The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Chronicles — Section 45

was the elder, Rnil is in bis right place iu not known from any parallel passage ; and the present passl\ge. Next, that She.Hum Luther, Starke, Dertheau, and others, c,Tcr. xx. 11) is another name of the Jehoa- followed by Zocklcr (in Lange, • Comm. 0. haz or 2 Kings xxiii. 3(1, :11, 3!, aud sevcml 'I'.') translate the name as captive, applying oth,·1· places. It is possible that he finds it to Jeconiah. Not a.II their reasons, how- the last pla-0e amid the four brothers of this ever,jor this, outweigh one whioh must be verse because of his probable usurpation of pronounced against it, viz. the o.bsence of the throne, in violation of the right of his the article. The Septuagint and Vulgate elder brother, J ehoiakim, and the early fall versions agree with our own. The greater he met with in consequence. Lastly, that probability might be that Assir derived his the fourth brother, Zedekiah, whose name name from being born after Jeconiah was (2 Kings xxiv. 17) was originally l\1attha- in captivity, and such passages as Isa. niah, wa~ put on the throne by the King of :xxxix. 7, Jer. :xxii. 30, may throw some Babylon. and reigned eleven years iu Jeru- light upon the extinction of Solomon's line salem (2 Kings xxiv. IS) after that his here, e.nd the transfer of the succession nephew Jehuiachin (who could have no son (comp. Numb. :xxvii. 11, and see interesting old enough to succeed) was (2 Kings :xxiv. note on the present place in ' Speaker's 12, 15, 17) carried captive to Babylon. Commentary'). Sale.thiel is the Authorized Yer. 16.-Of the above four brothers, sons Version inconect rendering of the Hebrew of Josiah, the second, J ehoiakim, or Eliakim, Sheo.ltiel. In Matt. i. 12 it is said, had a son called J'econia.h, or Jehoiachin- "And after they were brought to Babylon, essentially the same word. He was eighteen Jechonia.s begat Salathiel;" ancl in Luke years of age when he succeeded his father iii. 27, "Salathiel, which was the son of (2 Kings :xxiv. SJ. A touching glimpse is Neri." Now, Neri was in the direct line given of him in Jer. Iii. 31. His name is of Nathan. There seems only one way shortened to Coniah in Jer. :xxii. 24 and of reconciling these statements-and the :xxxvii. 1, though elsewhere in the same method removes similar difficulties in other prophet, Jeconiah, and in one place (Jer. pla-0es also-viz. to distinguish between the lii. 31), Jehoiachin. The name of Zedekia.h descent natural and the descent royal, and occasions difficulty in this verse. In the then acknowledge that the former was first instance, following the examples of swallowed up, where necessary, of the latter. vers. 10-14, we should presume that this One as decisive instance of this kind as Zedekiah is set forth as a son of J econiah, the.t before us is most useful to rule other and as it is not said that he reigned after cases. (For an important allusion to the Jeconiah (for it was undoubtedly Jeconiah's house and family of Nathan's descendants, uncle Zedekiah who reigned after him), we as well known at the time, see Zech. xii. need onlv have read it as a statement of one 12-a passage probably dating a few years of his sons. Against this, however, there a.re previous to the destruction of Jerusalem by two tolerably decisive considerations; for, .Nebuchadnezzar.). fir•t, the verse opens copfessedly by offering Ver. 18.-Ofthe na.meMalchiramand five us SOILS of J'ehoiakim, and these two, Jeconiah following, it must be left still doubtful and Zedel.-iah, will fulfil the promise of whose sons they were-whether of Jeconiah that plural; and again, the seventeenth (comp. again 2 Kings xxiv. 12, 15; Jer. verse enters upon the formal enumeration of xxii. :JO) or of Neri as possibly brothers of 8onB to Jeconiah. The question, therefore, Salathiel, or of neither of these. The first returns-Who was this Zedekiah, son of of these suppositions seems almost un- Jehoiakim? Some consider him identical tenable, the Hecond seems unlikely enough, with the Zedekie.h of the previous verse, and and the exceeding prevalence of a corrupt that "his son " means here "his successor." text would strongly favour the third sup- This Ulldoes fewer difficulties than it makes. position. At the same time, it may be If the text be not corrupt, the likeliest observed that ver. 19 proves that the no.mes solution is to suppose that this Zedekiah must belong to the royal succession, and of ver. 16 is an otherwise unknown brother iadicates that, whoever Salathiel was in such gf Jeconiah, and son of Jehoiakim. e.spect, that Pede.iah was, who becomes Vere. 17-24.-These verses contain a father of Zernbbl\bel. The verses that line of descent brought down to a point not follow are thought by Eichhorn, Dahler, merely posterior to the Exile, but possibly Keil, and some others to be an interpolation reaching to the time of Alexander. This of later date, chiefly on o.ocount of the point line, however, thxough Solomon is lost so to which the genealogy is brought. soon as the first name, that of Assir, is Ver. 19.-Pedaiah is now given as tho passed; Salathiel (Authorized Version) or father of Zerubbabel and Bhimei. Of the ·6healtiel, being descended from David, not latter of these nothing else is known, unless through Solomon, but through Nathau, Lord Hervey's theory below be correct. 1 '.Thole brother to Solomon. 'l'hie A.ssir is 'fhe former is a groat name-its dr.rivntion 011. m. 1-:'.4.] 'l'HE FIRST IlOOK Ol!' THE CHRONICLES. 35