ZEDEKIAH
ZEDEKIAH
971
proiiliesied that their fate wouhl be proverbial. Zedekiah was son of Maaseiah, who is probably to be identified with the priest whose son, ' the second priest' Zephaniah, wa< put to death at Kihlali by Nebuchadrezzar (2 K 2.') ■'"■•). 3. Son of Hananiah, one of the princes in the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer 36").
4. Tlie last king of Jndah (Sedekias in I Es l", Bar 1*). He was the youngest son of Josiah and full brother of Jehoahaz (2 K 23"' 24'*; in Jos. Ant. x. vii. 2, 'Jehoiakim' is a blunder for ' Jelioaliaz'). In 1 Ch 3" liis name pre- cedes that of SHALLUM or Jehoahaz, perhaps on account of the latter's insignificance, while in the following verse and in 2 Ch 30'° he is repre- sented as son of Jehoiakim, perhaps as having been his successor. These variations are in- structive as showing the degree of inaccuracy which may exist in biblical genealogies. The direct account of tliis reign is contained in 2 K 24"-25', Jer 30'"' 52'-", 2 Ch 30'°-='. Consider- able light is also thrown on this period by the prophetical writings of Jeremiah and Kzekiel, especially the narrative portions of Jeremiah which are here enumerated in their chronological order : chs. 24. 27. (Gr. 34.) 28. (.35.) 29. (36.) 21. 37. (44.) 34. (41.) 38. (45.) 39"-'« (46'»-"') 32. (39.) 33. (40.) 39'"''' (46'"'). There is, in fact, more contemporary material available for the construction of the history of this reign than of tliat of any other Hebrew nionarcli ; yet there are few of which there is so little definite to record.
Zedekiah's eleven je.irs' occupancy of the throne was but the hist sigh of the expiring Davidic dyna-sty, one episode in the struggle of Egypt and Babylon for the masterj'. The king himself was a weak man in a false position. As a private citizen he might have liad an inolt'ensive and respectable career, for he was of an amiable disposition and religiously inclined, but in the Davidic vine he was ' no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule' (Ezk 19'^). Josephus in one passage {Ant. X. vii. 5) credits him with x/")<"''^''';' "o' SiKaioavfrj. Tliis is Butliciently evidenced in his de.-ilings with Jere- miah. On two occasions we read of formal depu- tations from tlie king to the propliet (Jer 21' 37'), ' Inquire, I pray thee, of the LoRD for us,' ' I'ray now unto the Lord uurGod for us' ; and wlien this State recognition was no longer possible, Zedvkiah proved the sincerity of his own penional con- victions in secret consultations (Jer 37" 38'"). It is noteworthy, too, that the only occasions on which we read of Zedekiah's exerting his authority are when he mitigated the rigour of Jeremiah's im- prisonment (37-') and sanctioned his deliverance from the miry dungeon (3S'°), see also Jer 38'"; anil so it was promised to him, in marked contrast with the fate of Jehoiakim (Jer 22'"'"), that he should die in jieivce and be buried as a king (Jer 34''' '). Jeremiah, in fact, never adopts a liarsh tone when speaking of him. Others also felt the same personal attraction. They looked back on him as ' the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord ... of whom we said. Under his shallow we shall live among the nations' (La 4-"). On the other hand, Ezekiol, whose moral and political jud;:nient was uninllucncnl bj- personal contact with the king, speaks of Zedekiah in terms of un- qualified censure. He is the 'deadly wounded wicked one.' The prophetic sentence of dejiosition anticipates the act of^ man (Ezk 2r-""-''). Kzekiel, in fact, is at one with the pro-Egyptian party in regarding Jehoiachin as de jure king. Ho dates his visions not by the years of Zedekiah's reign, but by those of kin" Jehoiachin's captivity. On other grounds it is dilheult to avoid feeling sym-
fathy with the pro-Egyptian party in Jerusalem, n comparison, indeed, with the exiles in Babylon,
they were as bad figs, ' very bad, that cannot be eaten, they are so bad' (Jer 24, see also Ezk 5* ai3-i8 1422 22. .33«-«), but their patriotism was sincere if perverted, while Zedekiah s throne rested upon a renunciation of national ambitions. This is clearly marked in the words of Ezekiel (17'^- '■*), ' The king of Babylon . . . took of the seed royal and made a covenant with him ; he also brought him under an oath, and took away the mighty of the land : that the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeidng of his covenant it might stand.' In other words, it was Nebuchadrezzar's policy to reduce the Jewish nation to impotence and at the same time attach it to himself by motives of self-interest, and thus control the powerful fortress of Jerusalem. Jose- phus (.4n<. X. viL 1) gives the terms of the oath under which Zedekiah was brought : ' That he would surely guard the country for him, and neither make any political changes nor favour the Egyptians.' Accordingly, the hopes of the n.ational party centred round Jehoiachin, whom they hoped to restore to the throne (Jer 28''). Zedekiah's dis- loyalty, therefore, was directly against his own personal interests ; but he was quite passive in the liands of the man or faction that happened to be nearest to him at the time; as Josephus says {Atit. X. vii. 2), ' As long as he heard the prophet speak- ing these things, he believed him and agreed to everything as true, and believed that it would be to his advantage ; but then his friends used to corrupt him and draw him away from the sug- gestions of the prophet to whatever course they wished.' We have here an echo of the taunt-song which Jeremiah (38--) puts into the mouth of the women of the royal harem : 'Thy familiar friends have set thee on, and have prevailed over thee : now that thy feet are sunk in the mire, they are turned away back.' ' The princes ' to whom allu- sion is here made, seem in this reign to have usurped most of the executive power. They tried and sentenced Jeremiah on a charge of desertion (Jer 37"). They reduced the king to abject terror (37" 3S-°). There was truth as well as pathos in the words with which he surrendereil his best friend to them : ' The king is not he that can do any- thing against you ' (38^). In a ruler such weakness is the greatest crime, and in the case of Zedekiah it was aggravated by the fact that ' the |)rince3 ' for the most part belonged to the pro- Egyptian party to which Jeremiaii and Ezekiel (Jos. Ant. X. vii. 2) were opposed, and which encouraged the idolatrous reaction which followed on the death of .losiah. That reaction was now in full force (.see Ezk 8 and 11). And yet it is not so much for abetting false or irregular worship that the pro- phets condemn Zedekiah as for brcacli of faith. The oath of fealty which ho made to Neliucliad- rezzar struck men as being of a i>eculiarly binding nature. He 'made him swear by God' (2 Ch 36'") and place his hand under his thigh (Ezk 17"). The lofty and stern morality of the Hebrew ]iro- phets dill not p.alliate Zedekiah's subsequent viola- tion of this solemn promise on the ground that it had been made to a heathen. On the contraiy, 'Thus .saith the Lord God : As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, I will even bring it upon his own head '(Ezk 17'"). The new name Za/c/ciah which he now received in place of Mattaniah, in token of vassalage, very possibly has reference to the right- eousness of J" whicli was ajipealed to on this occasion ; and this again may well be ' the circum- stantial origin ' of the Messianic aspirations alter the Shoot of the Uavidic stock whoso name is 'J" is our righteousness' (Jer '-'.3''- ').