Jeremiah;- Advice to kings-part1 (ch21)

I will use the second post for a brief summary of the sequence of kings from Josiah to the fall of Jerusalem. This will be necessary from time to time because Jeremiah keeps referring to kings, but the chapters are not kept in any kind of order.

The opening story in ch21 belongs to a time close to the end of the sequence, late in the reign of Zedekiah. I’m not sure why the story has been brought in so early. It could be because Pashhur is mentioned in v1, and another Pashhur was mentioned in the first verse of ch20, but these are two different men.

The story was previously included in my older thread on Zedekiah, called “Jeremiah and the nervous king”, but this time round I’m just taking the chapters as they come.

Zedekiah has made the fateful decision to withhold tribute from Nebuchadnezzar, and as a result Nebuchadnezzar is making war on the city, bringing up his whole army.

The king sends Pashhur the son of Malchiah and Zephaniah the priest the son of Maaseiah to Jeremiah to inquire of the Lord; “Perhaps the Lord will deal with us according to his wonderful deeds and will make him withdraw from us.”

As I remarked in the other thread, “Once a man has jumped off the edge of a cliff, it is a little late to be asking for help and advice”. The secret of getting good advice from the Lord is that you do it before making a decision, not afterwards. Given the chance, Jeremiah would have been able to warn the king that he was making a wrong choice. In circumstances, he can only tell them to prepare for the worst.

The Lord will “turn back” the weapons of the city’s defenders, which is what he normally does to the weapons of those who attack his people. In fact he will bring their enemies into the city himself, fighting against Israel “with outstretched hand and strong arm, in anger and in fury and in great wrath”. He will smite the inhabitants with pestilence. Those who survive the deadly trio of “pestilence, sword and famine” will be delivered into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar.

The same advice is addressed to the people at large. Those who stay in the city and rely on the walls will experience the sword, famine, pestilence. But those who leave the city and surrender to Nebuchadnezzar voluntarily will merely go into exile. Taking that advice is the new way of showing trust in the Lord. “For I have set my face against this city for evil and not for good.”

The poem in the rest of the chapter (vv11-13) is also addressed to “the house of David”. Although, looking more closely, it takes the form of a rebuke to the wider leadership of the land.
There is the injunction to “execute justice in the morning [promptly] and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed”. The morning must have been the time when the kings were accustomed to sit in judgement at the city gate.
Otherwise the Lord’s wrath will “go forth like fire and burn with none to quench it.”

“Behold, I am against you, O inhabitant of the valley”, those who think that nobody can “come down against us.” This is a rather odd way of describing Jerusalem. I suppose it could be an allusion to the time they are now spending in the idolatrous valley of Hinnom. Perhaps, also, the meaning is that they are spiritually, at least, far removed from the “hills” where the Lord is supposed to dwell. They are at the opposite extreme. But “coming down against us” is a normal way of describing an attack, so not necessarily linked to being in the valley.


Anyway, they are not safe. “I will kindle a fire in her forest [of Lebanon wood] and it shall devour all that is round about her.”

We need to be able to follow the sequence of kings between the battle of Megiddo and the fall of Jerusalem, as part of the background of this prophet’s work, so I’ll be re-describing the sequence from time to time whenever it’s relevant to the setting of the chapter.

The history is complicated by the habit of adopting a new “throne-name” at the beginning of the reign, which is probably how David’s precious child Jedidiah became the ruler Solomon. This practice remains the norm for the Popes, but it used to be more common among the kings of Europe generally. .

When Josiah died, the people in Jerusalem chose his son Shallum, son of Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. He took the name Jehoahaz.

Pharaoh Neco took Jehoahaz captive, and replaced him with his elder brother Eliakim, son of Zebidah the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. Eliakim was made to take the name Jehoiakim. Why was he not not chosen in the first place? My theory is that he was a captive in Pharaoh’s hands.

Jehoiakim rebelled against Babylon, died before Nebuchadnezzar got there, and was followed by his own son, confusingly called Jehoiachin. Certainly the similarity is enough to confuse the writers of 2 Chronicles and Daniel ch1, let alone any modern reader. This young man is the one who gets taken off into the first stage of the Babylonian exile. Jeremiah calls him “Coniah”.

Nebuchadnezzar then replaced him with Mattaniah, the last of the sons of Josiah, son of Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. Mattaniah was made to take the name Zedekiah. Obviously he was Coniah’s uncle, as identified correctly in 2 Kings. The Chronicler calls him Coniah’s brother, but that’s part of the confusion caused by the similarity of names. This is the king involved in the final Fall of Jerusalem.

"Um, God, could you maybe help us?"

"Help you? I AM the one who is doing this to you!"

I sometimes have conversations with people where they wonder 'can God get me out of this?'
CAN He? Sure! WILL He? maybe not.

thanks for thought-provoking OP Disraeli