Jeremiah 52 commentary

JEREMIAH 52 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
The Fall of Jerusalem
1 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he
became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eleven
years. His mother’s name was Hamutal daughter
of Jeremiah; she was from Libnah.
BARNES, "Jer. 52 is an historical appendix to the Book of Jeremiah, giving details of
the capture of Babylon additional to those contained in Jer. 39: The last words of the
foregoing chapter affirm that Jeremiah was not the author, and the view by most
commentators is, that this chapter is taken from the 2nd Book of Kings, but that the
person who added it here had access to other valuable documents, and made several
modifications in it, the principal being the substituation of the account of those led
captive by Nebuchadnezzar Jer_52:28-30, for the narrativeadopted given in 2Ki_25:22-
26, where see the notes.
CLARKE, "Zedekiah was one and twenty years old - See 2Ki_24:18.
GILL, "Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign,....
Whose name was Mattaniah; and who was set on the throne by the king of Babylon, in
the room of his brother's son Jehoiachin, 2Ki_24:17;
and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem; so that he was thirty two years of age
when he was taken and carried captive into Babylon:
and his mother's name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah;
see 2Ki_24:18.
HENRY 1-11, "This narrative begins no higher than the beginning of the reign of
Zedekiah, though there were two captivities before, one in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,
the other in the first of Jeconiah; but probably it was drawn up by some of those that
were carried away with Zedekiah, as a reproach to themselves for imagining that they
should not go into captivity after their brethren, with which hopes they had long flattered
themselves. We have here, 1. God's just displeasure against Judah and Jerusalem for
their sin, Jer_52:3. His anger was against them to such a degree that he determined to

cast them out from his presence, his favourable gracious presence, as a father, when he is
extremely angry with an undutiful son, bids him get out of his presence, he expelled
them from that good land that had such tokens of his presence in providential bounty
and that holy city and temple that had such tokens of his presence in covenant-grace and
love. Note, Those that are banished from God's ordinances have reason to complain that
they are in some degree cast out of his presence; yet none are cast out from God's
gracious presence but those that by sin have first thrown themselves out of it. This fruit
of sin we should therefore deprecate above any thing, as David (Psa_51:11), Cast me not
away from thy presence. 2. Zedekiah's bad conduct and management, to which God left
him, in displeasure against the people, and for which God punished him, in displeasure
against him. Zedekiah had arrived at years of discretion when he came to the throne; he
was twenty-one years old (Jer_52:1); he was none of the worst of the kings (we never
read of his idolatries), yet his character is that he did evil in the eyes of the Lord, for he
did not do the good he should have done. But that evil deed of his which did in a special
manner hasten this destruction was his rebelling against the king of Babylon, which was
both his sin and his folly, and brought ruin upon his people, not only meritoriously, but
efficiently. God was greatly displeased with him for his perfidious dealing with the king
of Babylon (as we find, Eze_17:15, etc.); and, because he was angry at Judah and
Jerusalem, he put him into the hand of his own counsels, to do that foolish thing which
proved fatal to him and his kingdom. 3. The possession which the Chaldeans at length
gained of Jerusalem, after eighteen months' siege. They sat down before it, and blocked
it up, in the ninth year of Zedekiah's reign, in the tenth month (Jer_52:4), and made
themselves masters of it in the eleventh year in the fourth month, Jer_52:6. In
remembrance of these two steps towards their ruin, while they were in captivity, they
kept a fast in the fourth month, and a fast in the tenth (Zec_8:19): that in the fifth
month was in remembrance of the burning of the temple, and that in the seventh of the
murder of Gedaliah. We may easily imagine, or rather cannot imagine, what a sad time it
was with Jerusalem, during this year and half that it was besieged, when all provisions
were cut off from coming to them and they were ever and anon alarmed by the attacks of
the enemy, and, being obstinately resolved to hold out to the last extremity, nothing
remained but a certain fearful looking for of judgment. That which disabled them to
hold out, and yet could not prevail with them to capitulate, was the famine in the city
(Jer_52:6); there was no bread for the people of the land, so that the soldiers could not
make good their posts, but were rendered wholly unserviceable; and then no wonder that
the city was broken up, Jer_52:7. Walls, in such a case, will not hold out long without
men, any more than men without walls; nor will both together stand people in any stead
without God and his protection. 4. The inglorious retreat of the king and his mighty men.
They got out of the city by night (Jer_52:7) and made the best of their way, I know not
whither, nor perhaps they themselves; but the king was overtaken by the pursuers in the
plains of Jericho, his guards were dispersed, and all his army was scattered from him,
Jer_52:8. His fright was not causeless, for there is no escaping the judgments of God;
they will come upon the sinner, and will overtake him, let him flee where he will
(Deu_28:15), and these judgments particularly that are here executed were there
threatened, Jer_51:52, Jer_51:53, etc. 5. The sad doom passed upon Zedekiah by the
king of Babylon, and immediately put in execution. he treated him as a rebel, gave
judgment upon him, Jer_51:9. One cannot think of it without the utmost vexation and
regret that a king, a king of Judah, a king of the house of David, should be arraigned as a
criminal at the bar of this heathen king. But he humbled not himself before Jeremiah the
prophet; therefore God thus humbled him. Pursuant to the sentence passed upon him by
the haughty conqueror, his sons were slain before his eyes, and all the princes of Judah
(Jer_52:10); then his eyes were put out, and he was bound in chains, carried in triumph

to Babylon; perhaps they made sport with him, as they did with Samson when his eyes
were put out; however, he was condemned to perpetual imprisonment, wearing out the
remainder of his life (I cannot say his days, for he saw day no more) in darkness and
misery. He was kept in prison till the day of his death, but had some honour done him at
his funeral, Jer_34:5. Jeremiah had often told him what it would come to, but he would
not take warning when he might have prevented it.
JAMISON, "Jer_52:1-34. Written by some other than Jeremiah (probably Ezra) as
an historical supplement to the previous prophecies.
(See on Jer_51:64). Jeremiah, having already (thirty-ninth and fortieth chapters)
given the history in the proper place, was not likely to repeat it here. Its canonical
authority as inspired is shown by its being in the Septuagint version. It contains the
capture and burning of Jerusalem, etc., Zedekiah’s punishment, and the better treatment
of Jehoiachin under Evil-merodach, down to his death. These last events were probably
subsequent to Jeremiah’s time. Written by some other than Jeremiah (probably Ezra) as
an historical supplement to the previous prophecies.
K&D 1-11, "Fate of King Zedekiah at the taking of Jerusalem; cf. 2Ki_24:18;
2Ki_25:7, and Jer_39:1-7. The statements regarding Zedekiah's ascension and his
government, Jer_52:1-3, agree word for word with 2Ki_24:18-20, even to the variation ,
Jer_52:3, for (Kings). The length of the siege of Jerusalem, Jer_52:4-7, and the flight,
capture, and condemnation of King Zedekiah and the princes of Judah, Jer_52:7-11, not
only agrees with 2Ki_25:1-7, but also with Jer_39:1-7, where it is merely the forcible
entrance into the city by the Chaldeans that receives special detail; see on Jer_39:3. The
variation , Jer_52:4, instead of )2 Ki_25:1), does not affect the sense. As to the account
given of the flight, capture, and condemnation of the king, both Jer 39 and 2 Kings omit
the notices given in Jer_52:10, "and also all the princes of Judah he caused to be slain
(i.e., executed) at Riblah," and in Jer_52:11, "and he put him in the prison-house till the
day of his death." has been rendered by the lxx; on this fact Hitzig bases the opinion
that the Hebrew words signify "the house of punishment," or "the house of correction,"
in which Zedekiah was obliged to turn the mill like other culprits, and as Samson was
once obliged to do (Jdg_16:21). But this meaning of the words cannot be substantiated.
means "oversight, mustering, or visitation (Heimsuchung), or vengeance," e.g., Isa_10:3,
but not punishment (Strafe), and the plural, "watches" (Eze_9:1) and "custody," Ezek.
54:11; hence the expression used here signifies "the house of custody," or "the house of
the watches." The translation of the lxx can decide nothing against this, because their
interpretation is based upon traditions which are themselves unfounded. Regarding this,
Ewald well remarks (History of the People of Israel, iii. p. 748 of 2nd ed.): "That
Zedekiah must have laboured at the mill, as is mentioned in later chronicles (see Aug.
Mai, Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, t. i. P. 2, p. 6; cf. Chr. Sam. Ch. xlv.), is
probably a mere inference from Lam_5:13."

COFFMAN, "Verse 1
JEREMIAH 52
A HISTORICAL RECORD OF JEREMIAH'S PROPHECIES FULFILLED
This chapter is usually styled "Historical Appendix"; but its obvious application to
the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecies suggests the title we have given it.
Although many writers speak of this chapter's being a copy of 2 Kings 24:18-25:30,
[1] this is true only of certain verses in this chapter. The chapter does apparently
quote from 2Kings, "but with a very significant omission (regarding events leading
to the assassination of Gedaliah as given in 2 Kings 25:22-26), and a very significant
addition in @@vv. 28-30 where is found material given nowhere else in the
Bible."[2]
The appearance here of unique material, along with some variations from the
account in 2Kings, including a variant spelling of the name of Nebuchadnezzar, led
Keil to the conclusion that both of the accounts in 2Kings and in this last chapter of
Jeremiah, "Have a common origin in which the fall of the Kingdom of Judah was
more fully described than in the historical books of the canon."[3]
To this writer, it appears that the principal reason for including this chapter from a
source independent of Jeremiah was for the specific purpose of demonstrating
historically the fulfillment of his marvelous prophecies. It has also been suggested
that another reason could reside in the note of hope injected into the final verses
regarding the restoration of Jehoiachin to his royal status under the house-arrest of
Judah's last king, but as an honored guest at the table of the king of Babylon. The
captives might have received that dramatic change in the status of their former king
as a good omen related to the end of their captivity and their return to Judah.
There are five things treated in this chapter: (1) Jerusalem falls, and Zedekiah is
captured (Jeremiah 52:1-16); (2) the Temple is despoiled (Jeremiah 52:17-23); (3)
Zedekiah's advisors were executed (Jeremiah 52:24-27); (4) the three deportations
of the Jews are related (Jeremiah 52:28-30); and (5) the record of Jehoiachin's kind
treatment by the new king of Babylon (Jeremiah 52:31-34).
Jeremiah 52:1-16
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM AND THE CAPTURE OF IT AND ZEDEKIAH
"Zedekiah was one and twenty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned
eleven years in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Hamutal the daughter of
Jeremiah of Libnah. And he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah,
according to all that Jehoiachim had done. For through the anger of Jehovah did it
come to pass in Jerusalem and Judah, until he cast them out from his presence. And

Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. And it came to pass in the ninth year
of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadrezzar
the king of Babylon came, and all his army, against Jerusalem, and encamped
against it; and they built forts against it round about. So the city was besieged unto
the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. In the fourth month, in the ninth day of the
month, the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of
the land. Then a breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled, and went
forth out of the city by night by way of the gate between the two walls, which was by
the king's garden (now the Chaldeans were against the city round about); and they
went toward Arabah. But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and
overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him.
Then they took the king, and carried him up unto the king of Babylon to Riblah in
the land of Hamath; and he gave judgment upon him. And the king of Babylon slew
the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah.
And he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in fetters,
and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death. Now in
the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king
Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, who
stood before the king of Babylon. And he burned the house of Jehovah, and the
king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, even every great house, burned he
with fire. And all the army of the Chaldeans that were with the captain of the guard,
brake down all the walls of Jerusalem round about. Then Nebuzaradan the captain
of the guard carried away captive of the poorest of the people, and the residue of the
people that were left in the city, and those that fell away, that fell to the king of
Babylon. But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to
be vinedressers and husbandmen."
"Through the anger of Jehovah it came to pass ..." (Jeremiah 52:3). Some have
complained that this makes it appear that the anger of Jehovah caused Judah's
rebellion; whereas, on the other hand, it was the result of it. Such complaints fail to
notice the meaning of "through the anger of Jehovah," which does not mean
"because of his anger," but is a reference to the fact that through (during) the anger
of Jehovah, as revealed by the prophet Jeremiah, and in spite of his repeated
warnings against it, they went right on stubbornly in their rebellion.
Practically all of this passage, although somewhat abbreviated, is found in Jeremiah
39:1-9. See comments there. The instructions of Nebuchadnezzar for Jeremiah's
safety (Jeremiah 39:11f) are omitted here.
"In prison till the day of his death ..." (Jeremiah 52:11b). This note regarding
Zedekiah's imprisonment till death is found "nowhere else in the Bible."[4]
"The nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar ..." (Jeremiah 52:12). This same occasion
is called "the eighteenth year" of Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah 52:29. One mode or
reckoning counted the year of accession to the throne, and the other did not. There
is no contradiction.[5]

COKE, ". Zedekiah was one-and-twenty years old— The present chapter, seems to
belong to the book of Lamentations, and serves as a kind of proem to them. The
generality of commentators are agreed, that this chapter could not be added by
Jeremiah, not only because a great part of it is a repetition of what he himself had
related in the 39th and 40th chapters of his prophesy, but because mention is made
in it of the reign of Evil-merodach; and of some transactions which happened at the
end of Jeconiah's reign, and after Jeremiah's death. Indeed, the chapter is chiefly
taken out of the latter part of the second book of Kings, with some few additions,
probably supplied by Ezra. It is therefore most reasonable, to conclude, that this
chapter was added by Ezra, who designed this brief history of the desolations of the
Jewish nation as an introduction to the book of Lamentations. See Grotius, Calmet,
and the notes on 2 Kings 24:18; 2 Kings 24:20 to the end of chap. 25:
PARKER, " Fifty-five Years Old
Jeremiah 52:31-34
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign in Judah. Jehoiachin
reigned three months. He had hardly been a king at all before he was taken away
captive. In captivity he spent thirty-seven years: therefore he was fifty-five years old
when this took place. What changes may occur in life: who can tell what we may
come to? After thirty-seven years there arose a king who took a fancy to Jehoiachin,
and made quite a favourite of him in the court. Good fortune is often tardy in
coming to men; we are impatient, we want to be taken out of prison today, and set
among kings at once, and to have all our desires gratified fully, and especially at
once. See what has befallen Jehoiachin. For the first time for seven-and-thirty years
the man of authority has spoken kindly to him. Kind words have different values at
different times; sometimes a kind word would be a fortune—if not a fortune in the
hand, a fortune in the way of stimulating imagination, comforting disconsolateness,
and so pointing to the sky that we could see only its real blue beauties, its glints of
light, its hints of coming day. When we have an abundant table, what do we care for
an offered crust? that crust may be regarded by our sated appetite as an insult: but
when the table is bare, and hunger is gnawing, and thirst is consuming, what then is
a crust of bread, or a draught of water? Thus we get down to reality; we are no
longer in the region of fancies, decoration, luxury, but we are on the line of life, and
we begin to realise what we do in very deed require, and our hearts glow with
thankfulness to the man who would offer us bread of the plainest kind for the
satisfaction of our intolerable hunger. More men hunger for kind words than for
bread. There is a hunger of the heart. It is possible to be in a house all bread, and yet
not to know the meaning of satisfaction or contentment: all the walls glow with
colour, all the echoes tremble with music, of an artificial and mechanical kind; but
the oppression is an oppression of grandeur: one line of civility, one hint of courtesy,
one approach of love, one smile of interest and sympathy, would be worth it all, ten
thousand times told.

Here is an office we can all exercise. Where we cannot give much that is described as
substantial we can speak kindly, we can look benignantly, we can conduct ourselves
as if we would relieve the burden if we could: thus life would be multiplied,
brightened, sweetened, a great comforting sense of divine nearness would fall upon
our whole consciousness, and we should enter into the possession and the mystery of
heavenly peace. See what fortune has befallen Jehoiachin! After thirty-seven years
he is recognised as king and gentleman and friend, and has kind words spoken to
him in a kind of domestic music. Was not all this worth living for? If Jehoiachin
could have foreseen all this, would he not have been glad with a great joy? But the
programme is not so plainly written as this, nor is it confined to comforts of this
particular sort. It is a subtly drawn programme; the hand that executed this outline
of friendship is no "prentice hand; every finger was a master. Jehoiachin not only
had kind words spoken to him, and great regard shown to him in various ways, but
he was lifted up above the kings that were with the monarch in Babylon. He was at
the head of the list; he took precedence at the royal table; no man must take the seat
of Jehoiachin, king of Judah: see how with the port of a king he advanced to his
eminent position. Was not all this worth living for? The thirty-seven years were
forgotten in this elevation, this honour, this recognition of personal supremacy. Who
can tell, too, how subtle was the action of this arrangement in its humiliation of the
other kings? Critics have an easy trick of praising one author that they may smite
another in the face; they do not care for the particular author, but through him they
want to anger some other writer, to snub and rebuke and chastise and humble some
other man. Who can tell what plan the monarch of Babylon had in all this
arrangement of his table? You can insult a whole score of guests by your treatment
of one of them, and that treatment shall be a treatment of honour, singling out one
individual for recognition, and leaving others to look on until they burn with
jealousy. More still: Jehoiachin had an abundance to eat and drink—"He did
continually eat bread before the king all the days of his life. And for his diet, there
was a continual diet given him of the king of Babylon, every day a portion until the
day of his death, all the days of his life." Was not this worth waiting for? or is it a
poor description? Is it a kind of anticipation of a portrait drawn by the Master
Artist, when he covered with ineffable humiliation a man by simply describing him
as a rich man clothed in purple and fine linen, and faring sumptuously every day?
There are some compliments that are bad to bear as a whiff of perdition. What man
could ever recover that description? A man described by his bank-book, his coat,
and his dinner! and there was nothing more left of him to be described. That was
making as little of himself as he could make. There is a modesty that is sarcastic.
What a delightful end of a suffering course! Who would not be content to live for
such an issue? After thirty-seven years you may come to elevation and honour of the
kind awarded to Jehoiachin. Lift up your heads, sursum corda, cheer yourselves!;
you cannot tell what you may be on the earth; your one little pound may become ten
pounds, and the ten ten thousand, and the little house a great palace, and the small
dinner an abundant banquet, and the draught of water a goblet of foaming wine.
What an end to live for! What a heaven after thirty-seven years!
All this is not the fact. The teacher may take advantage or us, in order that, having

mocked us, he may afterward draw us into deeper prayer, and fasten our attention
with a more religious constancy upon the reality of the case. But we have so many
superficial readers, persons who would not be able to distinguish the chasm between
the text and the sermon. Provided the sentences run fluently, who cares what they
mean, where they came from, where they are going to! What have we been doing in
thus dwelling upon the good fortune of Jehoiachin? We have been playing the fool.
We have been reckoning up social precedences, better clothes, and abundance of
food; we have been taking a minute of circumstances, noting the opening of the day
with its abundant banquet, the dressing hour with its hundred wardrobes and acres
of looking-glass; and we have been adding up how much the man must have worn
and eaten and drunken within the twenty-four hours, and all the while the king
looking at him benignantly, speaking to him as an equal, dealing out to him kind
words,—the whole constituting an ineffable insult. Yet how prone we are to add up
circumstances, and to speak of social relations, as if they constituted the sum-total of
life. Now look at realities. Jehoiachin was in his heart a bad man. That is written
upon the face of the history of the kings of Judah, and not a single word is said
about his change of heart; and bad men cannot have good fortune. Bad men cannot
have a good dinner, it turns to bad blood when it begins to work in the system. They
can be satisfied as a dog might be satisfied with a bone, but they know nothing of the
deeper contentment, the eating that is sacrificial, the drinking that is sacramental,
the patience that culminates in peace that passeth understanding. Everything is
wasted upon a bad man. For Jehoiachin has undergone no change of heart; he is
just what he was when he was first taken away. The prison does not make converts.
There is nothing regenerative in penal endurance literally taken as such. A man is as
great a thief when he leaves the gaol as he was when he went in, unless his heart,
disposition, will, soul, self has been changed. There are persons that come out of
prison expecting you to receive them with delight, as "Hail fellow, well met; you
have been in prison, but have come out—here is my hand." That is not the law of
God; that is not the philosophy of reason. A period of imprisonment cannot turn a
thief into an honest man: one hour of penitence may, one hour of real broken-
heartedness without one taint of hypocrisy will do it. Let us fix our mental vision
upon this Jehoiachin king of Judah. He has been taken out of prison in the narrow
sense of the term, his head has been lifted up, a place of precedence has been
accorded him at the royal table, and his bread and water have been made sure for
the rest of his days: what a delightful situation! No. Jehoiachin at his best was only a
decorated captive; he was still in Babylon. That is the sting. Not what have we, but
where are we, is Heaven"s piercing inquiry. Not how great the barns; state the
height, the width, the depth, the cubic measure of the barns; but, What wheat have
we in the heart, what bread in the soul, what love-wine for the Spirit"s drinking?
Here we have a man who has a seat at the royal table distinguished from all other
seats; we have a brother-king speaking kind words to him: but he is only a captive,
he is a promoted dog. Why do you not fix your mind upon the reality of your
situation? There were times when we used to hear how well off the slaves were, with
their nice whitewashed huts, and their clean clothes; and pious but purblind
ministers of Christ have been taken round to see how well off the slaves were, A

slave cannot be well off. That is the thing that must be spoken. See that rubicund
man at the hut door: how well he looks, what a face he has, what a glowing eye! why,
in that eye I see laughter, Song of Solomon , love of mirth, silent enjoyment of life"s
panorama as it moves; how well off he is! No. Why is he not well off? Because he is a
slave. No man with a chain on his arms can be well off". Let Jehoiachin try to leave
Babylon, and he will see what all the kind words amount to, and all the good clothes,
and all the abundant food; let his heart ache for home, and let him tell his heartache
to Evil-merodach king of Babylon, and he will know exactly what he is—a decorated
hound. Ask what collar the dog has on! but do not tell us that a man who is a captive
can be well off, and ought to be content with the trough at which he feeds.
This is the case with men who do not know it. There are persons who are perfectly
content to be well off in circumstances without ever inquiring how they are off in
character. This is common to nineteenth-century civilisation. Ask concerning the
welfare of your friend: what is the reply?—doing admirably; has a farm of over five
thousand acres; is a great flock-master; is a magistrate; is looked up to by the
surrounding population; he eats and drinks with the best society in that province. Is
that all? What does he read? Does he ever look with other than an ox"s eye upon the
landscape? Has he the land, or the landscape? Does he conduct commerce with
heaven? Has he many a ship going to and fro between the countries, bringing from
heaven"s green shore things to make glad the heart? What ideas has he? What
speculation is there in his eye? of what stature is his mind? Yet there are Christian
people who would hear that a man is well-read, thoroughly intelligent, truly pious,
excellent in moral tone and temper, but—But what? His income is very small! Oh!
when Christians yield to that kind of criticism their pretended Christianity is an
arrant hypocrisy. A man is what he is in his soul. Jeremiah down in the mire is a
happier man then Jehoiachin sitting at the head of the captive kings. For all the
kings we read about here were captive kings, taken by the monarch of Babylon, and
worn by him as men wear medals and stars and decorations. A religious martyr was
a happier man than Jehoiachin. A poor man may be richer than a millionaire. A wise
man may be stronger than an army. When you report your son"s condition, for
God"s sake tell me what his heart is like. He cannot want his coat long; do not dwell
upon that, as if it were an essential feature in the case: reverse your mode of
reckoning, let all circumstances be counted at the lower end of things, and let there
stand first might in prayer, spotlessness of purity, chivalry of nobleness, patience
that never complains, giving that never begrudges. The fear is that men will not take
to this way of reckoning. Poor Jehoiachin! take thy seat, eat plentifully, gorge
thyself, thou promoted dog; leave nothing behind, eat it all—thou art feeding for the
grave! Poor Prayer of Manasseh , loving books, loving truth, loving Wisdom of
Solomon , loving God, loving Christ, thy wealth may be described as unsearchable
riches. Take the right view; measure things by the right standard; and the first shall
be last, and the last first, and the poor man shall have the honours of the house.
What is the sublime, profound, eternal doctrine? It is that only the free can be
blessed; only the free can be happy. If a man is held back by a bad habit he is in
captivity; if a man has the hand of the creditor upon his shoulder, he cannot be
really content and peaceful; if a man is the victim of a tormenting memory, his song

is a lie, and his feast a new way of taking poison; if a man is haunted by remorse
that pricks his pillow, he may have all the bullion of the bank, but in his soul he is a
pauper, and he would part with it all if he could kill the demon that makes his life a
pain. What is the doctrine which the Christian teacher has to promulgate? It is that
only the free can be happy. How can men become free? Jesus Christ did not hesitate
to tell; he said, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Paul spoke
of the liberty that is in Christ as "glorious liberty." Liberty is gladness; freedom is
bliss. Yet the true freedom is to be found in slavery to Christ. His bondage is liberty.
His servitude is freedom. To be the slave of Christ is to be the free man of the
universe. Saviour, Man of the five wounds, make us free!
MACLAREN, "‘AS SODOM’
Jeremiah 52:1 - Jeremiah 52:11.
This account of the fall of Jerusalem is all but identical with that in 2 Kings 25:1 - 2
Kings 25:30 It was probably taken thence by some editor of Jeremiah’s prophecies,
perhaps Baruch, who felt the appropriateness of appending to these the verification
of them in that long-foretold and disbelieved judgment.
The absence of every expression of emotion is most striking. In one sentence the
wrath of God is pointed to as the cause of all; and, for the rest, the tragic facts which
wrung the writer’s heart are told in brief, passionless sentences, which sound liker
the voice of the recording angel than that of a man who had lived through the
misery which he recounts. The Book of Lamentations weeps and sobs with the grief
of the devout Jew; but the historian smothers feeling while he tells of God’s
righteous judgment.
Zedekiah owed his throne to ‘the king of Babylon,’ and, at first, was his obedient
vassal, himself going to Babylon [Jeremiah 51:59] and swearing allegiance [Ezekiel
17:13]. But rebellion soon followed, and the perjured young king once more pursued
the fatal, fascinating policy of alliance with Egypt. There could be but one end to
that madness, and, of course, the Chaldean forces soon appeared to chastise this
presumptuous little monarch, who dared to defy the master of the world. Our
narrative curtails its account of Zedekiah’s reign, bringing into strong relief only the
two facts of his following Jehoiakim’s evil ways, and his rebellion against Babylon.
But behind the rash, ignorant young man, it sees God working, and traces all the
insane bravado by which he was ruining his kingdom and himself to God’s ‘wrath,’
not thereby diminishing Zedekiah’s responsibility for his own acts, but declaring
that his being ‘given over to a reprobate mind’ was the righteous divine punishment
for past sin.
An eighteen months’ agony is condensed into three verses [Jeremiah 52:4 - Jeremiah
52:6], in which the minute care to specify dates pathetically reveals the depth of the
impression which the first appearance of the besieging army made, and the deeper
wound caused by the city’s fall. The memory of these days has not faded yet, for

both are still kept as fasts by the synagogue. We look with the narrator’s eye at the
deliberate massing of the immense besieging force drawing its coils round the
doomed city, like a net round a deer, and mark with him the piling of the mounds,
and the erection on them of siege-towers. We hear of no active siege operations till
the final assault. Famine was Nebuchadnezzar’s best general. ‘Sitting down they
watched’ her ‘there,’ and grimly waited till hunger became unbearable. We can fill
up much of the outline in this narrative from the rest of Jeremiah, which gives us a
vivid and wretched picture of imbecility, divided counsels, and mad hatred of God’s
messenger, blind refusal to see facts, and self-confidence which no disaster could
abate. And, all the while, the monstrous serpent was slowly tightening its folds
round the struggling, helpless rabbit. We have to imagine all the misery.
The narrative hurries on to its close. What widespread and long-drawn-out
privation that one sentence covers: ‘The famine was sore in the city, so that there
was no bread for the people’! Lamentations is full of the cries of famished children
and mothers who eat the fruit of their own bodies. At last, on the memorable black
day, the ninth of the fourth month {say July}, ‘a breach was made,’ and the
Chaldean forces poured in through it. Jeremiah 39:3 tells the names of the
Babylonian officers who ‘sat in the middle gate’ of the Temple, polluting it with their
presence. There seems to have been no resistance from the enfeebled, famished
people; but apparently some of the priests were slain in the sanctuary, perhaps in
the act of defending it from the entrance of the enemy. The Chaldeans would enter
from the north, and, while they were establishing themselves in the Temple,
Zedekiah ‘and all the men of war’ fled, stealing out of the city by a covered way
between two walls, on the south side, and leaving the city to the conqueror, without
striking a blow. They had talked large when danger was not near; but braggarts are
cowards, and they thought now of nothing but their own worthless lives. Then, as
always, the men who feared God feared nothing else, and the men who scoffed at the
day of retribution, when it was far off, were unmanned with terror when it dawned.
The investment had not been complete on the southern side, and the fugitives got
away across Kedron and on to the road to Jericho, their purpose, no doubt, being to
put the Jordan between them and the enemy. One can picture that stampede down
the rocky way, the anxious looks cast backwards, the confusion, the weariness, the
despair when the rush of the pursuers overtook the famine-weakened mob. In sight
of Jericho, which had witnessed the first onset of the irresistible desert-hardened
host under Joshua, the last king of Israel, deserted by his army, was ‘taken in their
pits,’ as hunters take a wild beast. The march to Riblah, in the far north, would be
full of indignities arid of physical suffering. The soldiers of that ‘bitter and hasty’
nation would not spare him one insult or act of cruelty, and he had a tormentor
within worse than they. ‘Why did I not listen to the prophet? What a fool I have
been! If I had only my time to come over again, how differently I would do!’The
miserable self-reproaches, which shoot their arrows into our hearts when it is too
late, would torture Zedekiah, as they will sooner or later do to all who did not listen
to God’s message while there was yet time. The sinful, mad past kept him company
on one hand; and, on the other, there attended him a dark, if doubtful, future. He

knew that he was at the disposal of a fierce conqueror, whom he had deeply
incensed, and who had little mercy. ‘What will become of me when I am face to face
with Nebuchadnezzar? Would that I had kept subject to him!’A past gone to ruin, a
present honey-combed with gnawing remorse and dread, a future threatening,
problematical, but sure to be penal- these were what this foolish young king had
won by showing his spirit and despising Jeremiah’s warnings, It is always a mistake
to fly in the face of God’s commands. All sin is folly, and every evildoer might say
with poor Robert Burns:
‘I backward cast my e’e
On prospects drear!
An’ forward, tho’ I canna see,
I guess an’ fear.’
Nebuchadnezzar was in Riblah, away up in the north, waiting the issue of the
campaign. Zedekiah was nothing to him but one of the many rebellious vassals of
whom he had to make an example lest rebellion should spread, and who was
especially guilty because he was Nebuchadnezzar’s own nominee, and had sworn
allegiance. Policy and his own natural disposition reinforced by custom dictated his
barbarous punishment meted to the unfortunate kinglet of the petty kingdom that
had dared to perk itself up against his might. How little he knew that he was the
executioner of God’s decrees! How little the fact that he was so, diminished his
responsibility for his cruelty! The savage practice of blinding captive kings, so as to
make them harmless and save all trouble with them, was very common. Zedekiah
was carried to Babylon, and thus was fulfilled Ezekiel’s enigmatical prophecy, ‘I will
bring him to Babylon, . . . yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there’ [Ezekiel
12:13].
The fall of Jerusalem should teach us that a nation is a moral whole, capable of
doing evil and of receiving retribution, and not a mere aggregation of individuals. It
should teach us that transgression does still, though not so directly or certainly as in
the case of Israel, sap the strength of kingdoms; and that to-day, as truly as of old,
‘righteousness exalteth a nation.’ It should accustom us to look on history as not
only the result of visible forces, but as having behind it, and reaching its end
through the visible forces, the unseen hand of God. For Christians, the vision of the
Apocalypse contains the ultimate word on ‘the philosophy of history.’ It is ‘the
Lamb before the Throne,’ who opens the roll with the seven seals, and lets the
powers of whom it speaks loose for their march through the world. It should teach
us God’s long-suffering patience and loving efforts to escape the necessity of smiting,
and also God’s rigid justice, which will not shrink from smiting when all these
efforts have failed.
PETT, "Verses 1-3

A Brief Summary Of Zedekiah’s Reign (Jeremiah 52:1-3).
This parallels 2 Kings 24:18-20, and briefly summarises Zedekiah’s reign as ‘evil in
the sight of YHWH’ because of his maintenance of idolatry and gross breach of the
covenant with YHWH as contained in the books of Moses.
Jeremiah 52:1
‘Zedekiah was twenty one years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven
years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah
of Libnah.’
Zedekiah was twenty one years old when he began to reign (in 597 BC) and he
reigned for eleven years in Jerusalem ‘the city which YHWH had chosen out of all
the tribes of Israel to put His Name there’ for David’s sake (1 Kings 14:21). It was to
be the last eleven years of Jerusalem’s existence. The name of the queen mother was
Hamutal. Her father was Jeremiah ( a different Jeremiah) of Libnah, a large city in
the foothills (the Shephelah). Zedekiah was thus the full brother of Jehoahaz
(Jeremiah 23:31), and the half-brother of Jehoiakim.
PETT, "Verses 1-34
An Account Of The Taking And Destruction Of Jerusalem Which Is Then Followed
By The Part Restoration Of The Davidic King (Jeremiah 52:1-34).
In this narrative, which on the whole is a repetition of 2 Kings 24:18 to 2 Kings
25:30, there appear to be certain emphases:
· King Zedekiah, and the people with him, ‘did what was evil in the sight of YHWH’.
This phrase always indicates participation in idolatry and gross disobedience to the
covenant. It explains all that follows (Jeremiah 52:2).
· YHWH was angry and was determined to cast them out of His presence (Jeremiah
52:3).
· King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon arrived with his army, besieged Jerusalem,
bringing the people to starvation level, and thereby took it (Jeremiah 52:4-6).
· King Zedekiah was taken, and was blinded, having witnessed the execution of his
sons, along with other dignitaries, after which he was taken to Babylon and was kept
in prison until he died (Jeremiah 52:9-11).
· YHWH’s House was burned down, along with the palace and all the great houses
of Jerusalem, and the walls of Jerusalem were broken down (Jeremiah 52:13-14).

· The cream of the people were carried off to Babylon, whilst the poorest of the land
(who would have been much more numerous) were left to tend the land (Jeremiah
52:15-16).
· All that was valuable in the house of YHWH was carried off to Babylon (Jeremiah
52:17-23).
· A number of dignitaries were executed, and the cream of the people were then
carried off to Babylon. This latter fact is emphasised by an enumeration of people
taken to exile in Babylon in three main exiles, something not included in the account
in 2 Kings (24-30).
· Jehoiachin, the true Davidic king of Judah, is released from prison and raised to a
position of honour in Babylon (31-34).
It will be seen that in a number of ways this narrative emphasises the fulfilment of
the prophecies of Jeremiah, and explains why it was all necessary. The House of
YHWH had been dishonoured and tainted by idolatrous worship and therefore had
to be destroyed (Jeremiah 7:2-15; Jeremiah 26:6), and then time had to be allowed
while it lay in ruins for the taint of dishonour to evaporate (time is required for
‘sanctifying’. Compare how when a man washed himself he was not clean ‘until the
evening’ e.g. Leviticus 15:16-22; Numbers 19:8). King Zedekiah and his associates
had to be punished for the evil that they had done. The cream of the people had to
share in that punishment as they had shared in the dishonour. They too were to be
removed from the land so that it could be purified. But through it all YHWH would
not forget His people or the Davidic house, something indicated by the restoration of
Jehoiachin, giving hope for the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecies concerning the
Davidic house (Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 30:9; Jeremiah 33:15-21; etc.).
We have, of course, no way of knowing when this narrative was added to Jeremiah’s
prophecies but it would appear that it was done in order to stress, at least in part,
their historical fulfilment. Nor do we know what its source (and the source of the
passage in 2 Kings) was. Only that it was ‘prophetic’. The restoration of Jehoiachin
indicates a date after that event, which took place in around 562 BC. It is possible
that it was Jeremiah himself who added it in his old age, especially if, as Jewish
tradition suggests, he authored the book of Kings. Others suggest Baruch under
Jeremiah’s guidance.
PULPIT, “The contents of this chapter prove that it is not an independent narrative,
but the concluding part of a history of the kings of Judah. It agrees almost word for
word with 2Ki 24:18-25:30, from which we are justified in inferring that it is taken
from the historical work which the editor of the Books of Kings closely followed. It
is most improbable that Jeremiah was the author. Would the prophet have
contented himself with the meagre statement that Zedekiah "did that which was evil
in the eyes of the Lord" (verse 2), or with such a summary description of the siege of
Jerusalem? Apparently the editor who attached Jeremiah 52:1-34. as an appendix to

the Book of Jeremiah omitted the account of Gedaliah (preserved in 2 Kings 25:22-
26) because a fuller narrative had been already given in ch. 40-42. Apparently, too,
either the same or some later editor inserted verses 28-30 from another source; the
passage differs in several respects from 2 Kings 24:1-20. The text of ch. 52. seems to
be a nearer approach to the original document than that of 2Ki 24:18-25:30 (see
Graf's commentary). Compare ch. 39.
2 He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, just as
Jehoiakim had done.
CLARKE, "And he did - evil - This and the following verse are the same as
2Ki_24:19.
GILL, "And he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord,.... Though we do
not read of any idolatry he was guilty of; yet he was disobedient to the word of the Lord,
and did not humble himself before Jeremiah the prophet of the Lord, that spoke in his
name; and particularly he rebelled against the king of Babylon, and violated the oath he
made to him, 2Ch_36:12;
according to all that Jehoiakim had done; an elder brother of his, who reigned
after Josiah, and before Jehoiachin.
PETT, "Jeremiah 52:2
‘And he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, in accordance with all that
Jehoiakim had done.’
Zedekiah continued to walk in the same way as Jehoiakim had done, permitting the
continuation of the worship of Baal and Asherah, as well as necessarily having to
perpetuate the worship of the gods of Babylon. He also allowed gross breaches of the
covenant. (Neither Jehoahaz nor Jehoiachin had reigned long enough to be seen as a
pattern). All Josiah’s efforts had, in the long term, seemingly been in vain, and the
Temple was being defiled. Zedekiah chose to ape Jehoiakim rather than his own
godly father. YHWH had given Judah its last chance and it had rejected it.
‘He did what was evil in the sight of YHWH.’ This is a constant refrain in the book
of Kings indicating the promulgation of idolatry and of false gods, and gross
disobedience to the covenant.

3 It was because of the Lord’s anger that all this
happened to Jerusalem and Judah, and in the end
he thrust them from his presence.
Now Zedekiah rebelled against the king of
Babylon.
BARNES, "It - i. e., Zedekiah’s evil doing.
Presence, that Zedekiah - Or, punctuate; “presence. And Zedekiah” etc.
CLARKE, "Through the anger of the Lord - Here is a king given to a people in
God’s anger, and taken away in his displeasure.
GILL, "For through the anger of the Lord it came to pass in Jerusalem and
Judah,.... Or, "besides the anger of the Lord that was in", or "against Jerusalem and
Judah" (n); for their many sins and transgressions committed against him:
till he had cast them out from his presence; out of the land of Judea; out of
Jerusalem, and the temple, where were the symbols of his presence; so the Targum,
"till he removed them from the land of the house of his Shechinah;''
or majesty:
that Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon: acted a very perfidious part,
and broke a solemn covenant made with him by an oath, which was highly displeasing to
God, and resented by him; the oath being made in his name, and by one that professed to
worship him: this was an additional sin to those of the inhabitants of Judah and
Jerusalem, which provoked the Lord to anger. According to our version the sense is, that
because of the anger of the Lord for the sins of the Jews, God suffered Zedekiah to rebel
against the king of Babylon, that so he might be provoked to come against them, and take
vengeance on them; or for his former sins he suffered him to fall into this, to his own and
his people's ruin.
JAMISON, "through ... anger of ... Lord ... Zedekiah rebelled — His “anger”
against Jerusalem, determining Him to “cast out” His people “from His presence”
heretofore manifested there, led Him to permit Zedekiah to rebel (2Ki_23:26,
2Ki_23:27; compare Exo_9:12; Exo_10:1; Rom_9:18). That rebellion, being in violation
of his oath “by God,” was sure to bring down God’s vengeance (2Ch_36:13; Eze_17:15,

Eze_17:16, Eze_17:18).
COKE, "Jeremiah 52:3. For through the anger of the Lord, &c.— For it was so
because of the anger of JEHOVAH against Judah and Jerusalem. The particle ki, is
here causal, and assigns a reason for what went before; namely, why Zedekiah
succeeded Jehoiakim in the throne. This happened, it is said, "because of the anger
of JEHOVAH" not that JEHOVAH instigated either them or any man else to do
wickedly; but it was of his special order and appointment, for the punishment of a
wicked people, that men of such perverse and evil dispositions were advanced to be
their kings. For having determined, as it is said, 2 Kings 21:11-16 to execute a signal
vengeance upon Judah and Jerusalem for the very heinous provocations that he had
received during the reign of Manasseh, he first of all removed the good Josiah out of
the way, from respect to whose piety he would not bring the evil in his days, and
thus opened the succession to his sons, the badness of whose principles favoured the
designs of God's justice, and led them to pursue measures equally fatal to
themselves and their country. For hence it flowed, that to their other wicked and
sinful actions they added one no less impolitic than profligate, that of rebelling
against a prince, to whom they were engaged by all the ties of religion, honour, and
gratitude; one who had power to crush them, and who exercised that power with the
most unrelenting severity. Thus truly might it be said of the people of Judah, in the
words of the prophet Hosea, chap. Jeremiah 13:11. "God gave them kings in his
anger, and took, or applied, them to the purposes of his indignation;" which indeed
is but another way of expressing the sense here intended, namely, that it, Zedekiah's
succession, was the consequence of the anger of JEHOVAH against Judah and
Jerusalem, and designed finally to terminate in his removal of them out of his sight.
‘For through the anger of YHWH did it come about in Jerusalem and Judah, until
he had cast them out from his presence. And Zedekiah rebelled against the king of
Babylon.’
The fact of YHWH’s anger against Judah and Jerusalem, and their removal from
His sight is an important theme in 2 Kings (2 Kings 21:12-14; 2 Kings 22:13; 2
Kings 23:26; 2 Kings 24:2-3), and also in Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jeremiah 4:8;
Jeremiah 4:26; Jeremiah 7:18-20; Jeremiah 8:19; Jeremiah 11:17; and often). It had
been His continual purpose from the time of Manasseh. The warnings of Leviticus
18:25; Leviticus 18:28; Leviticus 26:28-35; Deuteronomy 29:28 were being fulfilled.
And it was being brought about by YHWH Himself. But it should be noted that
humanly speaking it was brought on them by the actions of the king and his
advisers. It was Zedekiah who, against all YHWH’s advice through Jeremiah,
rebelled against the king of Babylon.
This rebellion appears to have been inspired as a result of news being received of an
internal rebellion in Babylon in which many Jews were involved (there was constant
contact with Babylon), and was no doubt partly stirred up by the continuing urgings

of Egypt, who would indeed at one stage send an army to temporarily relieve
Jerusalem (Jeremiah 37:5). Tyre and Sidon, Edom, Moab and Ammon all appear to
have been involved (Jeremiah 27:1-11).
PULPIT. “It came to pass. The implied subject of the verb is Zedekiah's evil doing.
That Zedekiah rebelled. There ought to be a full stop before these words, and "that"
should rather be "And."
4 So in the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, on the
tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with
his whole army. They encamped outside the city
and built siege works all around it.
GILL, "And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign,.... Of Zedekiah's reign:
in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month; the month Tebet, which
answers to part of December and part of January; hence the fast of the tenth month, on
account of the siege of Jerusalem, Zec_8:19;
that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his army,
against Jerusalem; from whence it appears that he came in person with his army at
first to Jerusalem; but, during the siege, or some part of it, retired to Riblah; perhaps
upon the news of the king of Egypt's coming to the assistance of the Jews:
and pitched against it; or encamped against it:
and built forts against it round about; wooden towers, as Jarchi and Kimchi
explain it; from whence they could shoot their arrows and cast their stones.
JAMISON, "forts — rather, towers of wood [Kimchi], for watching the movements
of the besieged from the height and annoying them with missiles.
PETT, "Verses 4-11
In Accord With The Prophecies Of Jeremiah Nebuchadrezzar Besieges Jerusalem,
Takes Zedekiah Prisoner And Exacts Vengeance On His Sons And On The Nobles
Of Judah (Jeremiah 52:4-11).
Jeremiah 52:4

‘And it came about in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth
day of the month, that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army,
against Jerusalem, and encamped against it, and they built forts against it round
about.
In the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, came
with all his army and encamped against Jerusalem, setting up siege forts around it.
This would have resulted in the devastation of much of the land of Judah prior to,
and during, the siege. Nebuchadnezzar had once and for all lost patience with
Jerusalem and Judah (and as the Book of Daniel makes clear he suffered from a
mental illness, and was probably a manic depressive).
Note the contrast with 2 Kings where Nebuchadrezzar’s name was given as
Nebuchadnezzar, a name also used elsewhere in Jeremiah. In Babylon he was called
‘Nabu-kudurri-usur’ (‘Nabu has protected the succession rights’), but in the Greek
he is called ‘Nabochodonosor’. So both forms are possible. The alteration here does,
however, indicate that the passages were not cited without thought.
5 The city was kept under siege until the eleventh
year of King Zedekiah.
CLARKE, "So the city was besieged - It held out one year and six months.
GILL, "So the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. The
siege continued about eighteen months; from the tenth day of the tenth month, in the
ninth of Zedekiah's reign, to the ninth day of the fourth month, in the eleventh year of his
reign; as follows:
‘So the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of king Zedekiah.’
The siege continued over a period of nineteen months, although at one stage
temporarily suspended as a result of the arrival of an Egyptian army (Jeremiah
37:5). It was clear to all that the city was doomed. It would have been crowded with
refugees fleeing before the advancing troops so that food supplies would quickly
diminish, even though partly supplemented at the time of Egypt’s intervention.

6 By the ninth day of the fourth month the famine
in the city had become so severe that there was no
food for the people to eat.
CLARKE, "And in the fourth month - See the notes on Jer_39:1, etc. The fourth
month answers nearly to our July.
GILL, "And in the fourth month, in the ninth day of the month,.... The month
Tammuz (o), which answers to part of June and part of July; hence the fast of the fourth
month, for the taking of the city, Zec_8:19;
the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of
the land; for the common people; though there might be some in the king's palace, and
in the houses of princes and noblemen, and officers of the army; yet none for the
soldiers, and the meaner sort of people; who therefore were disheartened and enfeebled,
that they could not defend the city, or hold out any longer: the famine had been before
this time, but was now increased to a prodigious degree, so that the people had no bread
to eat; see Jer_38:9.
‘In the fourth month, in the ninth day of the month, the famine was sore in the city,
so that there was no bread for the people of the land.’
By July 587 BC, as a direct result of the siege, starvation had become a problem in
the city, for there was no food for ‘the people of the land’ who were now sheltering
in Jerusalem. The city had been cut off from outside help for many months. For a
vivid picture of the situation see Lamentations 2:12; Lamentations 4:4-5;
Lamentations 4:9-10. Compare also 2 Kings 6:25-30.
PULPIT, “The famine was sore (see the pathetic descriptions in Lamentations 1:19,
Lamentations 1:20; Lamentations 2:11, Lamentations 2:12, Lamentations 2:20;
Lamentations 4:9, Lamentations 4:10).
7 Then the city wall was broken through, and the
whole army fled. They left the city at night
through the gate between the two walls near the
king’s garden, though the Babylonians[a] were

surrounding the city. They fled toward the
Arabah,[b]
GILL, "Then the city was broken up,.... Either its gates were broke open, some one
or other of them; or a breach was made in the walls of it, through which the Chaldean
army entered:
and all the men of war fled; the soldiers, with their officers, not being able to stand
before the army of the king of Babylon:
and went forth out of the city by night; at which time, very probably, the attack was
made, and the gates of the city forced open, or the walls broke down; Josephus (p) says it
was taken in the middle of the night:
by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the king's
garden; See Gill on Jer_39:4;
now the Chaldeans were by the city round about; as part of their army entered
into it, the other part surrounded it; or, however, were placed at the gates and avenues
all around, that none might escape:
and they went by the way of the plain; that is, the men of war or soldiers that fled,
together with King Zedekiah, his family and princes; see Jer_39:4.
‘Then a breach was made in the city, and all the men of war fled, and went forth out
of the city by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, which was by the
king’s garden; (now the Chaldeans were against the city round about) and they
made their way toward the Arabah.
A breach was made in the wall. We may see this as having been made by the enemy
on the grounds that the desperate attempt to escape was made by night, utilising a
small postern gate (the main gates would be closely guarded) which would have
been identifiable at the time. Had the breach been made by the people of Jerusalem
the use of the gate would not have been necessary, unless the breach was intended as
a diversion in order to let the king escape. And ‘all the men of war’ (possibly the
king’s bodyguard), fled from Jerusalem, along with the king, who was making for
the Jordan Rift Valley, the Arabah, possibly hoping to find refuge in Moab. They
may have fought their way through the surrounding Chaldeans, having taken them
by surprise, or they may have made use of their knowledge of the terrain in order to
avoid them.
PULPIT, “Broken up; rather, broken into. The plain. The Hebrew has," the

Arabah," the name constantly given to the chalky depression in the midst of which
the Jordan ran.
8 but the Babylonian[c] army pursued King
Zedekiah and overtook him in the plains of
Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him
and scattered,
CLARKE, "The army of the Chaldeans pursued - See on 2Ki_25:5 (note).
GILL, "But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king,.... Not finding
him in his palace, and being informed of his flight, and which way he took:
and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho: See Gill on Jer_39:5;
and all his army was scattered from him; when they saw the enemy pursuing
them, and near unto them, they left him, as Josephus (q) says, and shifted for
themselves.
SBC 8-11, “Of the many truths which the passage before us teaches, the mysterious
intervolution of the plans of God with the plans of men will seem to some minds the
most impressive.
I. The enclosure of the plans of men within the plans of God is such that commonly men
appear to be left very much to themselves.
II. In leaving men to themselves in the forming and working of their own plans, Divine
control does not prevent the occurrence of very shocking catastrophes.
III. Yet the plans of God envelop and use the plans of men with more than motherly
tenderness for every man, every woman, every child.
IV. The interlacing of the plans of God with the plans of man goes far towards explaining
the mystery of shocking and exceptional calamity. Suffering is God’s great remedial
antithesis to sin.
V. The interworking of the plans of God with the plans of men suggests the only true
method of happy as well as holy living. It is to make our plans one with God’s plans.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 215.
Reference: Jer_52:11.—J. Kennedy, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 140.

‘But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook Zedekiah in
the plains of Jericho, and all his army was scattered from him.’
However, the movement of such a large number of men could hardly fail to be
detected, and the escape may well therefore have involved some fighting, so that
when the Chaldeans realised that there had been an escape they pursued after the
king. The king’s troops scattered to find refuge where they could. This may have
been before the arrival of the Chaldeans in the hope was that this would aid the
king’s escape in that the Chaldeans would not know who to follow (but if so it
failed), or it may have been as a result of the subsequent attack of the Chaldeans. In
consequence he was captured in ‘the plains of Jericho’, in the Jordan Rift Valley
(the Arabah).
9 and he was captured.
He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah in
the land of Hamath, where he pronounced
sentence on him.
CLARKE, "King of Babylon to Riblah - See the note on Jer_39:5.
GILL, "Then they took the king,.... King Zedekiah, being left alone, excepting some
few with him:
and carried him up unto the king of Babylon to Riblah in the land of
Hamath; which is supposed to be Antioch in Syria:
where he gave judgment upon him; or "spake with him judgments" (r): chided and
reproached him for his perfidy and ingratitude; expostulated and reasoned with him
upon this subject, exposing his iniquity; and then passed sentence upon him, which was
after executed; See Gill on Jer_39:5.
JAMISON, "gave judgment upon him — as guilty of rebellion and perjury
(Jer_52:3; compare Eze_23:24).
WHEDON, "Verses 9-11
9-11. Then they took the king — Zedekiah, king of Judah.

Put him in prison — Namely, in Babylon.
Till the day of his death — Yet it appears that toward the close of his life his
confinement was less rigorous than when he was first taken to Babylon, and that an
honourable interment was given him after his death. This is the purport of the
promise made to him through Jeremiah while yet in Judea, as recorded in Jeremiah
34:1-5.
‘Then they took the king, and carried him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah in the
land of Hamath; and he gave judgment on him.’
Zedekiah was then taken to Riblah in the region of Hamath on the Orontes where
Nebuchadrezzar was stationed, and there given a form of trial. But the result could
hardly have been in doubt from Nebuchadrezzar’s viewpoint. He had broken his
oath of allegiance and was worthy of death.
10 There at Riblah the king of Babylon killed the
sons of Zedekiah before his eyes; he also killed all
the officials of Judah.
GILL. “the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes,.... Or,
however, ordered them to be slain; See Gill on Jer_39:6;
he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah; who, together with the king's sons,
were taken with him; or, however, were taken in Jerusalem, and brought to Riblah;
which of them is not certain, very probably the former.
11 Then he put out Zedekiah’s eyes, bound him
with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon,
where he put him in prison till the day of his
death.
BARNES, "Put him in prison ... - Not found in 2 Kings, for in the
contemporaneous history what befell Zedekiah at Riblah would alone be known. It was

no doubt added by the same hand which inserted the account of the deportations to
Babylon.
CLARKE, "He put out the eyes of Zedekiah - See on Jer_39:7 (note).
GILL, "Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah,.... After he had seen his children and
princes executed, which must be very terrible to him; See Gill on Jer_39:7;
and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon; in
Jer_39:7; it is said, he bound him, "to carry him" there; here it is affirmed he did carry
him thither: and it is added,
and put him in prison till the day of his death; from this place only we learn that
King Zedekiah was put into a prison, and died a prisoner.
JAMISON, "Eze_12:13 : “I will bring him to Babylon ... yet shall he not see it.”
prison — literally, “the house of visitations,” or “punishments,” that is, where there
was penal work enforced on the prisoners, such as grinding. Hence the Septuagint
renders it “the house of the mill.” So Samson, after his eyes were put out, “ground” in the
Philistine prison-house (Jdg_16:21).
PETT, "Jeremiah 52:10-11
‘And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes. He slew also all
the princes of Judah in Riblah. And he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of
Babylon bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till
the day of his death.’ ’
Nebuchadrezzar’s penalty was severe. All his sons were slain before his eyes and he
was then blinded, leaving the last sight that he had experienced before becoming
blind as that of his sons being killed. Then he was bound in fetters and carried off to
Babylon to spend the remainder of his life in prison. He was probably spared, not as
an act of mercy, but in order that he might serve as an example of Nebuchadrezzar’s
superiority. His rebellion, into which humanly speaking he had been forced by the
anti-Assyrian party in Jerusalem, had cost him dear. From the divine point of view
his evil behaviour had brought its own reward. But the adviser’s did not get away
scot free. A number of them were also executed.
The word for ‘prison’ means ‘house of punishment’ or ‘house of visitation’ and may
indicate a more severe regime than usual. LXX translates as though it referred to
him grinding at the mill.
Note that ‘The king of Babylon’ is ‘they’ in 2 Kings, the responsibility is being
personalised, and that ‘he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah’ is an addition

compared with the narrative in 2 Kings, stressing that the king’s advisers also
received punishment for the advice that they had given as Jeremiah had warned.
Nebuchadrezzar was not alone in such cruelty. Assur-bani-pal of Assyria boasted of
how he put a king of Arabia in chains and bound him with the dogs, and caused him
to be kept in one of the great gates of Nineveh, whilst Darius of Persia would later
take a rebel king of Sagartia and cut off his nose and ears, and keep him chained to
a door. Compare also Judges 1:6-7.
12 On the tenth day of the fifth month, in the
nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the
imperial guard, who served the king of Babylon,
came to Jerusalem.
GILL, "Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month,.... Hence the fast
of the fifth month, for the burning of the city, which was the month Ab, and answers to
part of July and part of August, Zec_8:19;
which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; that is, the
nineteenth year of his reign; who reigned in all forty three years, according to Ptolemy's
canon:
came Nebuzaradan captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon,
into Jerusalem; or "stood before the king of Babylon" (s); ministered to him, was a
servant of his, the provost marshal, or chief marshal; he was sent, and came from Riblah
to Jerusalem, with a commission to burn the city. In 2Ki_25:8; it is said to be on the
"seventh" day of the fifth month that he came thither; here, on the "tenth" day; which
difficulty may be solved, without supposing different copies, or any error: he might set
out from Riblah on the seventh day, and come to Jerusalem on the tenth; or he might
come thither on the seventh, and not set fire to the city till the tenth; or, if he set fire to it
on the seventh, it might be burning to the tenth, before it was wholly consumed. The
Jews (t) account for it thus,
"strangers entered into the temple, and ate in it, and defiled it, the seventh and eighth
days; and on the ninth, towards dark, they set fire to it; and it burned and continued all
that whole day, as it is said, Jer_6:4;''
R. Johanan was saying, if I had been in that generation, I should have fixed on that day,
for the greatest part of the temple was burnt on that day. The authors of the Universal
History say (u) it was on Wednesday the eleventh of the fourth month, answering to our

twenty seventh of July; but, according to the express words of the text, the city was broke
up on the ninth of the fourth month, and burnt on the tenth day of the fifth month; and
which was, according to Bishop Usher (w), the twenty seventh of August, on a sabbath
day, and in the year of the world 3416, and before Christ 588; and is placed by them in
the same years; and by Mr. Whiston (x) in 589; and by Mr. Bedford (y) in the year 587.
This was a month after the taking of the city.
HENRY 12-23, “We have here an account of the woeful havoc that was made by the
Chaldean army, a month after the city was taken, under the command of Nebuzaradan,
who was captain of the guard, or general of the army, in this action. In the margin he is
called the chief of the slaughter-men, or executioners; for soldiers are but slaughter-
men, and God employs them as executioners of his sentence against a sinful people.
Nebuzaradan was chief of those soldiers, but, in the execution he did, we have reason to
fear he had no eye to God, but he served the king of Babylon and his own designs, now
that he came into Jerusalem, into the very bowels of it, as captain of the slaughter-men
there. And, 1. He laid the temple in ashes, having first plundered it of every thing that
was valuable: He burnt the house of the Lord, that holy and beautiful house, where their
fathers praised him, Isa_64:11. 2. He burnt the royal palace, probably that which
Solomon built after he had built the temple, which was, ever since, the king's house. 3.
He burnt all the houses of Jerusalem, that is, all the houses of the great men, or those
particularly; if any escaped, it was only some sorry cottages for the poor of the land. 4.
He broke down all the walls of Jerusalem, to be revenged upon them for standing in the
way of his army so long. Thus, of a defenced city, it was made a ruin, Isa_25:2. 5. He
carried away many into captivity (Jer_52:15); he took away certain of the poor of the
people, that is, of the people in the city, for the poor of the land (the poor of the country)
he left for vine-dressers and husbandmen. He also carried off the residue of the people
that remained in the city, that had escaped the sword and famine, and the deserters,
such as he thought fit, or rather such as God thought fit; for he had already determined
some for the pestilence, some for the sword, some for famine, and some for captivity,
Jer_15:2. But, 6. Nothing is more particularly and largely related here than the carrying
away of the appurtenances of the temple. All that were of great value were carried away
before, the vessels of silver and gold, yet some of that sort remained, which were now
carried away, Jer_52:19. But most of the temple-prey that was now seized was of brass,
which, being of less value, was carried off last. When the gold was gone, the brass soon
went after it, because the people repented not, according to Jeremiah's prediction,
Jer_27:19, etc. When the walls of the city were demolished, the pillars of the temple were
pulled down too, and both in token that God, who was the strength and stay both of their
civil and their ecclesiastical government, had departed from them. No walls can protect
those, nor pillars sustain those, from whom God withdraws. These pillars of the temple
were not for support (for there was nothing built upon them), but for ornament and
significancy. They were called Jachin - He will establish; and Boaz - In him is strength;
so that the breaking of these signified that God would no longer establish his house nor
be the strength of it. These pillars are here very particularly described (Jer_52:21-23,
from 1Ki_7:15), that the extraordinary beauty and stateliness of them may affect us the
more with the demolishing of them. All the vessels that belonged to the brazen altar were
carried away; for the iniquity of Jerusalem, like that of Eli's house, was not to be purged
by sacrifice or offering, 1Sa_3:14. It is said (Jer_52:20), The brass of all these vessels
was without weight; so it was in the making of them (1Ki_7:47), the weight of the brass
was not then found out (2Ch_4:18), and so it was in the destroying of them. Those that
made great spoil of them did not stand to weigh them, as purchasers do, for, whatever

they weighted, it was all their own.
JAMISON, "tenth day — But in 2Ki_25:8, it is said “the seventh day.” Nebuzara-dan
started from Riblah on the “seventh” day and arrived in Jerusalem on the “tenth” day.
Seeming discrepancies, when cleared up, confirm the genuineness of Scripture; for they
show there was no collusion between the writers; as in all God’s works there is latent
harmony under outward varieties.
K&D12-14, “The destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, and the carrying away
of the people, which are only very summarily stated in Jer_39:8-10, are here related in
complete accordance with the account given in 2Ki_25:8-17. The deviations for the most
part originated through the freedom exercised by the epitomizer in his work, or only
when mistakes were made by later copyists. The text before us has some amplifications
(especially the notices regarding the ornaments of the brazen pillars, Jer_52:23) which
are found nowhere else in the Old Testament. The difference in date between Jer_52:12
("on the tenth of the month") and the passage in Kings ("on the seventh of the month")
has arisen through one number having been mistaken for another in copying; it cannot
now be decided which is correct; see on 2Ki_25:18. As to Nebuzaradan, see on
Jer_39:13. Instead of , is found in 2Ki_25:8, which certainly is a simpler reading, but
one having less appearance of being the original. The only strange point is the want of
the relative in plain prose before , which is probably to be pointed ., instead of (Kings),
is a pregnant expression for "he came into Jerusalem." - Jer_52:14. From the expression
, as given in Jer_52:14, "all" is omitted in Kings, as being not indispensable for the
meaning.
PETT, "Verses 12-23
The Destruction Of Jerusalem And Of The Temple Followed By The Taking Of
Exiles And The Treasures Of The Temple To Babylon (Jeremiah 52:12-23).
Having taken Jerusalem Nebuzaradan, the commander of the king’s bodyguard,
burned down the Temple and the royal palace, together with the leading residences
of Jerusalem, completely dismantled the defensive walls of Jerusalem (the efficiency
with which he did this has been testified to archaeologically), and carried away the
cream of the population into exile (which only numbered eight hundred and thirty
two, together no doubt with their wives and families) leaving the poorer people to
look after the land. He also took the treasures of the Temple as spoils to Babylon.
Jeremiah 52:12
‘Now in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth
year of king Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the

guard, who stood before the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem,’
One month later Nebuzaradan the captain of Nebuchadrezzar’s guard (he ‘stood
before the king of Babylon’) arrived in Jerusalem, no doubt with strict instructions
as to what he was to do. The city had rebelled once too often, and both YHWH and
Nebuchadrezzar were sick of it. Nebuzaradan was going to teach them a severe
lesson.
2 Kings 25:8 says that it was on the seventh day of the month. This may in fact have
been the day on which he started his journey, with Jeremiah giving the arrival date.
Or it may be that he arrived at the Babylonian camp outside Jerusalem on the
seventh day and had discussions there with the Babylonian commanders in order to
plan what he was going to do, prior to actually commencing his activity on the 10th.
Jeremiah 52:29 says that it was in the eighteenth year demonstrating that the year of
accession was there ignored in the calculation.
13 He set fire to the temple of the Lord, the royal
palace and all the houses of Jerusalem. Every
important building he burned down.
BARNES, "Houses of the great - Rather, every great house; i. e., the larger houses
only.
CLARKE, "And burned the house of the Lord - Thus perished this magnificent
structure, after it had stood four hundred and twenty-four years three months and eight
days. It was built A.M. 2992, and destroyed A.M. 3416.
GILL, "And burnt the house of the Lord,.... The temple built by Solomon, after it
had stood four hundred and seventy years, six months, and ten days, according to
Josephus (z): but the Jews say it stood but four hundred ten years (a):
and the king's house; the royal palace; probably that which was built by Solomon,
1Ki_7:1;
and all the houses of Jerusalem: of any note or strength:
and all the houses of the great men burnt he with fire; of the princes and nobles
in Jerusalem; it is in the singular number, "and every house of the great one"; or "every
great house" (b); Jarchi interprets it of the synagogue, where prayer was magnified; and
others, he says, understood it of the schools, where the law was magnified.

JAMISON, "all the houses ... and all the houses of the great — the “and”
defines what houses especially are meant, namely, the houses of the great men.
‘And he burned the house of YHWH, and the king’s house; and all the houses of
Jerusalem, even every great house, he burned with fire. And all the army of the
Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down all the walls of
Jerusalem round about.’
The book of Kings began by describing the building of the house of YHWH and the
king’s house, in all their splendour (1 Kings 5:1 to 1 Kings 7:12). Now those same
houses were to be burned with fire, along with all the other large houses in
Jerusalem (no one would bother about the hovels). The walls also of the city were
broken down all round the city, something testified to archaeologically. Jerusalem
was to be left a ruin, almost uninhabited apart from the poor and the totally
defenceless. This was demonstrating that Judah was no longer to be allowed to
continue as a semi-independent state.
14 The whole Babylonian army, under the
commander of the imperial guard, broke down all
the walls around Jerusalem.
GILL, "And all the army of the Chaldeans, that were with the captain of the
guard,.... Which he brought with him from Riblah, or were left at Jerusalem by those
that pursued after Zedekiah when the city was taken, which the captain of the guard now
had the command of:
broke down all the walls of Jerusalem round about: See Gill on Jer_39:8.
15 Nebuzaradan the commander of the guard
carried into exile some of the poorest people and
those who remained in the city, along with the rest
of the craftsmen[d] and those who had deserted to
the king of Babylon.

BARNES, "Certain of the poor of the people, and - Omit (as in 2Ki_25:11),
being inserted through some confusion with Jer_52:16.
Multitude - Possibly workmen. The object of Nebuchadnezzar was to people Babylon,
not with paupers, but with men of a better class, artisans and workmen, who would
enrich it.
CLARKE, "Those that fell away - The deserters to the Chaldeans during the siege.
GILL, "Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive
certain of the poor of the people,.... That is, of the city, as distinct from the poor of
the land of Judea he left, afterwards observed:
and the residue of the people that remained in the city; that died not by the
sword or famine, and fled not with Zedekiah: or "even the residue of the people"; and so
are the same with the poor people in the former clause; though Kimchi explains it thus,
"some of the poor of the people he carried captive, and some of them he left:''
and those that fell away, that fell to the king of Babylon; that fell off from the
Jews, and surrendered to the king of Babylon during the siege; or that voluntarily came
in, and put themselves into the hands of the captain of the guard:
and the rest of the multitude; of the people, both in city and country.
JAMISON, "poor of ... people — added to the account in 2Ki_25:11. “The poor of
the people” are of the city, as distinguished from “the poor of the land,” that is, of the
country.
K&D 15-16, “The first words, "And of the poor of the people," are wanting in Kings,
and have been brought here, through an error on the part of the copyist, from the
beginning of the next verse; for "the poor of the people" are first treated of in Jer_52:16,
where it is stated that Nebuzaradan left them in the land, while Jer_52:15 treats of those
who were carried away to Babylon. The word , instead of (Kings), seems to have
originated simply through the exchange of for , and to mean, like the other, the
multitude of people. Hitzig and Graf are of opinion that here, as in Pro_8:30, means
workmaster or artificer, and that denotes the same persons (collectively) who are
designated in Pro_24:1; Pro_29:2, and 2Ki_24:14. But this view is opposed by the
parallel passage, Jer_39:9, where the whole of this verse occurs, and stands instead of
. "The rest of the people of Jerusalem" are divided, by , into those who went over to the

Chaldeans, and the rest of the people who were taken prisoners by the Chaldeans at the
capture of the city. The statement that both of these two classes of the population of
Jerusalem were carried away to Babylon is so far limited by the further declaration, in
Jer_52:16, that Nebuzaradan did not carry away every one, without exception, but let a
portion of the humbler inhabitants of the country, who had no property, remain in the
land, as vinedressers and husbandmen, that they might till the land. Instead of there
occurs in Kings , and in Jer_39:10, more distinctly, , "some of the people, the humbler
ones," who had no property of their own. , pl. , is an abstract noun, "poverty;" the
singular is used collectively, hence the plural is here used to supply the deficiency. For ,
from , to plough, there is found instead, in 2Ki_25:12, Kethib , from , with the same
meaning.
‘Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive of the poorest of
the people, and the residue of the people who were left in the city, and those who fell
away, who fell to the king of Babylon, and the residue of the multitude. But
Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be
vinedressers and husbandmen.’
The whole of what remained of the repopulated Jerusalem (it had had to be
repopulated following what happened in 597 BC) were transported to Riblah, even
those who had surrendered to the Babylonians during the siege (those who ‘fell
away to the king of Babylon’). ‘The residue of the multitude’ probably refers to
those who had taken refuge in the city before the siege began. All were carried away
captive because of their connection with Jerusalem.
The land was not, however, to be left totally deserted and of those transported to
Riblah were the common and unimportant folk (and there would be many of them)
who were left in the land in order to maintain its agriculture and pay tribute to
Babylon. Thus while Jerusalem itself was now almost deserted and in ruins, the land
around remained populated and was tended, although hardly initially being in good
condition. Those who were left of Judah still survived in the land, and they would no
doubt be supplemented by those who came out of hiding in the mountains once the
Babylonian forces had withdrawn. Thus it is wrong to think of Judah as totally
deserted. Babylon’s purpose had been to draw Judah’s teeth, not to commit
genocide. Furthermore as far as we know Lachish, and possibly other cities, had not
been taken, and if so their inhabitants may have been treated more leniently.
Gedaliah the new governor would come from Lachish.
A Description Of The Treasures Of YHWH’s House Which Were Taken Away.
We are now given a description of the Temple treasures which were removed to

Babylon. These included the two huge free-standing pillars which Solomon had
erected in front of the Sanctuary, and the great brazen ‘sea’, erected on twelve
brazen bulls, which had contained water for the cleansing of the priests. Also
included were the pots and vessels used in worship, many of which would be stored
up in Babylon and made available to them on the decree of Cyrus when the exiles
began to return.
16 But Nebuzaradan left behind the rest of the
poorest people of the land to work the vineyards
and fields.
BARNES, "Husbandmen - Men who tilled little plots of ground with the mattock.
CLARKE, "The poor of the land - See on Jer_39:1 (note).
GILL, "But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left certain of the poor of
the land,.... Of the land of Judea, who lived in the country, and had not been concerned
in defending the city against the Chaldeans:
for vinedressers, and for husbandmen; to look after the vineyards and fields, and
dress and manure them, that the king of Babylon might receive some advantage by the
conquest he had made; See Gill on Jer_39:10.
17 The Babylonians broke up the bronze pillars,
the movable stands and the bronze Sea that were
at the temple of the Lord and they carried all the
bronze to Babylon.
GILL, "Also the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord,.... The two
pillars in the temple, called Jachin and Boaz, which were made of cast brass, 1Ki_7:15;
and the bases; which were in number ten, and which were also made of cast brass, and
were all of one measure and size; and on which the ten lavers of brass were set, five on
the right side and five on the left side of the house, 1Ki_7:37;

and the brasen sea that was in the house of the Lord; called the molten sea; a
sea, because of the large quantity of water it held; and brasen and molten, because made
of molten brass, 1Ki_7:23;
the Chaldeans broke, and carried all the brass of them to Babylon: they broke
them to pieces, that they might carry them the more easily. This account is given, and
which is continued in some following verses, partly to show the accomplishment of the
prophecy of Jeremiah, Jer_27:19; and partly to show that what was left in the temple, at
the former captivities of Jehoiakim and Jeconiah, were now carried clear off.
JAMISON, "brake — that they might be more portable. Fulfilling the prophecy
(Jer_27:19). See 1Ki_7:15, 1Ki_7:23, 1Ki_7:27, 1Ki_7:50. Nothing is so particularly
related here as the carrying away of the articles in the temple. The remembrance of their
beauty and preciousness heightens the bitterness of their loss and the evil of sin which
caused it.
brass ... brazen — rather “copper ... of copper.”
K&D 17-23, “brake — that they might be more portable. Fulfilling the prophecy
caused it.
COFFMAN, "Verse 17
THE TEMPLE WAS LOOTED AND TOTALLY DESTROYED
"The pillars of brass that were in the house of Jehovah, and the bases and the
brazen sea that were in the house of Jehovah, did the Chaldeans break in pieces, and
carried all the brass of them to Babylon. The pots also, and the shovels, and the
snuffers, and the basins and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they
ministered took they away. And the cups, and the firepans, and the basins, and the
pots, and the candlesticks, and the spoons, and the bowls - that which was of gold, in
gold, and that which was of silver, in silver, - the captain of the guard took away.
The two pillars, the one sea, and the twelve brazen bulls that were under the bases,
which king Solomon had made for the house of Jehovah - the brass of all these
vessels was without weight. And as for the pillars, the height of one pillar was
eighteen cubits; and a line of twelve cubits did compass it; and the thickness thereof
was four fingers: it was hollow. And a capital of brass was upon it; and the height of
one capital was five cubits, with network and pomegranates upon the capital round
about, all of brass: and the second pillar also had like unto these, and pomegranates.
And there were ninety and six pomegranates on the sides; all the pomegranates were
a hundred upon the network round about."

"That which was of gold, in gold ... of silver, in silver" (Jeremiah 52:19). This means
that all the vessels made of silver or gold were melted down and carried away as
precious metal.
"The brass ... was without weight ..." (Jeremiah 52:20). It was simply too heavy, and
there was too much of it to be weighed. There were no scales in that day adequate
for such a task as weighing many tons of brass.
The significance of this paragraph is seen in the light of Jeremiah's words in
Jeremiah 27:16-22. In that passage, Jeremiah specifically named many of the things
mentioned here, stating that they would all indeed be carried to Babylon. Practically
everything in this chapter has the utility of listing the events that fulfilled Jeremiah's
prophecies to the letter.
"Ornaments of the brazen pillars (Jeremiah 52:23) are listed nowhere else in the
Old Testament."[6]
‘And the pillars of bronze which were in the house of YHWH, and the bases and the
brazen sea which were in the house of YHWH, did the Chaldeans break in pieces,
and carried all the bronze from them to Babylon.’
Reference back to the first part of Kings continues (see 1 Kings 7:13 onwards). The
two pillars of bronze and the brazen sea which Solomon had made were broken in
pieces and their bronze carried back to Babylon. Previously these had been allowed
to remain. Now the last remnants of their former glory were being removed. All that
Judah had built up was being broken down. Such was the consequence of their
disobedience.
18 They also took away the pots, shovels, wick
trimmers, sprinkling bowls, dishes and all the
bronze articles used in the temple service.
CLARKE 18-23, “brake — that they might be more portable. Fulfilling the prophecy
caused it.

GILL, "brake — that they might be more portable. Fulfilling the prophecy
caused it.
‘The pots also, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and
all the vessels of bronze with which they ministered, they took away, and the cups,
and the firepans, and the basins, and the pots, and the lampstands, and the spoons,
and the bowls — what was of gold, in gold, and what was of silver, in silver, the
captain of the guard took away.’
The description here expands slightly on 2 Kings, but the gist of it is the same. All
the means of worship were ‘taken away’ for the sake of their valuable metallic
content. Many of these had been replacements for those initially taken by the
Babylonians in 597 BC (Jeremiah 27:16; 2 Kings 24:13). Some of the bronze ones
were possibly taken away as spoils by the soldiers, although the large part would go
to the treasury in Babylon, but in contrast the gold and silver was especially
watched, and was taken away by the ‘captain of the guard’, the commander of the
king’s bodyguard, no doubt again for the king’s treasury. Theoretically at least all
worship in Jerusalem had ceased. It is interesting that the silver and gold items that
remained were especially taken charge of by Nebuzaradan himself, no doubt in the
king’s name.
19 The commander of the imperial guard took
away the basins, censers, sprinkling bowls, pots,
lampstands, dishes and bowls used for drink
offerings—all that were made of pure gold or
silver.
GILL, "And the basins,.... Or "bowls"; these are omitted, 2Ki_25:15; they were of
gold, 1Ki_7:50;
and the firepans; or "censers"; these were those of gold, which belonged to the golden
altar, 1Ki_7:50;

and the bowls; or "basins"; there were a hundred of them made of gold, 2Ch_4:8;
and the cauldrons; or "pots"; these are not mentioned, 2Ki_25:15; what they should
be, that were either of gold or silver, cannot be said:
and the candlesticks; of which there were ten in number, made of pure gold, five on
the right side, and five on the left, before the oracle, 1Ki_7:49;
and the spoons; which were also of gold, 1Ki_7:50;
and the cups: the word is rendered "bowls", to cover withal, Exo_25:29; it was some
kind of instrument or vessel used about the shewbread table, made of pure gold;
according to Jarchi, these were little golden forks, upon which they placed the
shewbread, to keep it from moulding; according to the Misna (c), there were four of
them:
that which was of gold in gold, and that which was of silver in silver, took
the captain of the guard away; that is, everything that was of gold or silver he took
away; the golden things by themselves, and the silver things by themselves, as some
think.
JAMISON, "of gold in gold — implying that the articles were of solid gold and
silver respectively, not of a different metal inside, or alloyed [Grotius]. Whole: not
breaking them as was done to the “brass” (Jer_52:17).
20 The bronze from the two pillars, the Sea and
the twelve bronze bulls under it, and the movable
stands, which King Solomon had made for the
temple of the Lord, was more than could be
weighed.
BARNES, "twelve brasen bulls that were under - Omitted in 2 Kings and in
Jer_27:19. Probably rightly, for what is said here of their being under the bases is a
mistake. The bases were under the ten lavers. The Septuagint makes sense by translating
it: “the twelve brasen bulls under the sea.”
GILL, "The two pillars, one sea, and twelve brasen bulls,.... The two pillars of
Jachin and Boaz before mentioned, and the molten or brasen sea, with the twelve bulls
or oxen the sea stood upon, 1Ki_7:25;
that were under the bases; or "by the bases", as Jarchi; or rather, "that were instead
of bases" (d); for the twelve oxen were the bases on which the molten sea stood:

which King Solomon had made in the house of the Lord; this is mentioned to
show that these were the selfsame pillars, sea, and oxen, and other vessels, that Solomon
made, that were now carried away; for though Ahaz took down the sea from off the
brasen oxen, and put it on a pavement of stones, yet it seems not to have been destroyed;
and might be restored to its proper place by Hezekiah, or some other prince;
the brass of all these vessels was without weight; there was no weight sufficient
to weigh them; the weight of them could not very well be told; they were so heavy, that in
Solomon's time the weight of them was not taken, when they were placed in the temple,
so neither when they were taken away, 1Ki_7:47.
JAMISON, "bulls ... under the bases — But the bulls were not “under the bases,”
but under the sea (1Ki_7:25, 1Ki_7:27, 1Ki_7:38); the ten bases were not under the sea,
but under the ten lavers. In English Version, “bases,” therefore, must mean the lower
parts of the sea under which the bulls were. Rather, translate, “the bulls were in the
place of (that is, ‘by way of’; so the Hebrew, 1Sa_14:9), bases,” or supports to the sea
[Buxtorf]. So the Septuagint. 2Ki_25:16 omits the “bulls,” and has “and the bases”; so
Grotius here reads “the bulls (which were) under (the sea) and the bases.”
‘The two pillars, the one sea, and the twelve brazen bulls which were under the
bases, which king Solomon had made for the house of YHWH — the bronze of all
these vessels was without weight.’
The two huge bronze pillars, and the moulten ‘sea’ with its twelve brazen bulls
providing support for the bases, could not be weighed, either because they were too
heavy, or because they were too cumbersome. They had lasted throughout all
Judah’s tribulations without being called on for tribute purposes, but now even this
reminder of Solomon’s glory would be no more. Judah was being stripped bare and
left with nothing. All that God had given had been taken away.
21 Each pillar was eighteen cubits high and twelve
cubits in circumference[e]; each was four fingers
thick, and hollow.
BARNES, "The fillet means a measuring line; the pillars were 12 cubits, i. e., 18 feet,
in circumference, and thus the diameter would be 5 feet 9 inches. As the brass was four
fingers, i. e., scarcely four inches thick, the hollow center would be more than five feet in
diameter.

Jeremiah 52 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Jeremiah 52 commentary

Similar to Jeremiah 52 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jeremiah 52 commentary