2 Kings 25:8-12, 22-26 (Reading from the Daily Office Lectionary of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer)

8 In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month-which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon-Nebuzaradan, the captain of the bodyguard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. 9 He burned the house of the LORD, the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; every great house he burned down. 10 All the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem. 11 Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon-all the rest of the population. 12 But the captain of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to be vinedressers and tillers of the soil.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22 He appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan as governor over the people who remained in the land of Judah, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had left. 23 Now when all the captains of the forces and their men heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah as governor, they came with their men to Gedaliah at Mizpah, namely, Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah son of the Maacathite. 24 Gedaliah swore to them and their men, saying, "Do not be afraid because of the Chaldean officials; live in the land, serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you." 25 But in the seventh month, Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, of the royal family, came with ten men; they struck down Gedaliah so that he died, along with the Judeans and Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah. 26 Then all the people, high and low, and the captains of the forces set out and went to Egypt; for they were afraid of the Chaldeans. (2 Kings 25:8-12, 22-26, NRSV)

For comments on this passage, which is parallel to the Jeremiah passage, see below.

Jeremiah 52:1-34 (Reading from the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship, 1989)

            Destruction of Jerusalem (2 Kings 24.18-25.26; 2 Chr 36.11-20; Jer 39.1-10)

52:1 Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign; he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 2 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as Jehoiakim had done. 3 Indeed, Jerusalem and Judah so angered the LORD that he expelled them from his presence.

Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. 4 And in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem, and they laid siege to it; they built siegeworks against it all around. 5 So the city was besieged until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. 6 On the ninth day of the fourth month the famine became so severe in the city that there was no food for the people of the land. 7 Then a breach was made in the city wall; and all the soldiers fled and went out from the city by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, by the king's garden, though the Chaldeans were all around the city. They went in the direction of the Arabah. 8 But the army of the Chaldeans pursued the king, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered, deserting him. 9 Then they captured the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah in the land of Hamath, and he passed sentence on him. 10 The king of Babylon killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and also killed all the officers of Judah at Riblah. 11 He put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and the king of Babylon took him to Babylon, and put him in prison until the day of his death.

12 In the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month-which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon-Nebuzaradan the captain of the bodyguard who served the king of Babylon, entered Jerusalem. 13 He burned the house of the LORD, the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; every great house he burned down. 14 All the army of the Chaldeans, who were with the captain of the guard, broke down all the walls around Jerusalem. 15 Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried into exile some of the poorest of the people and the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon, together with the rest of the artisans. 16 But Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to be vinedressers and tillers of the soil.

17 The pillars of bronze that were in the house of the LORD, and the stands and the bronze sea that were in the house of the LORD, the Chaldeans broke in pieces, and carried all the bronze to Babylon. 18 They took away the pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the basins, the ladles, and all the vessels of bronze used in the temple service. 19 The captain of the guard took away the small bowls also, the firepans, the basins, the pots, the lampstands, the ladles, and the bowls for libation, both those of gold and those of silver. 20 As for the two pillars, the one sea, the twelve bronze bulls that were under the sea, and the stands, which King Solomon had made for the house of the LORD, the bronze of all these vessels was beyond weighing. 21 As for the pillars, the height of the one pillar was eighteen cubits, its circumference was twelve cubits; it was hollow and its thickness was four fingers. 22 Upon it was a capital of bronze; the height of the capital was five cubits; latticework and pomegranates, all of bronze, encircled the top of the capital. And the second pillar had the same, with pomegranates. 23 There were ninety-six pomegranates on the sides; all the pomegranates encircling the latticework numbered one hundred.

24 The captain of the guard took the chief priest Seraiah, the second priest Zephaniah, and the three guardians of the threshold; 25 and from the city he took an officer who had been in command of the soldiers, and seven men of the king's council who were found in the city; the secretary of the commander of the army who mustered the people of the land; and sixty men of the people of the land who were found inside the city. 26 Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took them, and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. 27 And the king of Babylon struck them down, and put them to death at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah went into exile out of its land.

28 This is the number of the people whom Nebuchadrezzar took into exile: in the seventh year, three thousand twenty-three Judeans; 29 in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he took into exile from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty-two persons; 30 in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took into exile of the Judeans seven hundred forty-five persons; all the persons were four thousand six hundred.

The following comments are based on those of October 20, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 15, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, 2007):

Sometimes the best commentary on scripture is other scripture. There are four accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem, including the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, and two in Jeremiah (chaps. 39 and 52). For comparing the texts of these accounts, see the table in the separate file on Jerusalem’s Fall. The Episcopal (Book of Common Prayer) reading includes two blocks of material from the second column of the table, 2 Kings 25:8-12, 22:26, but the Presbyterian and Lutheran reading consist of the entire first column, Jeremiah 52:1-34.

King Jehoiakim (609-598 B.C., according to the table, HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, p. 500) served King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon “for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him” (2 Kgs. 24:1). In retaliation, Nebuchadnezzar’s army invaded Judah. But, as Robert R. Wilson says, “Jehoiakim apparently died during Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judah, so the brunt of the Babylonian attack fell on the new king, Jehoiachin” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Kings 24:8-17). And after three months “King Jehoiachin . . . gave himself up to the king of Babylon” with others, including his mother and palace officials (v. 12). So, between this first capture of Jerusalem (March 597 BCE, according to Wilson, ibid., on v. 12), and the second (587/586), Zedekiah reigned in Jerusalem. “The king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah (2 Kgs. 24:17).

The Jeremiah reading for today begins with the account of Zedekiah’s reign, including the typical negative evaluation that the Books of Kings use for most of the kings:

Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign; he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Hamutal daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. 2 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as Jehoiakim had done. 3 Indeed, Jerusalem and Judah so angered the LORD that he expelled them from his presence. (Jer. 52:1-3a = 2 Kings 24:18-20a NRSV; cf. 2 Chron. 36:11-12)

This is followed by the brief report that “Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon” (Jer. 52:3b = 2 Kgs. 24:20b; cf. 2 Chron. 36:13). The Chronicles account says “King Nebuchadnezzar [had] made him [i.e., Zedekiah] swear by God; he stiffened his neck and hardened his heart against turning to the LORD, the God of Israel” (v. 13). According to Ralph W. Klein, “Zedekiah breaks an oath by rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Chron. 36:13). The Chronicler continues with a description of the sins of Zedekiah’s generation. “All the leading priests and the people also were exceedingly unfaithful, following all the abominations of the nations; and they polluted the house of the LORD that he had consecrated in Jerusalem” (v. 14). While this is presented as the reason for the fall of Jerusalem (“therefore, v. 17), the Chronicler presents it as the culmination of a history of unfaithfulness to God. “The LORD, the God of their ancestors, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place; but they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words, and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD against his people became so great that there was no remedy” (vv. 15-16). David Rothstein calls 2 Chronicles 36:11-23 “Zedekiah and Chronicles’ justification of the destruction of Judah and the exile,” and adds, “As noted above, 2 Kings claims that the main cause of the destruction and exile of Judah was the foreign worship sponsored by Judah’s kings, Manasseh in particular. Chronicles, however, minimizes the role of Manasseh’s sins, claiming that the exile was (primarily) the result of the sins of Zedekiah’s generation” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 2 Chron. 36:11-23).

In consequence of Zedekiah’s rebellion–and other factors note respectively by the editors of Kings and of Chronicles, not to mention much of the book of Jeremiah–“in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem, and they laid siege to it; they built siegeworks against it all around” (Jer. 52:4, almost = 2 Kgs. 25:1; cf Jer. 39:1; 2 Chron. 36:17). “The ninth year of his reign,” according to Marvin A. Sweeney, “would be 589-588. The tenth day of the tenth month is the 10^th of Tevet [December-January], which is observed as a fast day to mark the beginning of the siege (cf. Zech. 8:19)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Jer. 52:4-11). And the end of the siege is dated as well. “So the city was besieged until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah” (Jer. 52:5 = 2 Kgs. 25:2; cf. Jer. 39:2 as below). “The eleventh year of King Zedekiah,” says Sweeney, “would be 587-586” (ibid., on v. 5). “On the ninth day of the fourth month,” we are told, “the famine became so severe in the city that there was no food for the people of the land” (Jer. 52:6 = 2 Kgs. 25:3; cf. Jer. 39:2 as above). “The ninth day of the fourth month,” says Sweeney, “is the 9^th of Tamuz [June-July]. Although originally observed as a fast (Zech. 8:19), it was later replaced by the 17^th day of Tamuz to commemorated the day that the Roman general Titus breached the walls of the Second Temple (see b. Ta‘an. 28b)” (ibid., on v. 6).

At this point in the story of 2 Kings and Jeremiah, “Then a breach was made in the city wall; and all the soldiers fled and went out from the city by night by the way of the gate between the two walls, by the king’s garden, though the Chaldeans were all around the city. They went in the direction of the Arabah” (Jer. 52:7). “The Arabah,” says Sweeney, “is the dry Jordan rift that extends from the Jordan River and Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqabah” (ibid., on v. 7). The 2 Kings account is nearly the same, but notes that “the king with all the soldiers fled by night” (Jer. 25:4). The Jeremiah 39 account describes the breach and the influx of Babylonians in some detail, saying, “in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, a breach was made in the city. When Jerusalem was taken, all the officials of the king of Babylon came and sat in the middle gate: Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim the Rabsaris, Nergal-sharezer the Rabmag, with all the rest of the officials of the king of Babylon” (Jer. 39:2-3). This account also describes the attempted flight of the king and the soldiers. “When King Zedekiah of Judah and all the soldiers saw them [i.e., all those Babylonian officials], they fled, going out of the city at night by way of the king’s garden through the gate between the two walls; and they went toward the Arabah” (Jer. 39:4). But this attempted flight failed. “But the army of the Chaldeans pursued the king, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered, deserting him. Then they captured the king and brought him up to the king of Babylon at Riblah in the land of Hamath, and he passed sentence on him” (Jer. 52:8-9; cf. 2 Kgs. 25:5-6, omitting “in the land of Hamath”; cf. Jer. 39:5). “Hamath,” says Sweeney, “is modern Hama in northern Syria. Nebuchadnezzar established his headquarters in Riblah, located in the Lebanese Beqa‘ Valley” (ibid., on Jer. 52:9-11). So, as predicted by Jeremiah (38:23), Jeremiah and his family are taken by the Babylonians. “The king of Babylon killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and also killed all the officers of Judah at Riblah” (Jer. 52:10); compare “They slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes” (2 Kgs. 25:7a), and “The king of Babylon slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah at Riblah before his eyes” (Jer. 39:6a). We are also told that the king of Babylon “put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters, and the king of Babylon took him to Babylon, and put him in prison until the day of his death” (Jer. 52:11; cf. 2 Kgs. 25:7b; Jer. 39:6b).

This brings us to the first portion of the reading from the Book of Common Prayer. “In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month–which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon–the captain of the bodyguard, a servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem” (2 Kgs. 25:8). The account in Jeremiah 52 is similar, but refers to “the tenth day of the month” (Jer. 52:12). “The tenth day of the fifth month,” says Sweeney, “is the 10^th of Av [July-August], but 2 Kings 25:8 reads the seventh day or the 7^th of Av. B. Ta’anit 29a reconciles these traditions by stating that Nebuzaradan entered the Temple on the 7^th, set it on fire on the 9^th, and it burned until the 10^th. The 9^th of Av (Tish‘ah be’av) is subsequently observed as the fast day” (ibid., on Jer. 52:12-16). Ziony Zevit refers to the same talmudic explanation and adds that “the fast itself was established early and is mentioned by Zechariah, a prophet who spoke about 60 years after the destruction, referring to the ‘fast of the fifth month’ (Zech. 7:3; 8:19)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 2 Kgs. 25:3-4). “He [i.e., Nebuzaradan] burned the house of the LORD, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; every great house he burned down” (2 Kgs. 25:9 = Jer. 52:13; cf. Jer. 39:8; 2 Chron. 36:19). The narrators of Kings tell us, “All the army of the Chaldeans who were with the captain of the guard broke down the walls around Jerusalem” 2 Kgs. 25:10 = Jer. 52:14; cf. Jer. 39:8; 2 Chron. 36:19). “Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard,” we are told, “carried into exile the rest of the people who were left in the city and the deserters who had defected to the king of Babylon–all the rest of the population” (2 Kgs. 25:11); compare Jer. 52:15, which is similar but says he took “the rest of the artisans”; and compare also Jeremiah 39:9 and 2 Chronicles 36:20). It appears that most of the people who were left behind were the poorest of the poor. “But the captain of the guard [Nebuzaradan, Jer.] left some of the poorest people of the land,” say the narrators of Kings, “to be vinedressers and tillers of the soil” (1 Kgs. 25:12 = Jer. 52:16 except as noted); compare Jeremiah 39:10, which has “and gave them vineyards and fields at the same time” for “to be vinedressers and tillers of the soil.” According to Robert R. Wilson, “This is the second deportation of Jerusalem’s inhabitants” (op cit., on 2 Kgs. 25:11). Ziony Zevit says,

A second group was taken into exile (see [2 Kgs.] 24:12-16. This one consisted of Jerusalemites who had not fled, people who had defected to the Babylonians during the course of the siege, and a third group not clearly identifiable. Archeological evidence, however, as well as evidence from Ezra, which depicts significant antagonism between the Judeans who were exiled and those who remained behind in Judah, suggests that the exiles were not as extensive as these verses suggest. (op. cit., on 2 Kgs. 25:11-12)

The Presbyterian and Lutheran reading continues through an interval in the Episcopal (Book of Common Prayer) reading (Jer. 52:17-23). This section first describes the dismantling of the temple, the “pillars of bronze,” “the stands and the bronze sea” (Jer. 52:17; 2 Kgs. 25:13);” the pots, the shovels, the snuffers, the basins, the ladles, and all the vessels of bronze” (Jer. 52:18; cf. 2 Kgs. 25:14); “the small bowls also, the firepans, the basins, the pots, the lampstands, the ladles, and the bowls for libation, both those of gold and those of silver” (Jer. 52:19; cf. 2 Kgs. 25:15). This list continues as an accounting, so to speak. “As for the two pillars, the one sea, the twelve bronze bulls that were under the sea, and the stands, which King Solomon had made for the house of the LORD, the bronze of all these vessels was beyond weighing” (Jer. 52:20). The parallel verse omits reference to “the twelve bronze bulls” (2 Kgs. 25:16). Both accounts describe the pillars of the temple (cf. 1 Kgs. 7:15-22). As for the descriptions of the two pillars of the temple, their dimensions and decorations, the Jeremiah text (Jer. 52:20-23) is more elaborate (more complete?) than the 2 Kings text (2 Kgs. 25:16-17). Marvin A. Sweeney sees here “A detailed list of the Temple vessels, furnishings, and fixtures that were taken by the Babylonians. See 1 Kings chs. 6-7 for a detailed account of Solomon’s construction and provision of the Temple. Some details do not appear in 2 Kings 15:13-17” (op. cit., on Jer. 52:17-23).

Not only was the temple dismantled and its vessels taken, the priests and other personnel of the temple were taken and slaughtered. In Jeremiah, it is recorded that “the captain of the guard took the chief priest Seraiah, the second priest Zephaniah, and the three guardians of the threshold” (Jer. 52:24 = 2 Kgs. 25:18). And city officials were taken, for “from the city he took an officer who had been in command of the soldiers, and seven men of the king’s council who were found in the city; the secretary of the commander of the army who mustered the people of the land; and sixty men of the people of the land who were found inside the city” (Jer. 52:25). The 2 Kings report is similar, but with “five men of the king’s counsel” for the seven in the Jeremiah report, “the secretary who was the commander of the army” for Jeremiah’s “the secretary of the commander of the army” (cf. 2 Kgs. 25:19). The Babylonians were evidently intent on eliminating any trace of self-government in Jerusalem. These people were all taken to be slaughtered as were the king’s sons. “Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took them, and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. And the king of Babylon struck them down, and put them to death at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah went into exile out of its land” (Jer. 52:26-27). The 2 Kings version is essentially the same (2 Kgs. 25:20-21).

At this point, the Book of Common Prayer reading resumes, reporting the situation in Judah under “Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan,” whom Nebuzaradan appointed “as governor over the people who remained in the land of Judah, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had left” (2 Kgs. 25:22). Gedaliah attempts to organize “the captains of the forces”: “Now when all the captains of the forces and their men heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah as governor, they came with their men to Gedaliah at Mizpah, namely, Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah son of the Maacathite” (v. 23). Wilson says “several Israelite towns bore the name Mizpah. The one mentioned here probably lay on the border between Israel and Judah, about eight miles north of Jerusalem. Mizpah may have been one of the few sites left standing after the Babylonian invasion” (op. cit., on Jer. 25:23). “Gedaliah’s pro-Babylonian stance was also shared by Jeremiah,” says Wilson, “who received special treatment from the Babylonians after the fall of Jerusalem (Jer. 27:1-22; 39:13-14; 40:1-6)” (ibid., on 2 Kgs. 25:24). “Gedaliah swore to them [i.e., these officers] and their men, saying ‘Do not be afraid because of the Chaldean officials; live in the land, serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you’ ” (v. 24). But this peaceful situation, of a sort, was not to be, for “in the seventh month, Ishmael son of Nethaniah son off Elishama, of the royal family, came with ten men; they struck down Gedaliah so that he died, along with the Judeans and Chaldeans who were with him at Mizpah” (v. 25). “The reasons for his [i.e., Gedaliah’s] assassination are not given in Kings,” says Zevit. “They were irrelevant to the work of the author. Jer. 40:13-41:18 makes clear that the assassin, Ishmael, was sent by Baalis, king of Ammon. Ishmael, of royal descent and dissatisfied over the Babylonian appointment of a non-Davidic ruler, may have formed a pact with Baalis, who was still fighting the Babylonians, that would have helped him to achieve rule over whatever remained of Judah” (op. cit., on 2 Kgs. 25:25).

At this point, the Jeremiah passage focuses on the exiled people taken to Babylon, rather than events in decimated Judah (but compare Jer. chaps. 40-44).

This is the number of the people whom Nebuchadrezzar took into exile: in the seventh year, three thousand twenty-three Judeans; in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar he took into exile from Jerusalem eight hundred thirty-two persons; in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard took into exile of the Judeans seven hundred forty-five persons; all the persons were four thousand six hundred. (Jer. 52:28-30, NRSV)

The Presbyterian and Lutheran reading continues with a hopeful sign, the release of Jehoiachin from Babylonian prison “in the thirty-seventh year of [his exile], in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month” (Jer. 52:31a ; cf 2 Kgs. 25:27a, with “twenty-seventh day of the month”). According to Sweeney, “the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month is the 25^th of Adar [February-March]. 2 Kings 25:27 states that it was the twenty-seventh day” (op. cit., on Jer. 52:31). The “thirty-seventh year,” counting from March, 597 B.C. (cf. Wilson, op. cit., on 2 Kgs. 24:12), when Jehoiachin was taken to Babylon, would be 561 B.C. At that time, “King Evil-merodach of Babylon, in the year he began to reign, showed favor (wxro-tx, . . . xWAn!, nāśā’ . . . ’eth-rō’š, lit. ‘lifted the head of’) to King Jehoiachin of Judah and brought him out of prison” (Jer. 52:31b; cf 2 Kgs. 25:27b). “Evil-merodach . . . [was], a Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) king (561-560 B.C. and the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar II. . . . [By releasing Jehoiachin from prison, he] may have been trying to modify his father’s policies; he was killed in a revolution” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Evil-merodach). Others put the date of his reign at 562-560 BCE (cf. Iain W. Provan, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Kgs. 25:27-30;Wilson, op. cit., on 2 Kgs. 25:27, ‘ca. 562-560 BCE’; and Leo G. Perdue, revised by Wilson, HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jer. 52:31-34). According to Sweeney, “Evil-merodach is a Heb. version of the name Amel-Marduk (‘servant of Marduk’)” (op. cit., on Jer. 52:31). “He [i.e., Evil-merodach] spoke kindly (tObFo OTx9 rBeday4v1, way ^edabbēr ’ittô tōvôth) to him [i.e., Jehoiachin], and gave him a seat above the seats of the other kings who were with him in Babylon” (Jer. 52:32; cf. 2 Kgs. 25:28). Ziony Zevit, commenting on “Spoke kindly,” says, “The Heb. translates a technical expression in Babylonian that means to ‘reach an agreement, conclude a negotiation.’ The narrative refers to a legal grant recognizing a change in status that had far-reaching implications for Jehoiachin and the exiles” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 2 Kgs. 25:28). “So Jehoiachin put aside his prison clothes, and every day of his life he dined regularly at the king’s table. For his allowance, a regular daily allowance was given him by the king of Babylon, as long as he lived, up to the day of his death” (Jer. 52: 33-34; cf. 2 Kgs. 25:29-30, which lacks “up to the day of his death”). Zevit says, “Lack of any death notice may suggest that this final note was appended before the death of Jehoiachin. The book appears to end with a glimmer of hope for the continuation of the Davidic dynasty” (ibid., on v. 30). In reference to Jeremiah’s account, Sweeney says, “Many modern scholars view this concluding note as an attempt to end Jeremiah and Kings on an optimistic note, where the release of Jehoiachin is meant to foreshadow the broader return to Zion and reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy” (op. cit., on vv. 31-34).

One may have noted that extensive portions of these readings have almost verbatim agreement between 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52. Perdue and Wilson call the latter “a historical appendix principally taken from 2 Kings 24:18-25:30 in order to provide additional information about the rebellion of Zedekiah, the fall of Jerusalem, and the exile (see [Jer.] chs. 39-42)” (op. cit., on Jer. 52:1-34). Both books, of course, contain considerable material related to and leading up to this disaster, for example the explanation of Judah’s fall that is appended to the explanation of Samaria’s fall (2 Kgs. 17:19-20; cf. 17:1-23; cf. also 21:10-15, imbedded within the report of Manasseh’s reign, 21:18). From this it is evident, as Gary Knoppers says, that the authors of 2 Kings place “a great deal of blame for Judah’s fall on the sins of Manasseh (2 Kings 21:10-15; 23:26-27; 24:3-4), but,” he adds,

this is impossible for the Chronicler, who narrated Manasseh’s repentance (33:12-13 [not mentioned in 2 Kings]). Instead, the references to the gradual rise in divine wrath, the repeated lack of repentance, and the succession of unheeded messengers and prophets (cf. 15:1-8; 21:12-15; 25:15-17) suggest[s] that the Chronicler attributes the exile to a preponderance of unrequited sins during the last generations of Judah’s independence. (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Chron. 36:15-23)

In both cases, the accounts were completed several decades after the events, but Manasseh’s sins would be a part of the accumulation Knoppers sees in 2 Chronicles. Manasseh’s idolatry consisted, at least in part, in an effort to appease Assyria, the dominant superpower of his day. Although he promoted Baalism (2 Kgs. 21:3a), he also “worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them” (v. 3b), which Charles R. Wilson takes to mean that “he followed the astral cult of Assyria” (The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, vol. I, part II [c. 1967], 330). The last kings of Judah were also subject to domination and control of neighboring superpowers. It may have been politically expedient when Manasseh, for example, adopted Assyrian religious practices. But the prophetic recorders of the history of Judah’s last days do not excuse him and the other idolatrous kings on that account. The reforms of Josiah stand out as an exception to the general trend, but it was too little to late. The lesson for us is that our first loyalty is to God and his demands upon us, which must be weighed against the demands of human institutions whether local, national or international.

1 Corinthians 15:12-29

Resurrection of the Dead (Cf. 1 Thess 4.13-18)

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ–whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? (1 Corinthians 15:12-29, NRSV)

On March 25, 2008 (Tuesday of Easter Week, Year Two), comments on 1 Corinthians 15:12-28 were repeated from October 20, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), when comments on 1 Corinthians 15:12-29 were repeated with editing and supplement from April 18, 2006 (Tuesday of Easter Week, Year Two); the revised comments are repeated again here with some editing:

Yesterday’s reading listed several appearances of the risen Christ, by which Paul affirms and demonstrates Christ’s resurrection as a fact. Today’s reading bases on that the Christian faith and hope in future resurrection of Christian believers after death. “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,” Paul asks, “how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12). As noted yesterday, Richard A. Horsley says, “The issue is not identified until v. 12: Some of the Corinthians are denying the resurrection of the dead” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 15:1-58). Paul explains: “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain” (vv. 12-14). Paul stakes his ministry on the fact of resurrection. “We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ–whom he did not raise if (ei[per, eiper, ‘if indeed’) it is true that the dead are not raised (v. 15). Paul draws a conclusion. “For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised” (v. 16). If this is true–though for Paul, of course it is false–there are further consequences. “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins,” he adds (v. 17). Horsley calls this “a logical argument,” and adds, “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ could not have been raised, which is the basis of salvation, so believers’ faith would be in vain” (ibid., on vv. 12-19). Paul continues with a further consequence. “Then those also who have died (oiJ koimhqevnteV, hoi koimēthentes, lit. ‘those who have fallen asleep’) in Christ have perished (ajpwvlonto, apōlonto)” (v. 18). The verb translated “have perished” here, ajpovllumi (apollymi, in the middle voice), is the verb in John 3:16, “. . . so that everyone who believes in him may not perish (ajpovlhtai, apolētai) but may have eternal life.” In the middle voice, the verb means “perish, be ruined,” and “especially of eternal death,” for example, in Jn. 3:16; 17:12” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. ajpovllumi, apollymi, meaning no. (1) (b) a). Given the false assumption–a contrary to fact assumption–of Paul’s argument, the verb here may simply mean “perish, die” with no reference to after life, since, on that assumption, Christ has not been raised. And Paul concludes this contrary to fact argument: “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor. 15:19). Although the word eij (ei, “if”) occurs six times in this paragraph (vv. 12-19), none of them introduce the so-called “contrary-to-fact conditional sentence,” that is the “second-class conditional sentence.” Nevertheless, that is clearly the meaning. Daniel B. Wallace translates and comments on verse 13: “But if there is no resurrection, then Christ has not been raised. It is self-evident that the Apostle Paul could not mean by the first class condition ‘since there is no resurrection’!” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1995, p. 691).

“But in fact,” says Paul, “Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ” (1 Cor. 15:20-22). This resurrection is further defined. “But each in his own order (tavgma, tagma): Christ the first fruits (ajparchv, aparchē), then at his coming those who belong to Christ” (v. 23). According to Richard A. Horsley, “This passage [vv. 23-28] should not be read as an elaborate sequence of final events, since order [tavgma, tagma] refers not to chronology but rank, with Christ, already resurrected, coming first, followed by the resurrection of those who belong to Christ)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 15:23-28). The word tavgma (tagma) can mean “order, turn, arrangement,” but often means “that which is ordered–1. of a number of persons who belong together and are therefore arranged together division, group” (BAGD, Greek-English Lexicon, 1979, s.v. tavgma, tagma). As a military term, it becomes a technical term “for bodies of troops in various numbers,” but it can also refer “without any special military application [to a] class, group.” In consequence, “According to 1 Cor. 15:23f. the gift of life is given to various ones in turn . . . and at various times. One view is that in this connection Paul distinguishes three groups: Christ, who already possesses life, the Christians, who will receive it at his second coming, and the rest of humanity (s. telos 2. [‘rest, remainder’]), when death, as the last of God’s enemies, is destroyed” (ibid.).

Apparently, the term tavgma (tagma), while emphasizing groups, implies some sequence or order. Although Christ is “the first fruits” of resurrection, there will be resurrection “at his coming [of] those who belong to Christ” (v. 23). The omission here of reference to the resurrection of nonbelievers should not be taken as a denial of that (cf. Rev. 20:11-15). “Then,” says Paul, “comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24). Paul describes this victory as Christ’s reign, leading to victory over death itself. “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (vv. 25-26). “The very purpose of Christ’s kingdom, or reign,” says Horsley, “in which he had been established in his resurrection, was to destroy every ruler and every authority and power [v. 24], i.e. the Roman imperial rulers and institutions, which indeed claimed to be superhuman in their power, and finally the last enemy, the power of death” (op. cit., on vv. 24-26). According to Ben Witherington III, Paul

says that all merely human rulers will be subjected to Christ (v. 24), so Christ is superior and these lesser rulers are not to be worshipped. The often overlooked social implications of this passage are that Paul is indirectly arguing for some in Corinth to disengage from previous commitments to imperial eschatology. The evidence just cited [about inscriptions related to Roman imperial claims] shows that Roman Corinth was not dominated by the old Greek democratic ideals but by the more hierarchical ideals propagated by the emperor and his officials in the colonies. (Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, pp. 305-306, on 1 Cor. 15:1-58, esp. v. 24)

In support of his understanding of Christ’s reign, Paul quotes Psalm 8:6, for “God has put all things in subjection under his feet” (cited in v. 27a). Paul of course excludes God the Father from those put in subjection to Christ. “But when it [the quotation] says, ‘All things are put in subjection,’ it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him” (v. 27b). In fact, the Son will in turn be subject to the Father. “When all things are subjected to him [Christ], then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all” (v. 28).

The reading concludes today with a brief paragraph on “baptism on behalf of the dead,” which serves as another argument for the reality of resurrection: “Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” (v. 29). Witherington comments here as well:

Verse 29 probably refers to Corinthian Christians who are being baptized for other Christian loved ones who have died without baptism. While Paul does not endorse this magical view of baptism’s efficacy, he also does not see this as a serious enough aberration to debate the point; he simply uses it as part of his ad hominem argument. (ibid., pp. 305-306)

Matthew 11:7-15

Jesus Praises John the Baptist (Lk 7.24-35)

7 As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. 9 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 10 This is the one about whom it is written,

'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,

who will prepare your way before you.'

11 Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came; 14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 Let anyone with ears listen! (Matthew 11:7-15, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of May 20, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), that were repeated from October 20, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), comments that were combined with editing and supplement from October 15, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, 2007) and from December 22, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated from December 17, 2004, two years ago (Friday of the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One).

For today’s reading and the continuation Monday (October 19, 2009), the parallel passages from Matthew and Luke are presented in the separate file, Jesus’ Witness Concerning John.

Yesterday’s reading focused on the question sent from prison by messengers to Jesus by John the Baptist, and Jesus’ answer (Matthew 11:2-6; Luke 7.18-23). Upon the departure of the messengers, Jesus addresses the crowds with words of praise for John the Baptist: “As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes ( ejn malakoi:V hjmfiesmevnon, en malakois ēmphiesmenon, with iJmativoiV, himatiois, ‘robes,’as in Luke, understood)? Look, those who wear soft robes (ta; malakav, ta malaka) are in royal palaces’ ” (Mt. 11:7-8; cf. Lk. 7:24-25). The question is essentially the same, with Luke including the “robes” understood in Matthew. But for Jesus explanation, “Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces” (Mt. 11:8b), Luke has “Look, those who put on fine clothing ( iJmatismovV e[ndoxoV, himatismos endoxos) and live in luxury (trufhv, tryphē) are in royal palaces” (Lk. 7:25b). Jesus repeats the question with an affirmative answer. “What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet” (Mt. 11:9 = Lk. 7:26).

Jesus explains the words “more than a prophet” with a biblical quotation. “This is the one about whom it is written,

'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,

who will prepare your way before you’ ” (Mt. 11:10, citing Exod. 23:20; Mal. 3:1; cf. Lk. 7:27)

Matthew’s beginning with =Idou; ejgw; ajpostevllw (Idou egō apostellō ), with the emphatic pronoun “I” (ejgw;, egō ) reflects the wording of Exodus 23:20 in the Septuagint (cf. yk9n*x3, ’ ^anōkî, Hebrew; but this pronoun, necessary with the participle, is not necessarily emphatic), and the wording of Malachi 3:1 in the Septuagint (Hebrew . . . H1lewo yn9n4h9, hinnî šōlēach), where the pronoun is emphatic (cf. William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. hn02h9, hinnēh). Luke’s omission of the emphatic pronoun in the quotation follows the Septuagint manuscripts B S* [Codex Sinaiticus = x] C [“another somewhat later recension (than that of Lucian), which is to be found in Origen’s (?) big Catena in XVI prophetas”] of Malachi 3:1. Note that a corrector of S included ejgwv (egō ) with AQW and Lucian (cf. the apparatus in Adolf Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta, 7^th ed., 1962). J. Andrew Overman compares the quotation to Isaiah 40:3 (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 11:10). The variation between “Why” (Mt. 11:8, 9 RSV) and “What” (Lk. 7:25, 26 RSV), apparently based on an editorial decision about how to punctuate the Greek text and the transposition of two words in some witnesses, is resolved in the NRSV by using “What” in Matthew 11:8 and 9. (The Greek word, tiv, ti, can mean either “what?” or “why?” depending on the context.)

“Truly I tell you,” says Jesus, “among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Mt. 11:11; cf. Lk. 7:28). Luke’s version, worded somewhat differently in Greek has essentially the same meaning. Matthew’s “Truly” and “kingdom of heaven” (v. 11) are characteristic of his style, whereas Luke omits the former and uses “kingdom of God” (Lk. 7:28), the latter being clearer for his mainly Gentile readership. Both use the promise of a messenger to “prepare your way” (Mt. 11:10; Lk. 7:27; cf. Mal. 3:1; Isa. 40:3) as a reference to the ministry of John the Baptist, as Matthew makes clear, “and if you are willing to accept it, he [i.e., John the Baptist] is Elijah who is to come. Let anyone with ears listen!” (Mt. 11:14-15).

Matthew’s continuation with its reference to the kingdom suffering violence and being taken by force (Mt. 11:12) is comparable to a simpler version in a different context in Luke: “since then [John the Baptist’s time] the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force” (Lk. 16:16). But in this context, only Matthew identifies the one “who is to come” as Elijah (Mt. 11:14; cf. Mk. 9:11; Mt. 17:11).

Krister Stendahl sees a phrase from Matthew 11:12 as “a veritable crux of interpretation” [problematic phrase, interpreted differently by scholars]. He says that verse 12b “reads either: ‘the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence (passive) and men of violence grab it’ or ‘the Kingdom of Heaven manifests itself violently (or: powerfully; reflexive) and keen and daring men take hold of it.’ The latter meaning fits better into Mt.’s context, but the former–taken as a reference to Zealots and others who entertain military dreams of Israel’s deliverance–is more natural from a linguistic point of view . . . In whatever way the intermediate situation be described, the prophetic ministry of John was the last phase and predicted climax before the coming of the Kingdom” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 684e, p. 784, on Mt. 11:12).

William Barclay calls the saying about the kingdom of heaven suffering “violence,” and that “the violent take it by force” (Mt. 11:12) “a very difficult saying.” He suggests that Matthew and Luke understood the saying in two different ways.

It is likely that we will get the full meaning of this difficult saying by putting together the recollection of Luke and Matthew. What Jesus may well have said is: “Always my Kingdom will suffer violence; always savage men will try to break it up, and snatch it away and destroy it; and therefore only the man who is desperately in earnest, only the man in whom the violence of devotion matches and defeats the violence of persecution will in the end enter into it.” It may well be that this saying of Jesus was originally at one and the same time a warning of violence to come and a challenge to produce a devotion which would be even stronger than the violence. (The Gospel of Matthew, rev. ed., vol. 2, 1975, pp. 7-8, on Mt. 11:12).

In that context, Barclay cites James Denney, “The Kingdom of heaven is not for the well meaning but for the desperate. It must be, then, a call for whole-hearted commitment to Jesus and his ways (ibid.).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net