred in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar; and 832 souls could not well be carried out of Jerusalem during the siege. This difference can be settled only by assuming that this list of deportations was derived from another source than the preceding notice regarding the destruction of Jerusalem, in which the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign were reckoned in some other way than elsewhere in Jeremiah and in the books of Kings, probably from the date of the actual commencement of his reign, which followed a year after he first appeared in Judah, from which his reign is dated elsewhere; see Comm. on Daniel at Dan 1:1. According to this mode of computation, the seventh year would correspond to the eighth of the common reckoning, and be the year in which Jehoiachin was carried away to Babylon, together with a large number of the people. But this does not agree with 3023, which is given as the number of those who were carried away; for, at that time, according to Kg2 24:14, Kg2 24:16, as many as 10,000 Jews, or, according to another view of these verses, even 18,000, were carried away to Babylon. This difference does not permit of being explained in any way. Ewald (History of the People of Israel, iii. p. 738) accordingly assumes that in Jer 52:28, after שׁבע, the word עשׂרה has been omitted, as in Ch2 36:9, where the age of Jehoiachin is given; hence he thinks that, instead of "in the seventh," we must read "in the seventeenth year of Nebuchadnezzar." On such a view, the reference would be to a deportation which took place under Zedekiah, a year before the capture, or during the time of the siege of Jerusalem, and that, too, out of the country districts of Judah in contrast with Jerusalem, Jer 52:29. This supposition is favoured not merely by the small number of those who are said to have been carried away, but also by the context of the narrative, inasmuch as, in what precedes, it is only the capture of Jerusalem and the deportation of the people in Zedekiah's time that is treated of. Ngelsbach has objected to this supposition, that it was not likely the great mass of the people would be carried away during the war, at a time when the approach of the Egyptian army (cf. Jer 37:5) was an object of dread. But the objection does not weaken the supposition, since the former rests on two presuppositions that are quite erroneous: viz., first, that the deportation took place before the defeat of the auxiliary army from Egypt, where as it may have followed that event; and secondly, that the Chaldeans, by keeping the hostile Jews in the country, might have been able to get some assistance against the Egyptian army, whereas, by removing the hostile population of Judah, they would but diminish the number of the enemies with which they had to contend. We therefore regard this conjecture as highly probable, because it is the means of settling all difficulties, and because we can thereby account for the small number of those who were carried away in the deportations during and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Regarding the third deportation, which was effected by Nebuzaradan (Jer 52:30) in the twenty-third, or, according to another reckoning, in the twenty-fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, we have no other information; for the statement of Josephus, Antt. x. 9. 7, that Nebuchadnezzar made war upon the Ammonites and Moabites in that year, has not been placed beyond a doubt, and is probably a mere inference from this verse, taken in connection with the prophecies in Jer 48 and 49. Yet there is nothing improbable in the statement, viewed by itself. For it must be borne in mind that, after the appointment of Gedaliah as governor, and the departure of the Chaldean hosts, many Jews, who had fled during the war, returned into the country. Hence, in spite of the fact that, after the murder of Gedaliah, a multitude of Jews, fearing the vengeance of the Chaldeans, fled to Egypt, many may have still remained in the country; and many other fugitives may not have returned till afterwards, and given occasion to the Chaldeans for removing other 745 disturbers of the peace to Babylon, four or five years after Jerusalem had been laid in ashes. This deportation may have taken place on the occasion of the subjugation of the Moabites, Ammonites, and Idumeans, or during the war with the Phoenicians, possibly because they had rendered assistance to these nations against the Chaldeans. These verses thus contain nothing to justify the assumption of M. von Niebuhr (Gesch. Assyr. und Babels, S. 58, note) and Ngelsbach, that they are a gloss. The paucity of those who were carried away is not to be attributed to a desire on the part of the writer of this inserted portion to represent the calamity as not so very terrible after all; nor is it due to the substitution of the number of the Levites for that of the entire people, - two wholly arbitrary assumptions: it is completely explained by a consideration of the historical circumstances. The best of the population of Judah had already been carried away, and Zedekiah and his counsellors must have said to themselves, when they rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, that the latter would not spare this time; thus they must have defended themselves to the utmost, as is shown by the very fact that the siege of Jerusalem lasted eighteen months. In this manner, war, pestilence, and famine carried off a great number of the population of Jerusalem; so that, of men who were able-bodied and fit for war, and who could be carried into exile, not more than 4600 fell into the hands of the Chaldeans. During the war, also, many had concealed themselves in inaccessible places, while the lowest of the people were left behind in the country to cultivate the fields. Still more strange might appear the circumstance that the sum-total of those who were carried away to Babylon, viz., 10,000 with Jehoiachin, and 4600 under Zedekiah, - 14, 600 in all, - is evidently disproportionate to the number of those who returned to Jerusalem and Judah under Zerubbabel, which number is given in Ezr 2:64 at 42, 360, exclusive of men and maid servants. For this reason, Graf is of opinion that still later deportations may have taken place, of which no mention is made anywhere. This assumption, however, has little probability. On the other hand, we must consider these points: (1.) In the accounts given of those who were carried away, only full-grown and independent persons of the male sex are reckoned, while, along with fathers, both their wives and their children went into exile. (2.) Even so early as the first capture of Jerusalem in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, a number of prisoners of war, perhaps not inconsiderable, came to Babylon; these might unite with the thousands of their brethren who were carried thither at a later period. (3.) When the exiles had settled down in Babylon, and there found not only a means of livelihood, but even in many instances, as is clear from several intimations, attained to opulence as citizens, many, even of those who had been left in the country, may have gone to Babylon, in the hope of finding there greater prosperity than in Judah, now laid waste and depopulated by war. (4.) From the time when the 10,000 were carried away with Jehoiachin, in the year 599 b.c., till the return under Zerubbabel, 536 b.c., 63 years, i.e., nearly two generations, had passed, during which the exiles might largely increase in numbers. If we take all these elements into consideration, then, in the simple fact that the number of those who returned amounts to nearly three times the numbers of those given as having been carried away under Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, we cannot find such a difficulty as entitles us to doubt the correctness of the numbers handed down to us.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

Seraiah

See how you translated this man's name in Jeremiah 36:26.

gatekeepers

people who guard the gate of a city

drafting men into the army

"forcing men to fight in the army"

translationWords

prison

high priest

Zephaniah

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.