JEHOHAA'Als
JEHOIACHIN
55)
great diseases,' that they ' slew him on his bed,' that he was not buried iii the royal sepulchres, and that the mothers of the assassins were of the two accursed nations of Moab and Amnion (see Dt23'). Jerome {Qu. Ueb., adloc.) notes that 'this is said to emphasize the wickedness of the Israel- ites who were unwilling to avenj,'e God's priest.'
2. King of Israel, son of Jelioahaz. The brief epitome of his rei''n (2 K IS'"''") merely adds to the inevitable condemnation of his national wor- ship an allusion to his defeat of Judali. But we derive a much more favourable impression of him from the close of the Acts of Elisha (2 K 13"--»'), and from the history of Amnziah of Judah, 2 K 148-18 (=2 Ch 25"-"), where the formula of con- clusion is repeated from 13'^- ". In J. was partially fullilled (13^) the promise (13*- •) of a saviour from Syria, a promise repeated in the double symbolical prophecy of Elisha to the somewhat irresponsive king (13"); and when we remember the abject condition into which Israel had fallen in the
Erevious reign, it will be evident that J. must ave been one of the greatest rulers of the north- em kingdom. The hiring by Amaziah of Judah of 100,001) soldiers of Israel, during this reign (2 Ch 25"), would indicate that all fear of Syria had been taken away. 'Ills might' was shown also in the thoroughnes.'i witli which he followed up his victory at netlishemcsli, by breaking down the wall of Jerusalem on the weakest side. His natural disposition seems to have been ^ood (so Jos. Ant. IX. viii. G). There was a wholeliearted- ness in the burst of grief over the dying prophet ; there was a pious recognition of the true source of Israel's strength in the words (13") which re- echoed Klisha's own apostroplic to the ascending Elijah (2'-) ; and even the sarcastic fable in which he replied to Amaziah's gratuitous challenge was dictated not more by pride than by magnanimity.
N. J. D. White. JEHOHANAN (JJCiVt 'J" hath been gracious').—
1. 1 Ch 20' a Korahite doorkeeper in David's time.
2. 2 Ch 17" one of Jehoshaphat's five captains. Possibly father of Ishmael, who held a similar post at the accession of Jehoash, 2 Ch 23'. 3. Ezr 10° (Jonas, 1 Es9' ; Johanan, Neh 12"*'; Jonathan, Neh 12") high priest. He is called son of Eliashib Ezr 10', Neh 12^, but was probably his grandson, Joiada being his father (Neh 12"-*'). His high priesthood is noted as an e[)Och until which the heads of the Levitical families were registered in 'the l)Ook of the Chronicles' (Neh 12-'') ; hence presumably down to the clo.se of the 5th cent. B.C. (H. E. Kyle, inloc). 4. Ezr 10>'' ( = Joannks, 1 Es 9'-'") an Israelite, one of those who ' had taken strange wives.' S. Neh 6'", son of Tobiali the Ammonite, Nehemiah's adversary. 6. Neh 12'* a priest, representative of the course of Amariah, in the days of Joiakim. 7. Neh 12''^ a priest present •t the dedication of the walls.
N. J. D. WiiiTf;. JEHOIACHIN (r5:Vi; 8 times, p;'i.T Jer 52", pi- Ezk l'' ; Jeconiah n;;;- 5 times, .n;;\3; Jer 27*" [Ketli1bh],in;);;Jer2-t';Coniahin:;jJer22»»«37':'J'' aiipointetli '; called Joakim, 1 Esl*^; Jcchonia9,I!ar I*-"; Jcchoniah, Mt 1"- '^). — King of Judah, son of Jehoiakim. Ewald conjectures that his original name was Coniah, exchanged for Jchoiachin on his accession ; Kcil more probably ascribes the varia- tion to ' po]iulnr twisting anu contracting of the longer n;imc.' He reigned three months; the adiiitional III days given in 2 Ch SO" 1 Es 1" being probably due to the accidental shifting in the text of ' ten from his a<»e at accession, wiiich in Ch is eight instead of eighteen. Hotli readings are found in 1 Es I". Upon ,)., as upon l.ouis xvi. of France, descended the full force of the divine vengeance incurred by previous generations. In another age
he might have been ' the signet upon J'"8 right hand ' (Jer 22-'). He was scarcely on the throne when the Chald:ean forces, which had been ravag- ing J udu>a, were joined by Nebuchadnezzar himself, and closed around Jerusalem, and J. surrendered at discretion. Jos. (Ant. x. vii. 1) asserts tliat Nebuchadnezzar had made J. king, after slaying his father ; and that almost immediately afterwards, fearing that he mi^^'lit prove disloj-al, he returned to depose him. This is both intrinsically unlikely, and is nuite unsupported by the biblical narrative. From the prominent position given to the queen- mother Nehushta in 2 K 24», Jer 13" 22-« 29-, it is reasonable to infer that she exercised more than ordinary inlluence, and it was possibly at her suggestion that J. capitulated. Jos. (Ant. X. vii. 1) attributes it to ' his gentle and just disposition ; he did not desire to see the city endangered on his account' (cf. Ant. X. xi. 2); and in BJ VI. ii. 1 he describes how at the last siege he himself appealed to John of Giscala to ' follow the exaiiiple of J. who . . . did undergo a voluntary captivity . . . that he might not deliver up this sanctuary to the enemy, and see the house of God in llaiiics ; wherefore among all the Jews a sacred discourse celebrates him, and memory for e\ er flowing fresh hands him down immortal to posterity.' Among moderns, Ewald also takes a favourable view of his chariMiter, influenced by the theory that J. is the royal exile of Ps 84", and therefore author of that Ps, as well aa of P.ss 42. 43. But such a view seems irreconcilable with the tone of Jer 22'-'"'", as well as with the unqualified condemnation in 2 K 24», 2 Ch 30», 1 Es 1". The favourable language of Jer 24'"' refers to the captives generally. (Jn the other hand, in Ezk 19'"" the life of Jehoiakim and the fate of his son are fused into one ideal picture ; and justly, for J. had no distinct political existence. The arm of Babylon raised to strike his father fell on him, and fulfilled the prophecy against Jehoiakim (Jer 36*"), ' He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David.' Conversely in Mt 1" the two reigns are included under' Jechoniali,' the less important name being chosen as marking more distinctly the epoch of the Captivity (cf. 1 Ch 3", 2 Ch 36'», where Zcdekiah is brother of J. ). It is not merely a confusion arising from the identi- fication of the names in LXX and Josephus.