The End of the Kingdom of Judah
***This blog post is an on-going commentary on 2 Kings 25. I add new content to it regularly.
וַיְהִי֩ בִשְׁנַ֨ת הַתְּשִׁיעִ֜ית לְמָלְכ֗וֹ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂירִי֮ בֶּעָשׂ֣וֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ֒ בָּ֠א נְבֻכַדְנֶאצַּ֨ר מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶ֜ל ה֧וּא וְכָל־חֵיל֛וֹ עַל־יְרוּשָׁלִַ֖ם וַיִּ֣חַן עָלֶ֑יהָ וַיִּבְנ֥וּ עָלֶ֖יהָ דָּיֵ֥ק סָבִֽיב׃
Now in the ninth year of his (Zedekiah's) reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and all his army came upon Jerusalem, and he camped against it, and they built siege walls all around.
2 Kgs 25 opens with a chronological notice describing the historical setting for the events discussed in the chapter. Two facts are worth remembering.
First, the reference to the ninth year of his reign (בִשְׁנַ֨ת הַתְּשִׁיעִ֜ית לְמָלְכ֗וֹ) is about Zedekiah and not Nebuchadnezzar. 2 Kgs 24:18 states that Zedekiah reigned over Judah for eleven years. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem begins less than two years before the end of Zedekiah's reign.
Second, the tenth month of the year is not a reference to October. Instead, the tenth month refers to some time in December-January. While there is some dispute, the events described in this chapter occurred around 587-586 BC (cf., Sweeney 2013, 466; Hobbs 1985, 361).
According to v. 1, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem with his whole army. However, if you read 2 Kgs 25:6, Nebuchadnezzar is at Riblah, which would have been in the far northern part of Israel. Additionally, Jer 38:17 says that Jerusalem fails to Nebuchadnezzar's generals.
So, which is it? Did Nebuchadnezzar attack Jerusalem or not?
The answer is quite simple. Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem via his army.
We frequently describe the exploits of famous generals in World War II when we know full well that they seldom went to the front lines. Instead, lower-ranked generals conducted the operation.
The same is true with Nebuchadnezzar. While he may have visited the siege of Jerusalem at some point, he orchestrated the attack from Riblah. The apparent discrepancy between v. 1 and v. 6 is superficial and reflects a common way of talking about major figures in war (cf., Hobbs 1985, 361; Montgomery 1951, 560).
A final question to consider in v. 1 is the meaning of the word often translated as "siege works" or "siege ramps." The Hebrew word is dayeq (דָּיֵ֥ק). Rather than referring to ramps that lead up to the walls of Jerusalem, a dayeq may have been a mobile tower-like structure from which archers could shoot arrows into the city (Hobbs 1985, 361).
וַתָּבֹ֥א הָעִ֖יר בַּמָּצ֑וֹר עַ֚ד עַשְׁתֵּ֣י עֶשְׂרֵ֣ה שָׁנָ֔ה לַמֶּ֖לֶךְ צִדְקִיָּֽהוּ׃
So, the city was besieged until King Zedekiah's eleventh year.
Verse 2 summarizes roughly a year and a half.
The account in 2 Kgs is ambiguous about the exact amount of time. The siege began in Zedekiah's 9th year and continued into his 11th. Based on the data in Jer 52:6, it lasted for 16 months (Hobbs 1985, 362).
בְּתִשְׁעָ֣ה לַחֹ֔דֶשׁ וַיֶּחֱזַ֥ק הָרָעָ֖ב בָּעִ֑יר וְלֹא־הָ֥יָה לֶ֖חֶם לְעַ֥ם הָאָֽרֶץ׃
On the ninth of the month, the famine seized the city so that there was no bread for the people of the land.
As with the previous two verses, 2 Kings 25:3 begins with a chronological notice. The events described. take place on the ninth of the month (בְּתִשְׁעָ֣ה לַחֹ֔דֶשׁ). Most English translations add "of the fourth month" to this verse. They do so based on Jeremiah 52:6.
Jeremiah 52:6 (NRSV)
On the ninth day of the fourth month (בַּחֹ֤דֶשׁ הָֽרְבִיעִי֙) the famine became so severe in the city that there was no food for the people of the land.
2 Kings 25:3 (NRSV)
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.
Whether the additional phrase is original to this text is irrelevant. A reference to the fourth month is plausible based on a reconstruction of the chronology of the events.
The famine is the more critical information introduced in this verse. Siege warfare is intended to induce famine and starvation. According to v. 3, the Babylonian strategy worked.
The Hebrew way of speaking vividly paints the picture. The famine (הָרָעָ֖ב) is personified in this verse. It functions as the subject of the verb. It seizes the city.
If the siege lasted sixteen months, the people had not planted or harvested their fields for two full cycles (Sweeney 2007, 466). Whatever reserves they had left in the city were depleted by this time.
While a famine is a natural byproduct of siege warfare, we should not overlook the theological significance of this famine at the end of the Book of Kings.
Jeremiah 38 explains that the Babylonian siege and the resultant famine were a part of God’s plan. The people were experiencing YHWH’s punishment because they violated their covenant with Him.
According to the perspective of 1-2 Kings, the people had been building towards this moment through their repeated rebellion against YHWH.
וַתִּבָּקַ֣ע הָעִ֗יר וְכָל־אַנְשֵׁ֨י הַמִּלְחָמָ֤ה׀ הַלַּ֨יְלָה֙ דֶּ֜רֶךְ שַׁ֣עַר׀ בֵּ֣ין הַחֹמֹתַ֗יִם אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־גַּ֣ן הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וְכַשְׂדִּ֥ים עַל־הָעִ֖יר סָבִ֑יב וַיֵּ֖לֶךְ דֶּ֥רֶךְ הָעֲרָבָֽה׃
Then the city was broken and all the men of war that night. The way of the gate between the walls which were by the king’s garden. Also the Chaldeans were against the city on all sides. And he went to the road of Arabah.
If you’re confused by this translation, you should be. It’s a fairly literal translation of the Hebrew text we have for this verse, and it does not make much sense.
If you read in English, you’ll see something like this:
Then a breach was made in the city wall; “the king” with all the soldiers fled 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. (NRSV)
The NRSV smoothes out this verse by adding a couple of words (”the king”, “fled”) and changing a verb from singular (”he went”) to plural (”they went”).
When we encounter verses like this, it is helpful to remember that Bible translators are working with ancient manuscripts copied by hand. Mistakes happened. The changes made by the NRSV translators are based on either context or other ancient manuscripts.
So, what is this verse saying?
After sixteen months of siege warfare, the Babylonians finally burst through Jerusalem’s defenses (”the city was broken”).
Rather than fighting like Davy Crockett and his men at the Alamo (sorry, that was my favorite movie as a kid), King Zedekiah and his men tried to escape. The exact location from which they left the city is unclear, but the result is that they are headed down the Arabah road, which leads to Jericho (Sweeney 2007, 466).
As several scholars note, taking the road to Jericho carries symbolic significance. Israel’s first victory was in Jericho (Joshua 6). Judah’s king faces final defeat on the way to Jericho (Provan 2012, 278).
וַיִּרְדְּפ֤וּ חֵיל־כַּשְׂדִּים֙ אַחַ֣ר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וַיַּשִּׂ֥גוּ אֹתוֹ֖ בְּעַרְב֣וֹת יְרֵח֑וֹ וְכָל־חֵילֹ֔ו נָפֹ֖צוּ מֵעָלָֽיו׃
The Chaldeans pursued after the king and they caught up with him in the plains of Jericho, but all his (Zedekiah’s) soldiers deserted him.
Technically speaking, the Chaldeans are a people group within Babylon (see Dan 2:2). The biblical authors, however, frequently equated the Chaldeans with the Babylonians as a whole (AYBD 1992, 886).
For example, Isaiah 48:14 uses the two terms as synonyms:
The Lord loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. (NRSV)
Though centuries have passed at this point, Abraham’s family came from the land of the Chaldeans (Genesis 11:28). In an ironic and tragic way, the story of Israel/Judah has come full circle.
Nebuchadnezzar’s army notices Zedekiah trying to escape, and they catch up with him. While the route to Jericho may have been Zedekiah’s only option, the plains did not afford him an opportunity to conceal his movements.
When Nebuchadnezzar’s army catches Zedekiah, the rest of the escapees abandon their leader in an attempt to save their lives.
וַיִּרְדְּפ֤וּ חֵיל־כַּשְׂדִּים֙ אַחַ֣ר הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ וַיַּשִּׂ֥גוּ אֹתוֹ֖ בְּעַרְב֣וֹת יְרֵח֑וֹ וְכָל־חֵילֹ֔ו נָפֹ֖צוּ מֵעָלָֽיו׃
The Chaldeans pursued after the king and they caught up with him in the plains of Jericho, but all his (Zedekiah’s) soldiers deserted him.
Technically speaking, the Chaldeans are a people group within Babylon. The biblical authors, however, frequently equated the Chaldeans with the Babylonians (Hess 1992, 886).
For example, Isaiah 48:14 uses the two terms as synonyms:
The Lord loves him; he shall perform his purpose on Babylon, and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans. (NRSV)
Though centuries have passed at this point, Abraham’s family came from the land of the Chaldeans (Genesis 11:28).
So, Nebuchadnezzar’s army notices Zedekiah trying to escape and they catch up with him. While the route to Jericho may have been Zedekiah’s only option, the plains did not afford him any way to conceal his movements.
When Nebuchadnezzar’s army catches Zedekiah, the rest of the escapees abandon their leader in an attempt to save their lives.
וְאֶת־בְּנֵי֙ צִדְקִיָּ֔הוּ שָׁחֲט֖וּ לְעֵינָ֑יו וְאֶת־עֵינֵ֤י צִדְקִיָּ֨הוּ֙ עִוֵּ֔ר וַיַּאַסְרֵ֨הוּ֙ בַֽנְחֻשְׁתַּ֔יִם וַיְבִאֵ֖הוּ בָּבֶֽל׃
The sons of Zedekiah, they slaughtered before his eyes. The eyes of Zedekiah he blinded. Then they bound him in bronze fetters and they brought him to Babylon.
This translation of 2 Kgs 25:7 reads a little awkwardly because I’ve tried to preserve the word order in Hebrew. The way this verse is written contributes to its rhetorical force.
Here are three interesting observations:
1) The word order deliberately emphasizes Zedekiah’s punishment.
Hebrew sentences normally follow a Verb (V), Subject (S), and Object (O) pattern.
For example: Threw (V) John (S) the ball (O).
The first two sentences in this verse begin with the object (”the sons of Zedekiah” and “the eyes of Zedekiah”). In both instances, the change of word order emphasizes Zedekiah’s punishment. Nebuchadnezzar executes Zedekiah’s sons and blinds his eyes.
2) The word order emphasizes Zedekiah’s eyes
The end of the first sentence and the beginning of the second sentence mention Zedekiah’s eyes. This structure emphasizes the tragedy Zedekiah endures. His last image on ear is the execution of his sons.
3) The execution ends Zedekiah’s royal line
In addition to being a tragedy, the execution of Zedekiah’s sons is symbolic. It eliminates Zedekiah’s family line from ruling over the kingdom of Judah.
***Some of the links in this post are affiliate links with Amazon. This just means that if you purchase something through that link, Amazon will pay me a small portion of the purchase price. It's a way to help support mybibleschool.***