Study

They explain this verse of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah, but I consider it rather a general declaration, for the Prophet wished briefly to shew how miserable would be the condition of the people, as it would be better and more desirable at once to die than to protract life in continual languor. Of the kings he wilt afterwards speak, but reason compels us to extend these words to the whole people.

When a people flee away, being not able to resist their enemies, they may look for a restoration. In that case all dread death more than exile and all other calamities which are endured in this life, for they who remain alive may somehow emerge from their ills and troubles, or at least they may have them alleviated; but death cuts off all hopes. But the Prophet says here that death would be better than exile; and why? Because it would have been better at once to die than to protract a life of misery, weariness, and reproach, and at last to be destroyed. By saying, then, Weep ye not for the dead, nor bewail him, ⁴³⁴³     Literally, “nor nod for him.” They were not to shake the head for him in sign of sorrow. There was a shaking of the head in scorn or derision as well as in condolence or sympathy. See Jeremiah 18:16. — Ed. it is the same as though he had said, “If the destruction of this city be lamented, much more ought they to be lamented who shall remain alive than those who shall die, for death will be as it were a rest, it will be a harbor to end all evils; but life will be nothing else than a continual succession of miseries.” We hence conclude that this ought not to be confined to the two kings, but viewed as declared generally of the whole people. ⁴⁴⁴⁴     The Versions and the Targum seem to favor this view of Calvin, as they render the participle, “going away,” in the present tense, as in our version. The verse, then, is as follows, —
   Weep ye not for the dead, nor bewail him; Weep, weep for him who goeth away; For he will not return any more, And see the land of his nativity.
   The repetition of the verb “weep” is emphatical. Our version, “weep sore,” is the Arab. The Sept. and the Targ. take it as an instance of what often occurs in Hebrew, a participle joined to a verb to enhance its force; but it is not so here, the two verbs are in the imperative mood. But it may be that there is here, as many think, a direct allusion to Josiah, who was dead, and was much lamented, and to Shallum, who was taken captive and carried into Egypt, where he died. In that case we ought to render the second line thus, —
   Weep, weep for him who has gone away.
   The Hebrew participle may often be rendered in the past tense; and so it is rendered here by Gataker, Venema, and Blayney. — Ed.

It follows, For he shall return no more, that he may see the land of his nativity He shews that exile would be a sort of infection that would gradually consume the miserable Jews. Thus death would have been far better for them than to be in this manner long tormented and to have no relaxation. He then takes away the hope of a return, that he might shew that their exile would be as it were a dying languor, corroding them as a worm, so that to die a hundred times would have been more desirable than to remain in such a hard and miserable bondage. It now follows:

What he had before said generally he now applies distinctly and especially to the person of the king, that the people in general might know that they could not escape that punishment from which even the king would not be exempt. They, no doubt, when they heard that such a hard and bitter lot would happen to a king, regarded it as a thing incredible; but Jeremiah intended to shew in his person that what we have just seen was nigh them all, that is, that it would be better for them at once to die than to pine away for a long time.

We must at the same time notice, that what these two verses contain respecting the king is not said as though it applied to him alone, but rather that every one might apply it to himself what the Prophet said of the king alone.

As to the word Shallum, it is thought that Jehoiakim was so called, who had also the name of Jeconiah, and who had of his own accord given up the kingdom and died in exile. But as he is called the son of Josiah, a doubt has arisen. But if we duly consider what sacred history relates, the probable conjecture is, that he was not his son but his grandson, for the chosen successor of his father was Jehoiakim, called also Eliakim. Yet Matthew calls him the son of Josiah, and that he was born to him together with his brethren. (Matthew 1:11.) But we know that it was a common thing with the Hebrews to call descendants sons, especially when the family of David was spoken of; that the order of succession might be preserved, those who next followed their predecessors were called sons. Thus, according to this custom, Elialdm might have been deemed his son, who was really his brother. As, then, he was the successor of Josiah, he is called his son. ⁴⁵⁴⁵     Most commentators agree that Shallum was another name for Jehoahaz, who succeeded his father Josiah. See 2 Kings 23:30; and 2 Chronicles 36:1. He reigned only three months, and was succeeded by his elder brother Jehoiakim. Compare 2 Chronicles 36:2, with Jeremiah 22:5. The only difficulty arises from 1 Chronicles 3:15, where we have the sons of Josiah arranged in this order, — Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum. Johanan no doubt died young, and he could not be Jehoahaz, for he is said to be the first-born; and Jehoahaz, as it appears from 2 Chronicles 36:2 and 5, was younger than Jehoiakim, and older by many years than Zedekiah. The only solution of the difficulty seems to be that there is, as Blayney, Horsley, and others thought, a typographical mistake in 1 Chronicles 3:15, that Shallum ought to be before Zedekiah, instead of being after him. His two brothers had two names as well as Shallum. There is a mistake of the same kind (that of transcribers at an early period, as there are no different readings) in 2 Chronicles 36:9, where Jehoiachin is said to have been eight years old when he began to reign, instead of eighteen, as we find it stated in 2 Kings 24:8. And this age alone comports with the language of Jeremiah in this chapter, for he would not have denounced such a judgment on a child eight years of age.
   As to Matthew 1:11, the true reading no doubt is, “And Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah,” etc., as found in some copies, though not of great authority.
   Some, with Calvin, think Shallum to be Jeconiah, or Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not Shallum the son of Josiah. The objection to this is, that the Prophet here proceeds from Shallum to Jehoiakim, and then to his son Jeconiah. And from what he says of Jehoiakim, it appears that he delivered this prophecy in his reign, except we think, as some do, that the Prophet relates here in the reign of Zedekiah what he had previously prophesied. But the probability is, as Blayney and others think, that this prophecy was delivered in the reign of Jehoiakim. — Ed.

There is yet no doubt but that God shews here that a pious king would not be a patronizer either to his own son, or to his grandson, or to others; for hypocrites are wont to form a defense for themselves from the holiness of their fathers. And as king Josiah had faithfully served God, his sons thought that God was in a manner bound to themselves, as though all this had not proceeded from the mere bounty of God, that Josiah had been so sincerely religious. But hypocrites, as I have just said, seek ever to render God bound to them. Hence the Prophet checks this false confidence, and declares that though Josiah was approved of God, yet his memory would not be of such an account as to shield his posterity from punishment. God, indeed, promises in his Law to be merciful to the thousandth generation, even to them who love him, (Exodus 20:6) but the ungodly very absurdly lay hold on this, as though they held God bound to them; for they thus imagine that they can deprive him of his power, and judgment, and authority over the world. The meaning then is, that Shallum in vain promised safety to himself because he had descended from the holy king Josiah, who had been a patron of eminent piety, for this could not be the means of lessening his punishment, inasmuch as he had degenerated from his father, whom he ought to have imitated, knowing that he was approved by God. And this also was the reason for the repetition, for he not only calls him the son of Josiah, but also adds, that he reigned instead of his father Josiah. Though, then, he succeeded so pious a king, he yet became degenerated and departed from the example of his father.

When he shall have gone forth from this place, he shall not return here any more ⁴⁶⁴⁶     There is no doubt but אשר is sometimes an adverb of time, when; but all the Versions and the Targum render it here who, “who has gone forth,” etc. Shallum, whoever he was, had no doubt been led captive, as it is said in the next verse; for the verb, which Calvin renders in the second future, is in the past tense, and is so rendered by all the Versions. — Ed As, then, the king was precluded from returning, what would become of the common people and the dregs of society? Could their condition be better? How then could the Jews dare flatter themselves when they perceived so dreadful an evidence of God’s wrath in the king himself, on whom depended their safety? A confirmation follows, For he shall die in the place to which they shall have led him away He intimates that he was to be by force carried away; he doubtless did not surrender himself until he saw that he was under the necessity of yielding. Then the Prophet in effect says that he would be a miserable exile, driven into banishment against his own will. It is then added, that he would see no more the land of his nativity, so that his lot would be nothing better than that of any one of the common people. It follows, —