Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology 9781575064789

Jehoiachin reigned a mere three months before Nebuchadnezzar took him into exile. He was one more Judean king who did ev

184 108 2MB

English Pages 272 [270] Year 2017

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology
 9781575064789

Citation preview

Hope for a Tender Sprig

Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements Editor Richard S. Hess, Denver Seminary Associate Editor Craig L. Blomberg, Denver Seminary

Advisory Board Leslie C. Allen Fuller Theological Seminary Donald A. Carson Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary

Elmer A. Martens Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Bruce K. Waltke Knox Theological Seminary Edwin M. Yamauchi Miami University

 1. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible, by Gerald A. Klingbeil  2. War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens  3. Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr.  4. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, by Knut Martin Heim  5. Divine Sabbath Work, by Michael H. Burer  6. The Iron Age I Structure on Mt. Ebal: Excavation and Interpretation, by Ralph K. Hawkins  7. Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1–11: Reading Genesis 4:17–22 in Its Near Eastern Context, by Daniel DeWitt Lowery  8. Melchizedek’s Alternative Priestly Order: A Compositional Analysis of Genesis 14:18–20 and Its Echoes throughout the Tanak, by Joshua G. Mathews  9. Sacred Ritual: A Study of the West Semitic Ritual Calendars in Leviticus 23 and the Akkadian Text Emar 446, by Bryan C. Babcock 10. Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament, edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus 11. Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy: Fresh Insights from Ephesiaca by Xenophon of Ephesus, by Gary G. Hoag 12. Paul and His Mortality: Imitating Christ in the Face of Death, by R. Gregory Jenks 13. “Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt?” Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives, edited by James K. Hoffmeier, Alan R. Millard, and Gary A. Rendsburg 14. Honor, Shame, and Guilt: Social Scientific Approaches to the Book of Ezekiel, by Daniel Y. Wu 15. Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy, by Dillon T. Thornton 16. Hope for a Tender Sprig: Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology, by Matthew H. Patton

Hope for a Tender Sprig Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology

by

Matthew H. Patton

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2017

© Copyright 2017 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Patton, Matthew H., author. Title: Hope for a tender sprig : Jehoiachin in biblical theology / by Matthew H. Patton. Description: Winona Lake, Indiana : Eisenbrauns, 2016.  |  Series: Bulletin for biblical research supplements ; 16  |  Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016035964 (print) | LCCN 2016052851 (ebook)  |  ISBN 9781575064772 (hardback : alk. paper)  |  ISBN 9781575064789 (pdf ) Subjects: LCSH: Jehoiachin, King of Judah—Biblical teaching.  |  Bible. Old Testament—Theology.  |  Bible. Old Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc. Classification: LCC BS580.J34 P38 2016 (print)  |  LCC BS580.J34 (ebook) | DDC 222/.54092—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016035964 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ♾™

To Trina

For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease. —Job 14:7 (ESV) The Bible’s verbal artistry, without precedent in literary history and unrivaled since, operates by passing off its art for artlessness, its sequential linkages and supra-sequential echoes for unadorned parataxis, its density of evocation for chronicle-like thinness and transparency. —Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative Therefore Jesus Christ brings about the unity of Scripture, because he is the endpoint and fullness of Scripture. Everything in it is related to him. In the end he is its sole object. Consequently, he is, so to speak, its whole exegesis. —Henri de Lubac, The Four Senses of Scripture

Contents Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   ix Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xv 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1 History of Research  2 Method 7 Overview 9

2. Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   11 Babylonian Foreign Policy  13 The Gěbîrâ 13 Judean Exiles in Babylonia  14 Mesopotamian Imprisonment Practices  17 The King’s Table  18 Conclusion 20

3. Jehoiachin in 2 Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   21 Jehoiachin in 2 Kings 24:8–17 and 25:27–30  22 Excursus: The Primary History as a Literary Unit  28 Narrative Analogies to Jehoiachin  31 Themes Pertaining to Jehoiachin  42 Conclusion 49

4. Jehoiachin in Jeremiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   52 Jehoiachin Uprooted  58 Hope for Jehoiachin’s Planting  73 Conclusion 88

5. Jehoiachin in Ezekiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   90 Making Low the Exalted: The False David Deposed  92 Making High the Low: The True David Exalted  116 Conclusion 126

6. Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Jehoiachin in Chronicles  129 Allusions to Jehoiachin in Haggai and Zechariah  138 vii

viii

Contents

7. Jehoiachin in Second Temple Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Septuagint 151 2 Baruch  156 Josephus 157 Targums and Rabbinic Traditions  159 Conclusion 160

8. Jehoiachin in the New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Matthew 1:11–12  161 Luke’s Genealogy of Jesus  173 The Parable of the Mustard Seed  176 Conclusion 178

9. Jehoiachin in Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 A Salvation-Historical Approach to Biblical Theology  179 Jehoiachin in Salvation History  185 Conclusion 198

Appendix 1.  Names of Jehoiachin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Appendix 2.  Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment . . . . . . . . 202 Appendix 3.  Genre in Ezekiel 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Abbreviations General Akk Akkadian ESV English Standard Version LXX Septuagint MT Masoretic Text NASB New American Standard Bible NCB New Century Bible PH Primary History Syr Syriac Tg Targum

Reference Works AB ABD

Anchor Bible Freedman, D. N., editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 ABR Australian Biblical Review AChrT Ancient Christian Texts AfO Archiv für Orientforschung AMS Africanus Monograph Series ANET Pritchard, J. B., editor. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament ApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary AUMSR Andrews University Monographs: Studies in Religion AUSDDS Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BBB Bonner biblische Beiträge BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research BCOTWP  Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms BDAG Bauer, W. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. of BAGD revised by F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament ix

x BETL BerOl BHRG

Abbreviations

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Berit Olam Merwe, Christo H. J. van der; Naudé, Jackie A.; and Kroeze, Jan H. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999 BHS Elliger, K., and Rudolph, W., editors. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984 Bib Biblica BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibInt Biblical Interpretation BibJudS Biblical and Judaic Studies BibOr Biblica et Orientalia BibSem Biblical Seminar BibTS Biblical and Theological Studies BibW The Biblical World BN Biblische Notizen BSac Bibliotheca sacra BaselST Basel Studies of Theology BST Bible Speaks Today BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BTCB Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series COS Hallo, W. W., and K. L. Younger Jr., editors. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2003 CornerBC Cornerstone Biblical Commentary CurBS Currents in Research: Biblical Studies CUSAS Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology DH Deuteronomistic History DOTP Boda, Mark J., and McConville, J. G., eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012 EdF Erträge der Forschung EJud Neusner, Jacob; Avery-Peck, Alan J.; and Green, William Scott, eds. The Encyclopedia of Judaism. 2nd ed. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005 ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses ETR Etudes théologiques et religieuses ETSS Evangelical Theological Society Studies EvQ Evangelical Quarterly

Abbreviations ExAud ExpTim FAT FB FCI FPL FRLANT

Ex Auditu Expository Times Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation Focus Philosophical Library Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments FTMT Fortress Texts in Modern Theology FTS Freiburger theologische Studien GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship GDNES Gorgias Dissertations: Near Eastern Studies GKC Kautzsch, E., editor. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910 GTJ Grace Theological Journal HANES History of the Ancient Near East Studies HAR Hebrew Annual Review HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology HBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel HS Hebrew Studies HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HThKAT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual HUCM Monographs of the Hebrew Union College IBC Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching IBHS Waltke, B. K., and O’Connor, M. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 IBS Irish Biblical Studies ICC International Critical Commentary IEJ Israel Exploration Journal IJT Indian Journal of Theology Int Interpretation ITC International Theological Commentary JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCPS Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JHebS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

xi

xii JJS JNES Joüon

Abbreviations

Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. Subsidia Biblica 27. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006 JSem Journal of Semitics JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSP Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTI Journal of Theological Interpretation Jud Judaica LAI Library of Ancient Israel LCL Loeb Classical Library LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies LNTS Library of New Testament Studies LSAWS Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic LSTS Library of Second Temple Studies LumVie Lumière et vie MNTS McMaster New Testament Studies NAC New American Commentary NDBT Alexander, T. Desmond, et al., eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2000 Neot Neotestamentica NETS Pietersma, Albert, and Wright, Benjamin G., eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 NIB Keck, Leander E. , ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2004 NIBC New International Biblical Commentary NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary NIVAC NIV Application Commentary NovT Novum Testamentum NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology NTS New Testament Studies NZSTR Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionphilosophie OAN Oracles against the nations OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

Abbreviations OBT ODLT

xiii

Overtures to Biblical Theology Baldick, Chris. The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008 OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica OSHT Oxford Studies in Historical Theology OTE Old Testament Essays OTL Old Testament Library OTM Oxford Theological Monographs OTP Charlesworth, J. H., editor. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983–85 OTS Old Testament Studies OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën PAPS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly PrinTMS Princeton Theological Monograph Series ProEccl Pro Ecclesia Proof Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series QD Quaestiones Disputatae RB Revue biblique RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses RIA Ebeling, E., et al., editors. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– RTL Revue théologique de Louvain RTP Revue de théologie et de philosophie RTR Reformed Theological Review SBEL Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology SBLAB Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica SBLAIL Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and its Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SBLEJL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLSP Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World SBT Studies in Biblical Theology Sem Semitica SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary SHS Scripture and Hermeneutics Series SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SJT Scottish Journal of Theology SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series SO Symbolae Osloenses

xiv SOTI SOTSMS SPHS SSN StBibLit StPh StTR TB

Abbreviations

Studies in Old Testament Interpretation Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series Scholars Press Homage Series Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studies in Biblical Literature Studia Phoenicia Studies in Theology and Religion Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert TDOT Botterweck, G. J., and Ringgren, H., editors. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2006 Them Themelios TJ Trinity Journal TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Transeu Transeuphratène TynBul Tyndale Bulletin USFISFCJ  University of South Florida International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism UUA Uppsala Universitetsårskrift UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary WCF Westminster Confession of Faith WestBC Westminster Bible Companion WSPL Warwick Studies in Philosophy and Literature WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament WW Word and World YNER Yale Near Eastern Researches ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Acknowledgments This work is my Ph.D. dissertation, completed in 2014 at Wheaton College and revised for publication in the BBR Supplement Series. My advisor, Dr. Daniel Block, has been endlessly gracious to me and a sure guide through the long journey of dissertation writing. His knowledge of Scripture and love for his students inspire me, and he vastly improved the clarity of my prose. Dr. Richard Schultz has invested much detailed effort in this project and has sagely kept me from many serious mistakes. My outside examiner, Dr. Mark Boda, considerably enhanced my work with his detailed reading and insightful questions. Robert Cohn, Henk de Waard, Mike Kibbe, and Nick Piotrowski also gave valuable feedback on various portions. I am particularly grateful to the BBR Supplement Series for publishing this work, and to Rick Hess for his gracious and helpful editorial insights. I owe a special debt of thanks to my wife, Trina, for encouraging me to pursue God’s call and for standing by me in that pursuit. Thanks to Nathaniel, Eleanor, Benedict, and Abigail for endless fun these past years, and also to Elizabeth Joy and John, born during my last years of dissertation writing and editing. My father and mother, Howard and Mary Patton, have instilled in me a love of learning and have faithfully provided for me and stood by me in my long quest for knowledge. It is hard to imagine more steadfast parents. The Sallberg family, New Life Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Montoursville, PA, and several other donors have been extremely generous to me. It would not have been possible to complete this project in a timely manner without their help. I am also immensely grateful to Frederic Farcy from TNTMax, who has been a superb employer during this season. The Wheaton Ph.D. program does a fantastic job of supporting its doctoral students. The administration is always attentive to our needs, and I am especially grateful for all the ways Chris Vlachos has shepherded me through the program. Finally, so many others have kept my feet from faltering by their faithful encouragement. Many thanks to my friends in the Ph.D. program, whose fellowship has sharpened me and broadened my horizons about what God is doing in the church. Hank Voss has especially strengthened me with his friendship. I am also deeply indebted to Bethel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Wheaton, IL, for being a wonderful church family and providing­ xv

xvi

Acknowledgments

many opportunities for service. It is impossible to name all who have blessed us there, but I am especially grateful to Craig Troxel, Chris Sudlow, Jon Zayat, the Marshalls, the Meadows, and the Brinks. Soli Deo Gloria! April 28, 2016 Matthew H. Patton

Chapter 1

Introduction Jehoiachin reigned a mere three months before Nebuchadnezzar took him into exile. He was one more Judean king who did evil in the eyes of Yahweh (2 Kgs 24:9), and his one recorded action as king was to surrender to the Babylonians (v. 12). How significant can a king be whose reign ended when it had scarcely begun? Remarkably, unlike his uncles, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, Jehoiachin did not disappear after his removal. Instead, he became the focus of ongoing prophetic discussion about the monarchy (e.g., Jer 22:24–30; 24:1–7; 28–29; Ezek 17; 19), his rehabilitation by Evil-Merodach was a turning point in the exile (2 Kgs 25:27–30 // Jer 52:31–34), and his offspring was eventually identified as the future of David’s line (1 Chr 3:17–24; Hag 2:23; Matt 1:11–12). The attention paid to Jehoiachin in the canon is the seed of this study. Why is there such interest in a king who was so insignificant politically and who—literarily speaking—is a rather flat character? What significance do particular biblical books attribute to him, and why? If we expand our purview to the Bible as a whole, another reason for investigating Jehoiachin emerges. The exile was one of the most significant events in the history of Israel. It spurred profound theological transformations, along with important sociological and political developments. Every preexilic institution was reconceived, especially the monarchy. In the midst of this ferment, Jehoiachin occupies an important position as both one of the last kings of Judah and one of the first exiles. Are there ways in which biblical writers capitalize on Jehoiachin’s unique position for their broader theological purposes? Going one step further, as a work of biblical theology this monograph will pursue not only the diversity of the Bible but also its unity. I suggest that “salvation history” is useful for conceiving the unity of the Bible (see ch. 9, pp.  179–185), especially when we are concerned with a historical figure such as Jehoiachin. If the various books of the Bible bear witness to one grand storyline, what is the significance of Jehoiachin within that story? In the light of the canon as a whole, can we synthesize the various perspectives on Jehoiachin and articulate his distinctive role in this grand narrative? These questions beg many others. What do we mean by “canon”? What grounds do we have for considering the canon as a unity, and why should we consider “salvation history” a valid paradigm for understanding it as a whole? What is the relationship of salvation history to “real” history, and is this even a valid question? What role will extrabiblical evidence (some of which concerns Jehoiachin directly) play in our investigation? I will address 1

2

Chapter 1

these issues below, but first I will discuss previous scholarly attempts to articulate Jehoiachin’s significance in the Bible.

History of Research Many have sought to understand Jehoiachin’s role within a particular book, and I will discuss these contributions as I treat those books. Here I survey those who have addressed Jehoiachin’s significance more broadly. Martin Noth’s 1953 article “Catastrophe de Jérusalem en l’an 587 avant Jésus-Christ et sa signification pour Israël” is one of the first substantive attempts to correlate the perspectives of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Kings, and even some extrabiblical evidence concerning Jehoiachin. 1 While Noth’s primary purpose is to discuss the significance of the fall of Jerusalem for Israel as a whole, he devotes most of his space to Jehoiachin. In keeping with his well-known perspective on the Deuteronomistic History as a pessimistic story of judgment, 2 Noth sees the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel as categorically rejecting hopes of a new beginning after exile. 3 All hope for Jehoiachin in these books (e.g., Ezek 17:22–24) is the work of later redactors. 4 If the prophets themselves saw any hope for the monarchy, it was severed from Jehoiachin (in contrast to the message of Hananiah and other popular hopes; see Jer 28). 5 Christopher Seitz’s book, Theology and Conflict, constitutes the next important discussion of Jehoiachin’s significance. 6 Seitz argues that the conflict over the theological evaluation of exile led to a major redaction of the book of Jeremiah. 7 Much of this conflict concerned the status of Jehoiachin and his line, about whom Seitz identifies three basic positions in the canon. Against Noth, Seitz believes that the prophet Ezekiel sees Jehoiachin positively, distinguishing his line from Zedekiah’s and identifying Jehoiachin as the future of the monarchy. 8 The prophet Jeremiah and the traditions that immediately follow him state the exact opposite: Jehoiachin is harshly judged along with his father Jehoiakim, and no attempt is made 1. Martin Noth, “Catastrophe de Jérusalem en l’an 587 avant Jésus-Christ et sa signification pour Israël,” RHPR 33 (1953): 80–102. Translated as “The Jerusalem Catastrophe of 587 B.C. and Its Significance for Israel,” in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 260–80. 2. Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, trans. J. Doull, 2nd ed., JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1991), 97. 3. Noth, “Catastrophe,” 280. 4. Ibid., 277. 5. Ibid., 270. 6. Christopher R. Seitz, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 176 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989). See his earlier article, “The Crisis of Interpretation over the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A Redactional Study of Jeremiah 21–43,” VT 35 (1985): 78–97. 7. Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 5. 8. Ibid., 145, 159.

Introduction

3

to reverse this judgment in these early traditions. 9 The attitudes of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are thus in “direct contradiction” to each other. 10 The third position emerges in 2 Kgs 24, which is more neutral toward Jehoiachin. For Seitz, these three positions are “irreducible,” 11 and any trace of a “final retrieval of Jehoiachin’s royal line” that may be visible in the final form of Jeremiah took place “outside of the Jeremiah traditions themselves” (that is, from Ezekiel and the pro-gôlâ school). 12 Other analyses differ in the details, but basically agree with Seitz’s conclusions. For example, Antti Laato identifies traditions in Jeremiah that oppose Jehoiachin but have later been adjusted (for example, the addition of “in his days” in 22:30 to limit the curse to Jehoiachin’s lifetime). 13 The end result is a pro-Jehoiachin tendency in the canon as a whole. 14 William Schniedewind has provided an original contribution that lies in the trajectory of Seitz, Laato, and others. 15 Schniedewind takes some of the redactional conclusions surveyed above and reconstructs an historical narrative that puts Jehoiachin and his family at the fore. He believes that Jehoiachin’s family and their scribes in Babylon were responsible for “the collection, editing, writing, and preservation of biblical literature.” 16 Schniedewind infers this conclusion from what he perceives to be repeated redactional efforts to deny “the culpability of the last kings of Judah for the exile of Judah.” 17 From their prominent position in Babylon, Schniedewind concludes that “the royal family is the only social setting suitable for writing substantive literature during the exile.” 18 Stephen Dempster’s OT theology, Dominion and Dynasty, takes an entirely different approach from those surveyed above. 19 Coming to the Hebrew canon in its final form (in particular, the canonical order found in the 9. Ibid., 208. 10. Ibid., 202. 11. Ibid., 208. 12. Ibid., 214. 13. Antti Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times, ConBOT 33 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992), 95, 140. 14. Ibid., 361. Cf. Rainer Albertz, “In Search of the Deuteronomists: A First Solution to a Historical Riddle,” in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 147 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 1–17. 15. William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 149–64. 16. Ibid., 151. 17. Ibid., 156. 18. Ibid., 164. 19. Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible, NSBT 15 (Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2003). See also his “Geography and Genealogy, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 66–82.

4

Chapter 1

Talmud, Baba Bathra 14b), 20 Dempster concludes not only that Jehoiachin is viewed positively but that he is a central figure for the OT as a whole. He observes that Jehoiachin appears prominently at the midpoint of the Hebrew canon (2 Kgs 25:27–30), 21 a passage that is echoed in the next book in Baba Bathra’s canon, Jeremiah (52:31–34). For Dempster, this passage recalls not only the covenant with David but also the broader hope for the “seed of the woman” (Gen 3:15). Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation shows that these promises have not been forgotten; “the lamp has not been extinguished.” 22 The centrality of David in the OT and the continuance of David’s line through Jehoiachin provide an essential backdrop for understanding the grand story of the Bible leading to Jesus Christ. 23 Next I mention a project that in many ways is similar to our own: James Critchlow’s 2004 dissertation, “Looking Back for Jeconiah: Yahweh’s CastOut Signet.” 24 Critchlow treats each text pertaining to Jehoiachin and concludes with an optimistic portrayal of Jeconiah’s tragic life and redeemed legacy: Tragic, in that he was cast-off due to the curses on the kings from Hezekiah to Zedekiah; Redeemed by Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God, who chose to return His Signet to Jerusalem, temporarily in Zerubbabel and eternally in the Son. 25

While the other works surveyed above treat Jehoiachin in the context of other arguments, Critchlow’s dissertation is the only attempt to treat comprehensively the canonical and extracanonical texts concerning Jehoiachin. A recent work that treats Jehoiachin extensively is Melvin Sensenig’s 2013 dissertation, “Jehoiachin and His Oracle: The Shaphanide Literary Framework for the End of the Deuteronomistic History.” 26 Sensenig fo20. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 33–35; see idem, “An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple and the Contours of the Hebrew Canon,” TynBul 48 (1997): 23–56, 191–218. 21. Idem, Dominion and Dynasty, 154. 22. Ibid., 156. 23. Ibid., 231–34. Like Dempster, Walter Brueggemann employs a literary method to consider Jehoiachin’s significance in the canon and concludes that Jehoiachin “came to occupy a central place in Israel’s contested imagination. Around him, in anticipation, swirl the questions of the future concerning heir, land, and landless heir” (“Heir and Land: The Royal ‘Envelope’ of the Books of Kings,” in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon, ed. Tod Linafelt, Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy K. Beal, LHBOTS 500 [New York: T&T Clark, 2010], 100). However, Brueggemann does not make the NT connections that Dempster does. 24. James R. Critchlow, “Looking Back for Jeconiah: Yahweh’s Cast-Out Signet” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2004); now published as idem, Looking Back for Jehoiachin: Yahweh’s Cast Out Signet, AMS (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013). 25. Critchlow, “Looking Back for Jeconiah,” 195. 26. Melvin L. Sensenig, “Jehoiachin and His Oracle: The Shaphanide Literary Framework for the End of the Deuteronomistic History” (PhD diss., Temple University, 2013).

Introduction

5

cuses primarily on Jer 22:24–30 and argues that the scribal circle associated with the sons of Shaphan (e.g., Baruch, Seraiah) capitalized on the fact that Jeremiah never accused Jehoiachin of any sin as a way of opening the possibility of Jehoiachin’s restoration in the future. Because the oracle against Jehoiachin does not refer to the deuteronomic code, the Shaphanides created an ethical framework “in between the Deuteronomic code and the ‘new covenant’” that emphasized a “heretofore-unseen freedom of Yahweh to act in judgment or mercy, with Israel and all the nations and their kings, without reference to the Deuteronomic code.” 27 I will reserve detailed critique of some of these works for later chapters­, but a few basic comments are in order here. Seitz, Laato, and others have identified an important obstacle to a whole-canon reading. How can we read the Bible as a unified whole when individual prophets seem to be locked in conflict (for example, the pro-Jehoiachin Ezekiel with the anti-­Jehoiachin Jeremiah) and when individual books themselves contain conflicting theologies (for example, the various strata of Jeremiah)? In response, I will argue that Seitz and others have been too quick to conclude that the proJehoiachin and anti-Jehoiachin perspectives are contradictory. There is a tension between the two, but they are not as irreducible as Seitz claims. Seitz himself has the framework for understanding how this can be so when he states, “Restoration begins with those who have met the judgment of Yahweh. . . . This is as true for the king as for the people.” 28 Jehoiachin is indeed condemned, but this very condemnation provides the possibility for the eventual restoration of his line. The theses of Seitz, Laato, and Schniedewind all depend on the assumption that ideological conflict is strong evidence for distinguishing redactional layers. This assumption has been the impetus for much source- and redaction-critical scholarship. 29 While we will make the most of the insightful observations in these works, I share Robert Alter’s reticence for this kind of “excavative” analysis, 30 dependent as they are on a narrow conception of ideological coherence. 31 Much of what is often dismissed 27. Ibid., 200. 28. Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 159. 29. Indeed, these modes of criticism emerged when scholars attempted to read texts holistically but found that they could not. See John Barton, “Reading Texts Holistically: The Foundation of Biblical Criticism,” in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 133 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 374. 30. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 13. 31. Moshe Greenberg, “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter­in Ezekiel?” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust, BETL 74 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986), 123–35; R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study, JSOTSup 53 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 50. On the circular nature of critical diachronic approaches, see John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1996), 56–58.

6

Chapter 1

as “ideological­conflict” is actually the starting point for recognizing the Bible’s profundity. 32 Hence, I share much methodologically with Dempster’s literary approach and agree with many of his conclusions concerning Jehoiachin. My most substantive disagreement with him concerns his dependence on the canonical shape specified in Baba Bathra 14b. Dempster’s primary reason for adopting this canonical order is its relative antiquity, 33 but as readers of canon we are not interested in the most ancient order, but the order that is authoritative for our community of faith. 34 Thus, the adoption of a Jewish canon by a Christian scholar is a non sequitur. Dempster also argues for the Baba Bathra canon on the basis of intertextual links between adjacent books. 35 But while some of these links are strong, others are not (for example, his suggested connection between Isaiah and Hosea on account of date formulas 36). This weakness points up the ad hoc quality that often inheres with canonical-shaping approaches. Books can be juxtaposed for many reasons, and it is sometimes difficult to establish a rationale for a canonical order, as the plethora of proposals for the Hebrew canon and even for smaller units (for example, Psalms, the “book” of the Twelve) have demonstrated. 37 However, as I will argue in this monograph, Dempster’s 32. See Stuart Lasine, “Fiction, Falsehood, and Reality in Hebrew Scripture,” HS 25 (1984): 26; Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985), 250. 33. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 35. 34. As James A. Sanders argues, whatever the reasons given for canonical boundaries, canon is a matter that is irreducibly linked to one’s religious community (Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism, GBS [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], xv–xviii, 21–45). 35. Stephen G. Dempster, “From Many Texts to One: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible,” in The World of the Aramaeans: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion, ed. P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl, JSOTSup 324 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001), 45–49. See the whole article for extensive arguments. However, in my judgment they do not overcome David M. Carr’s argument for a plurality of canonical orderings in the ancient world (“Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible,” in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders, ed. Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr, JSOTSup 225 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 22–64; cf. Stephen B. Chapman, “A Canonical Approach to Old Testament Theology? Deuteronomy 34:10–12 and Malachi 3:22–24 as Programmatic Conclusions,” HBT 25 [2003]: 121–45). This plurality continues even to this day in Protestantism, for Dempster’s order and other Hebrew orders differ from the standard order in countless English Bibles. 36. Dempster, “Many Texts,” 1:47. 37. To take the Hebrew canon as an example, see Marvin A. Sweeney’s theological proposal based on the shape of the Tanak (“Tanak versus Old Testament: Concerning the Foundation for a Jewish Theology of the Bible,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 352–72). However, this proposal is quite at odds with Dempster’s forward-looking approach. For my view of the Twelve, see p. 138 n. 59. For other critiques of canonical-­

Introduction

7

conclusion that Jehoiachin is a pivotal figure in the canon is correct and does not depend on the canonical shape in Baba Bathra. Finally, both Critchlow’s and Sensenig’s dissertations provide very little to build on, whether at the level of individual books or the canon as a whole. Sensenig makes an important point about the oracle against Jehoiachin lacking a specific accusation, but this observation is an insufficient basis for his redactional theory, and he offers little additional evidence that the Shaphanides saw God as uninterested in the deuteronomic code. Both also fail to interact with many important works that bear directly on their topics. 38 For these reasons, neither of these works has contributed significantly to this project.

Method The goal of this monograph is to understand Jehoiachin in the canon as a whole. Coming to the canon in its final form, 39 I will attempt to coordinate its diverse perspectives on this king and assess his overall significance. This coordination is a complex task, and I will discuss my biblical theological method in ch. 9, where I undertake this synthesis. shaping approaches, see John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1986), 82–84; Tremper Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter, MNTS (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 21–24. The Primary History (Genesis–2 Kings) is one exception to my reticence concerning canonical order (see pp. 28–31). 38. For example, Critchlow follows William Foxwell Albright in identifying ywkn as Jehoiachin in the ʾlyqm nʿr ywkn bullae, a view that has been decisively repudiated since 1977. See Yosef Garfinkel, “The Eliakim Naʿar Yokan Seal Impressions: Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Archaeological Research,” BA 53 (1990): 77. Sensenig’s focus is on Jeremiah, but he does not treat Ezekiel, which is contemporary with the Shaphanides and has much to say about Jehoiachin in particular. 39. I presuppose the Protestant canon: the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament in Greek. On the necessity of specifying a particular canon for the purposes of biblical theology, see Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 171; Iain W. Provan, “Canons to the Left of Him: Brevard Childs, His Critics, and the Future of Old Testament Theology,” SJT 50 (1997): 11–15. For the reasons I give on p. 6, I remain basically agnostic about the order of books. Although canon operates as a given in this volume, canonical boundaries are not a matter of pure fideism. For a recent account of the reasons our tradition gives for canonical boundaries (from an NT perspective), see Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012); see also Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr., trans. H. de Jongste, 2nd ed., BibTS (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1988), 1–47. For reasons to prefer the MT over the LXX, see Christopher R. Seitz, “Two Testaments and the Failure of One Tradition History,” in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect, ed. Scott J. Hafemann (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 203–4, not all of which I endorse.

8

Chapter 1

Before I consider the canon as a whole, I will investigate each individual corpus in which Jehoiachin appears (for example, 1–2 Kings, Jeremiah, etc.). Assuming that canonical books reliably mark off distinct rhetorical units, 40 I will allow each book to speak “on its own terms” before being juxtaposed with the rest of the canon. 41 One finds diversity within books (for example, different rhetorical concerns in different pericopes), but I will be searching for a theological and literary coherence that unites these pericopes into a whole book. Many conclude that this coherence does not exist in the books under discussion, especially where Jehoiachin is concerned. For example, in ch. 4 I survey those who find irreconcilable perspectives on the monarchy in Jeremiah. In an attempt to do justice to these conflicting stances, some emphasize opposing redactors, while a more recent trend embraces the final form’s aporia as itself meaningful (see pp. 52–53). But to what degree is the perception of aporia the result of our inattention to a book’s own sources of explanation? If we allow the book itself to determine what constitutes “coherence,” can it make sense on its own terms? I propose to read the books sympathetically to see if close attention to a book’s final form yields new insight concerning the apparently irreconcilable tensions concerning Jehoiachin (for example, the “pro-Jehoiachin” texts versus the “anti-Jehoiachin” texts). By “sympathetic” we mean a “withthe-grain” reading that is slow to attribute incoherence to the text and that accepts “the implied author’s evaluative point of view even if it means suspending our own judgments during the act of reading.” 42 While I do not assume coherence, my approach is open to the text manifesting kinds of 40. Although often an individual book constitutes a single literary unit, sometimes books are tightly linked (as in the Primary History, see pp.  28–31), and therefore we could speak more vaguely of “canonical units” instead of “books.” However, even when books are grouped, each book has its own integrity within the grouping, and hence we can speak of a theology of Deuteronomy as distinct from a theology of Judges, but also (at a higher level) of a theology of the Primary History. 41. For a similar program that gives full expression to individual books while still incorporating them (chronologically) into a larger whole, see Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 203–5. 42. Mark Allan Powell, quoted in Francis Watson, Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (London: T&T Clark, 1994), 60. Watson qualifies Powell by noting that “This is in fact poor phenomenology of reading—readers can hardly avoid evaluating as they read—but an accurate statement of the priorities of narrative criticism” (ibid.). For similar hermeneutical proposals, deemed variously a “hermeneutic of trust,” “holistic interpretation,” “hermeneutics of the cross,” “self-surrender,” and so on, see Rolf Rendtorff, “Canonical Interpretation: A New Approach to Biblical Texts,” ProEccl 3 (1994): 147 (quoting Greenberg); Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 503, 609; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zonder-

Introduction

9

coherence that are defensible by its own standards, even if it fails modern standards for literary coherence. 43 Because of my concern to understand the final form of these books, a literary approach that is attentive to theological concerns is appropriate. 44 While a given book may have self-referential integrity, no biblical book projects a purely self-contained story-world. Instead, biblical books repeatedly point to cultural practices, textual sources, and events that are not explained in the book under investigation or even in the Bible as a whole. But in the view of Hans Frei, even for us to recognize that there is a history behind and distinct from the text weds us to Enlightenment modes of thought and jeopardizes our ability to speak of a grand biblical narrative (an important feature of my biblical theological program in ch. 9). 45 However, recognizing the literary integrity of a biblical book or the Bible as a whole does not require that we follow Frei’s tendency to seal the Bible from history and creation. 46 In agreement with Frei, I respect the Bible’s integrity as a canonical/literary unit and will look to the canon as the primary context for biblical interpretation. But against Frei, I believe extracanonical information is relevant to understanding the Bible, and so I will be attentive to it. In particular, I will build on Joel Green’s proposal for utilizing historical backgrounds without compromising the Bible’s narrative integrity. 47 Green surveys three different historical projects and concludes that the historical work that is most fruitful for theological interpretation is the “study of the historical situation within which the biblical materials were generated, including the sociocultural conventions they take for granted.” 48

Overview Based on these principles, the plan of this volume is straightforward. I will investigate the biblical texts concerning Jehoiachin, grouped according to the canonical units in which they arise (for example, the book of van, 1998), 453–68; John Webster, “The Dogmatic Location of the Canon,” NZSTR 43 (2001): 40–41. 43. On different kinds of incoherence, see John Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 16–25. 44. Our literary readings are inspired by the seminal work of Alter and Sternberg, assuming as they do a high degree of coherence in the biblical texts (e.g., Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative; Sternberg, Poetics). 45. Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 37–50. 46. Rolf P. Knierim rightly notes that creation’s relationship to the text parallels the problem of history and text (“The Task of Old Testament Theology,” HBT 6 [1984]: 39–40). For one affirmation of the Bible’s historical referentiality in dialogue with Frei, see Watson, Text, Church, and World, 83–84, 137, 292. 47. Joel B. Green, “Rethinking ‘History’ for Theological Interpretation,” JTI 5 (2011): 159–73. 48. Ibid., 161.

10

Chapter 1

Jeremiah)­. Before I do so, I will briefly treat some historical issues related to Jehoiachin and the texts under investigation (ch. 2). This chapter provides cultural and historical context that will illumine the canonical texts that are our focus. The first period I will treat is the exile. The complex perspectives on Jehoiachin in 1–2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel warrant individual chapters for each book (chs. 3–5). In ch. 6, I will treat the Persian period, investigating first the texts that directly mention Jehoiachin (1 Chr 3:16–17; 2 Chr 36:8– 10) and then the texts that allude to him in a substantive way (Hag 2:20–23; Zech 6:9–15). Chapter 7 surveys noncanonical Second Temple texts. While not sources of biblical theology, these texts function much as the extrabiblical evidence in ch.2, providing a relevant context for understanding the NT. In ch. 8, I complete my treatment of the relevant biblical texts by examining NT texts that directly mention Jehoiachin (Matt 1:11–12), as well as those that allude to him (Luke’s genealogy; the parable of the mustard seed). I then coordinate the literary analyses from chs. 3–6 and 8 (along with the historical backgrounds in chs. 2 and 7) to arrive at a comprehensive biblicaltheological reflection on Jehoiachin’s significance (ch. 9).

Chapter 2

Historical Background Biblical books emerge from a particular historical milieu, and close attention to this milieu can improve our readerly competence by reconstructing aspects of the sociocultural environment the original authors and audiences would have taken for granted. I will therefore briefly discuss the following topics by way of introduction to our biblical exegesis: Babylonian foreign policy, the gěbîrâ (or “queen mother”), the societal status of Judean exiles in Babylonia, Mesopotamian imprisonment practices, and the king’s table. Before we commence this sociocultural survey, I will pause to consider what a historical reconstruction of Jehoiachin’s life would look like, thus providing a foil for the canonical perspective on him that I will develop throughout. 1 Outside the Bible, only two contemporary texts mention Jehoiachin or directly impinge on him: the Babylonian Chronicle and the ration tablets excavated by Robert Koldewey. Albright’s appeal to the ʾlîqm nʿr yôkn seals has been invalidated by Ussishkin, who re-dates the seals to the time of Hezekiah. 2 The Babylonian Chronicle has a short entry on Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year. The translation of the full text is as follows, from Jean-Jacques Glassner’s edition: The seventh year, in the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched on Ḫatti, and set up his quarters facing the city of Yeḫud. In the month of Adar, the second day, he took the city and captured the king. 1. For insightful critical reconstructions of this period, see Rainer Albertz, Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E., StBL 3 (Atlanta: SBL, 2003); Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005); T. C. Mitchell, “Judah until the Fall of Jerusalem (c. 700–586 B.C.),” in The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C., ed. John Boardman, 2nd ed., vol. 3/2 of The Cambridge Ancient History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 392–409; idem, “The Babylonian Exile and the Restoration of the Jews in Palestine (586–c. 500 B.C.),” in ibid., 410–60. 2. David Ussishkin, “Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions,” BASOR 223 (1976): 1–14; cf. Garfinkel, “Eliakim Naʿar Yokan”; Nili Sacher Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah, HUCM 23 (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000), 182–91; Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E., SBLAB 12 (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 23–29; Anson Rainey, “A Rejoinder to the Eliakim Naʿar Yokan Seal Impressions,” BA 54 (1991): n.p. On the unreliability of Josephus’ account, see chapter 7 (pp. 157–160).

11

12

Chapter 2 He installed there a king of his choice. He colle[cted] its massive tribute and went back to Babylon. 3

It seems that Nebuchadnezzar moved directly for Jerusalem, whose importance is highlighted by the precise date of its capture, an unusual feature in the Chronicle. 4 While Noth suggests that Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign was stimulated by Jehoiakim’s death and the desire to manipulate the succession, Nebuchadnezzar more likely was responding to Jehoiakim’s treasonous failure to pay tribute.  5 Thus, the king who was captured is Jehoiachin, while the “king of his choice” is Zedekiah. The ration tablets excavated by Koldewey will receive fuller discussion below. They actually provide little information about Jehoiachin’s life in Babylon. Jehoiachin’s name appears on four different tablets dating from 595 to 569 (after his capture but before his release from prison under EvilMerodach). But, as we will argue, the tablets do not indicate whether he was treated well. Pulling together these two extrabiblical sources with the biblical data, I can make the following sketch of Jehoiachin’s life: he was born to Jehoiakim and Nehushta in 615. 6 When his father Jehoiakim died, 7 he became king at the age of 18. His accession probably took place shortly before the arrival of the Babylonian army, whose purpose was to exact vengeance on Jehoiakim for his rebellion. Rather than endure a long siege, Jehoiachin capitulated to the Babylonians after reigning only three months. Nebuchadnezzar then took him to Babylon, where Jehoiachin received rations as a political prisoner. Initially, he was useful as a way of keeping pressure on Zedekiah— 3. Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, SBLWAW 19 (Atlanta: SBL, 2004), 231. 4. D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), 33; idem, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 32–33. 5. Martin Noth, “Die Einnahme von Jerusalem im Jahre 597 v.  Chr.,” ZDPV 74 (1958): 133–57. For a rebuttal of Noth, see Abraham Malamat, “The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical-Chronological Study,” IEJ 18 (1968): 144. Since Nebuchadnezzar left in Kislev, it is unlikely that word of Jehoiakim’s death could have reached him in time. 6. On the text-critical issue in 2 Chr 36:9 (the MT says he was eight years old when he began to reign), see p. 133 n. 26. 7. Jehoiakim’s death is shrouded in mystery. One problem is how to align the “donkey’s burial” of Jer 22:19 with the death notice in 2 Kgs 24:6 that he “slept with his fathers­,” which implies a normal death. Still more confusing is 2 Chr 36:6–7, which states that Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim in bronze chains to take him to Babylon. I offer­ an interpretation of Jehoiakim’s fate in Chronicles on p.  136 that mitigates the issue, but there is no clear solution to coordinate Jer 22:19 and 2 Kgs 24:6. For discussion, see Christopher T. Begg, “The End of King Jehoiakim: The Afterlife of a Problem,” JSem 8 (1996): 12–20; Alberto R. W. Green, “The Fate of Jehoiakim,” AUSS 20 (1982): 103–9; Oded Lipschits, “‘Jehoiakim Slept with His Fathers’ (II Kings 24:6): Did He?” JHebS 4 (2002): n.p.; E. J. Smit, “So How Did Jehoiakim Die?” JSem 6 (1994): 46–56.

Historical Background

13

Nebuchadnezzar could always reinstate Jehoiachin. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 586, his usefulness waned. Nothing is known about him until decades later (561), when Evil-Merodach summons him from prison to a position of honor at his table. But he emerged only to disappear once more, dying sometime later in Babylon. While this narrative seems sparse and bleak, the Bible makes much of Jehoiachin’s story. We now will lay the groundwork for understanding the biblical texts by surveying some historical and sociocultural backgrounds.

Babylonian Foreign Policy While Nebuchadnezzar conducted extensive rebuilding in Babylon, he left his subject territories largely undeveloped. As Albertz writes, Nebuchadnezzar sought “to build magnificent cities and temples in the Babylonian heartland by exploiting to the full the economic goods and labor forces of the subject territories.” 8 Thus, unlike the Assyrians who actively developed imperial administrative structures, Nebuchadnezzar adopted a more laissez-faire approach, utilizing the structures that were already in place to exact tribute. 9 This policy explains Nebuchadnezzar’s allowing native Judean kings to reign (first Jehoiakim in 604, then Zedekiah in 597) when he gained control of the region. So long as the Babylonians received tribute, their interference in Judean politics was minimal. 10 Judah served a second purpose as a buffer between Babylon and Egypt. 11 This strategic area was useful defensively, but it was also a necessary stepping stone to Nebuchadnezzar’s larger objective, the conquest of Egypt itself (see the Babylonian Chronicle: BM 21946, rev., lines 5–7 12). The Babylonian keenness to retain Judah explains not only their repeated campaigns in “Ḫatti” (BM 21946, rev., lines 1–13), 13 but also the importance of their capture of Jerusalem after Jehoiakim rebelled.

The Gěbîrâ Jehoiachin and his mother, Nehushta, appear repeatedly together (2 Kgs 24:8, 12, 15; Jer 13:18; 22:26; 29:2). Twice, she is given the title gěbîrâ (‫ְבירָה‬ ִ ‫)ּג‬. 8. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 53. 9. John W. Betlyon, “Neo-Babylonian Military Operations Other Than War in Judah and Jerusalem,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 269; David Vanderhooft, “Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 240, 242. 10. Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 36, 48; Vanderhooft, “Babylonian Strategies,” 248. 11. Ibid. 12. For a recent edition, see Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles, 226–31. 13. Wiseman notes that “the geographical term Ḫatti includ[es], at this period, the whole of Syria and Palestine” (Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, 25).

14

Chapter 2

What does this title entail, and what do we know about the role of kings’ mothers in Judah? The scant evidence in the OT and from neighboring cultures will limit our conclusions. 14 Jeremiah 13:18 mentions that she wore a crown, implying some kind of official role and authority. 15 Some suggest on the basis of Ezek 19:3, 5 and other texts that the gěbîrâ had some role in determining the succession of kings, but this connection is tenuous. 16 Andreasen surmises that the gěbîrâ had important roles in the royal house. She was often an older woman (either mother of the king or head wife), but was probably “a woman who had passed the age in which she would participate in childbearing.” 17 Although she may have had some cultic role (for example, Maacah in 1 Kgs 15:13), 18 her chief source of influence was probably as “senior counselor to king and people.” 19 In light of this close connection to the king, Nehushta’s going into exile with Jehoiachin reinforces the complete termination of his house as a ruling power in Judah.

Judean Exiles in Babylonia Smith helpfully points out that the social status of the exiles was not uniform during exile. 20 I will thus distinguish between Jehoiachin and his entourage on the one hand and the rest of the gôlâ on the other. Jehoiachin 14. Nadav Naʾaman suggests links to Hittite culture (“Queen Mothers and Ancestors Cult in Judah in the First Temple Period,” in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Ingo Kottsieper, Rüdiger Schmitt, and Jakob Wöhrle, AOAT 350 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008], 486), but the connections are weak. The general lack of evidence has led to unwarranted speculation on the gěbîrâ. For more sober analysis, see Niels Erik A. Andreasen, “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society,” CBQ 45 (1983): 179–94; Elna K. Solvang, A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their Involvement in the House of David, JSOTSup 349 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 73–78. 15. Zafrira Ben-Barak, “The Status and Right of the Gěbîrâ,” JBL 110 (1991): 26. 16. As I will argue, Ezekiel does not have the gěbîrâ in view when he mentions the “mother” in Ezekiel 19. Ben-Barak conjectures that Zedekiah was actually the next in line to the throne when Jehoiakim died, but that Jehoiachin was chosen instead because of the exertions of his mother Nehushta (ibid., 31). However, no evidence exists for her involvement in this matter. 17. Andreasen, “Queen Mother,” 185–86. 18. Ackerman and Naʾaman exaggerate this feature beyond the evidence: see Susan Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel,” in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader, ed. Alice Bach (New York: Routledge, 1999), 181; Naʾaman, “Queen Mothers­,” 484. 19. Andreasen, “Queen Mother,” 191. 20. Daniel L. Smith, The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile (Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone, 1989), 37; cf. B. Oded’s demonstration that a variety of fates awaited deportees in the Assyrian Empire (Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire [Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979], 75–115). For two excellent treatments of the Jews in Babylonia, see Peter R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achae-

Historical Background

15

and a select few were retained in the city of Babylon, as the ration tablets excavated by Koldewey confirm. 21 The tablets date to 595–569. 22 Four of them mention ia-ku-ú-ki-nu [mar] šarri šá ia-ku-du, “Jehoiachin [son of] the king of Judah” (“son of ” only occurs once). 23 Three of these tablets mention “five sons of the king of Judah,” who were in the care of a certain Qanaʾama. It is unclear whether these five were the sons of Jehoiachin. It seems unlikely, because they would have been very young children and unlikely to be listed separately from Jehoiachin. 24 Perhaps they were other children of Jehoiakim. 25 These Judeans are listed alongside craftsmen and imprisoned dignitaries from other lands including Philistia, Tyre, Byblos, Arvad, Elam, Persia, Media, Egypt, and Lydia. 26 As was common for young royalty, it is likely that Nebuchadnezzar retained Jehoiachin and his offspring in the capital for political “reeducation.” 27 However, one can conclude very little beyond these basic points. Some believe these texts show that Jehoiachin was well treated because he receives a greater quantity of food than others on the list. 28 But Smith rightly notes that “we have no way of determining for certain the number in Jehoiachin’s entourage, and thus we are not able to decide whether the portions are generous or not.” 29 Also, without knowing­ menid Judah, JSJSup 65 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 41–83; Andrew Mein, Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile, OTM (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 50–75. 21. Later published by E. F. Weidner, “Jojachin, König von Juda, in Babylonischen Keilschrifttexten,” in Mélanges Syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud: Secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Paris: Geuthner, 1939), 923–35. On the location of the tablets, see Olof Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1998), 183–86. 22. Weidner, “Jojachin,” 924. 23. There is some variation in the spelling of “Jehoiachin” and “Judah.” See Meik Gerhards, “Die Begnadigung Jojachins: Überlegungen zu 2.Kön 25,27–30 (mit einem Anhang zu den Nennungen Jojachins auf Zuteilungslisten aus Babylon),” BN 94 (1998): 65; Weidner, “Jojachin,” 926. Weidner thinks that Jehoiachin being called “the son of the king” is probably a slip of the scribe (ibid., 926). On the dynamics of continuing to call prisoners “king” after their capture, see Lipschits, Fall and Rise, 56; Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, 84. Both point out that Jehoiachin was useful to Nebuchadnezzar as a way of keeping Zedekiah in submission. 24. A. Bea, “König Jojachin in Keilschrifttexten,” Bib 23 (1942): 81; Gerhards, “Die Begnadigung Jojachins,” 66; Weidner, “Jojachin,” 926; contra William Foxwell Albright, “King Joiachin in Exile,” BA 5 (1942): 52. 25. See the references to Bea and Gerhards in the previous note. 26. Weidner, “Jojachin,” 928–34. 27. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, 81; cf. Dan 1:3–20. 28. E.g., Albertz, Israel in Exile, 102–3. For measurement conversions of the amounts given, see Schniedewind, Bible, 234. 29. Smith, Religion of the Landless, 35. Even if we knew the size of his entourage, we do not know the rate of dispersal (or if these tablets record a one-time grant; G. R. Driver, “Jehoiakin in Captivity,” ExpTim 56 [1945]: 317). Contra Bea, who believes they are monthly dispersals (“Jojachin,” 79).

16

Chapter 2

the purpose of the lists, it is difficult to discern whether Jehoiachin had freedom to move about the city or if he was in close confinement. 30 To date, no other extrabiblical sources of evidence exist for Jehoiachin in Babylon. The status of the rest of the gôlâ varied. On the one hand, they were not subjected to torturous oppression. Albertz argues that “the ‘exiles’ were neither prisoners of war in the modern sense, kept in prison camps, nor slaves in the legal sense, meaning that they could be bought and sold.” 31 Some skilled craftsmen may have been used in Nebuchadnezzar’s building projects, 32 but the rest of those deported with Jehoiachin (and who came afterward) apparently resided in a few communities, mostly near Nippur. 33 As Oded summarizes, the Judean deportees had considerable freedom: “They lived a family life, had property (land, slaves, silver), were creditors and debtors, had the right to engage in litigation, in commerce and business transactions, and the right to witness contracts and suits, and to maintain their ancestral traditions.” 34 This active picture is reinforced by the newly published legal and administrative texts from the āl-yāḫūdu archive, one of which dates as early as 572. 35 As Pearce and Wunsch summarize, “these texts provide the earliest evidence for Judean exiles, apart from the royal entourage, on the Babylonian landscape, and show them, less than a generation after their exile, fully engaged in the business of agriculture.” 36 By the early 30. Weidner believed he was in close confinement (“Jojachin,” 927), while Albright thought he “was free to move about Babylon and was not in prison” (“Joiachin,” 52). Albertz’s idea that Jehoiachin was originally well-treated but later imprisoned after the Gedaliah incident is certainly possible but cannot be verified (Israel in Exile, 102–4). Oded observes that sometimes royalty were treated worse than others as a way of humiliation (Mass Deportations, 35), but this fate befell Zedekiah (blinding, chains), not Jehoiachin. 31. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 101; see also Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, 80. Even though the Judeans were not slaves, Smith notes that slavery is part of a continuum of oppression, a continuum that the Judeans were on (Religion of the Landless, 41). 32. Mein, Ethics of Exile, 61. 33. For a summary of older evidence, see Mitchell, “Babylonian Exile,” 421–22; B.  Oded, “The Settlements of the Israelite and Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia in the 8th–6th Centuries BCE,” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zechariah Kallai, ed. Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld, VTSup 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 99–102. For recent evidence, see Francis Joannès and André Lemaire, “Trois tablettes cunéiformes à l’onomastique ouest-sémitique,” Transeu 17 (1999): 17–33; Laurie E. Pearce, “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 399–411; Laurie E. Pearce and Cornelia Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer, CUSAS 28 (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2014). 34. Quoted in Edwin Yamauchi, “The Eastern Jewish Diaspora under the Babylonians,” in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations, ed. Mark W. Chavalas and K.  Lawson Younger, JSOTSup 341 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 365; see Mein, Ethics of Exile, 68. 35. Pearce and Wunsch, Documents of Judean Exiles, 4. 36. Ibid., 4–5.

Historical Background

17

Persian period, many had fully integrated into the legal and economic world of Babylonia, as the murašû archive shows. 37 However, Albertz argues that many Judeans resisted full integration in society and instead capitalized on socioreligious practices such as circumcision and sabbath to retain their distinctive identity. 38 This strong sense of their heritage suggests that, although the gôlâ may have enjoyed considerable freedom in Babylon, many still considered themselves to be exiles. Psalm 137 reflects the emotional turmoil that accompanies forcible deportation, and undoubtedly many had lost family members during the upheaval. Additionally, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher marshals sociological evidence that the exile was a traumatic time for the gôlâ. 39 Perhaps most debilitating would have been the recognition that exile implied a profound rupture in the Judeans’ relations with Yahweh. 40 Thus, the Judean gôlâ as a whole enjoyed some liberties, but their suffering must not be minimized.

Mesopotamian Imprisonment Practices Jehoiachin’s situation in Babylon probably varied depending on political circumstances, but as of the reign of Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) he was being kept in the “house of confinement” (‫ ;ּבֵית ֶּכלֶא‬2 Kgs 25:27). The meaning of this expression is unclear. Karel Van der Toorn discusses a similar institution, the “house of prisoners” (‫ֲס ִירים‬ ִ ‫)ּבֵית ָהא‬, in the light of biblical and ancient Near Eastern evidence and concludes that it was an institution designed to humiliate prisoners of war such as kings or warriors. 41 The standard practices included blinding the prisoners and subjecting them to the demeaning work of grinding flour. 42 Because Jehoiachin was called a 37. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 102. Lemaire notes an important difference between the āl-yāḫūdu archive and the murašû archive: whereas at āl-yāḫūdu, the exiles are a “distinct local enclave,” the murašû archive “suggests that the Jewish people are only a very small local minority” who “seem more or less assimilated into the general population of Babylonia” (André Lemaire, “Fifth- and Fourth- Century Issues: Governorship and Priesthood in Jerusalem,” in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, ed. Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014], 416). 38. Albertz, Israel in Exile, 106–8. 39. D. L. Smith-Christopher, “Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the Babylonian Exile (597/587–539 BCE),” in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 7–36. 40. See Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, ETSS 2 ( Jackson, MI: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988), 113–47, for a discussion of divine abandonment in both Israel and the ancient Near East and its connections to exile. 41. Karel van der Toorn, “Judges 16:21 in the Light of the Akkadian Sources,” VT 36 (1986): 248–53. 42. On blinding as a consequence for war prisoners, see “The Inscriptions of BarGaʾyah and Matiʿel from Sefire,” trans. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (COS 2.82:214); “The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon,” trans. D. J. Wiseman (ANET, 538, 540).

18

Chapter 2

prisoner (‫ ;א ִַּסר‬1 Chr 3:17), it is possible that the ‫ ּבֵית ֶּכלֶא‬is a synonym for the ‫ֲס ִירים‬ ִ ‫ ּבֵית ָהא‬and that he was subjected to similar humiliation. But not all prisoners received the standard treatment that van der Toorn outlines, nor does such a humiliating picture fit with any other evidence we have from this period. 43 One other datum regarding prisoners is the well-attested custom of releasing prisoners during the akītu festival that commences the new year, and especially with the accession of a new king. 44 Hence, when we read that Evil-Merodach released Jehoiachin during the 27th (some witnesses: 25th) day of the 12th month (2 Kgs 25:27), Jehoiachin is being released just a few days before Evil-Merodach celebrates his first akītu festival in office. 45

The King’s Table Jehoiachin emerged from prison to eat bread continually before the king of Babylon (‫) ָאכַל ֶלחֶם ָּת ִמיד ְל ָפנָיו‬, sitting at a seat higher than all the other kings in Babylon (2 Kgs 25:28–29). The institution of the king’s table is widespread in the ancient Near East, 46 and the Bible presents many instances of it: 1 Sam 20:5–6, 18–34; 2 Sam 9:7–13; 19:33–39; 1 Kgs 2:7; 5:2–3, 7; 10:5; 18:19; 25:28–29; Neh 5:17–18; Jer 52:32–33; Dan 1:5. In the regular business of life, the king sustained his servants and the messengers who entered his court and on special occasions would offer sustenance to much larger numbers. 47 43. Dandamaev suggests that Nebuchadnezzar did not turn all the exiles into slaves because there would not have been sufficient demand for so much forced labor in the Babylonian economy (Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626– 331 B.C.) [De Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984], 472). 44. Bob Becking, From David to Gedaliah: The Book of Kings as Story and History, OBO 228 (Fribourg: Academic, 2007), 180; Karel van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A. Emerton, VTSup 43 (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 334. For more on releasing prisoners in general, see Moshe Weinfeld, Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995), 12–17, 75–96. 45. Van der Toorn, “New Year Festival,” 334. Julye Bidmead notes that “the akītu was also a time of political alliances and treaties” (The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia, GDNES 2 [Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002], 5), thus supporting Zenger’s idea that Jehoiachin is portrayed as a vassal of Evil-Merodach in 2 Kings 25, on which see pp. 26, 28. 46. For helpful summaries, see Jean-Jacques Glassner, “Mahlzeit, A. In Mespotamien,” RIA 7:260–61; Catherine Grandjean, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion, introduction to Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique, ed. Catherine Grandjean, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2013), 14–20. 47. Sargon of Agade claims that he fed 5,400 people at his table daily: “5400 people daily ate bread before him” (5400 eṭlūtum [GURUŠ] u-um-šum ma-ḫar-su NINDA KÚ) (Hans Hirsch, “Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade,” AfO 20 [1963]: 38). Regarding messengers, see Abraham Malamat, “The King’s Table and Provisioning of Messengers: The Recent Old Babylonian Texts from Tuttul and the Bible,” IEJ 53 (2003): 173–74.

Historical Background

19

Nathan MacDonald stresses the political import of the king’s table: it “was an important locus of political power, both as means of mobilizing support and labour, but also as means of displaying success.” 48 The table is also associated with justice and decision-making. 49 To be excluded from the table implied disfavor, while inclusion meant acceptance. One’s position at the table (or tables) “indicated one’s place in the political order.” 50 Villard observes that in Neo-Assyrian meals individuals were grouped according to rank, with certain seats having greater proximity to the king, greater richness in decoration, and therefore greater honor, 51 a practice that surely has implications for Jehoiachin’s seat being set “higher” than the seats of the other kings in Babylon (2 Kgs 25:28). However, “to eat before the king” may be idiomatic for one’s status as a dependent vassal and not indicate literal eating arrangements. 52 Indeed, even when they ate in front of the king vassals were sometimes expected to bring their own food. 53 The presence of foreigners also featured in the table’s ideology as a way of showing the king’s glory: “[the table’s] foods and participants represent the rich diversity of the Mesopotamian empires, that is, the known world.” 54 In sum, the king’s table was “a political microcosm.” 55 The table was also intrinsically religious. “The king’s feasts are a mirror­ of the feasts of the gods, where the deities of all lands meet and feast Ashurnasirpal II boasts that he fed 47,064 people, including dignitaries from foreign countries at the dedication of his palace (“The Banquet of Ashurnasirpal II,” trans. A. Leo Oppenheim [ANET, 560]). 48. Nathan MacDonald, Not Bread Alone: The Uses of Food in the Old Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 135. 49. Ibid., 157. 50. Ibid., 158. 51. Pierre Villard, “Les commonsaux des rois néo-assyriens,” in Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique, ed. Catherine Grandjean, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2013), 228–29. 52. Nathan MacDonald, “‘The Eyes of All Look to You’: The Generosity of the Divine King,” in Decisive Meals: Table Politics in Biblical Literature, ed. Kathy Ehrensperger, Nathan MacDonald, and Luzia Sutter Rehmann, LNTS 449 (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 11; see Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar, 82. 53. As seems to be the case with Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:10). See Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, LAI (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 210. 54. MacDonald, “Eyes of All,” 10. As an indication of how the king’s table reflects political realities, Wilson is able to reconstruct many of the administrative structures of 8th-century Nimrud using their wine lists: The Nimrud Wine Lists: A Study of Men and Administration at the Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century, B.C. (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1972). 55. MacDonald, “Eyes of All,” 10. For another illustration of these cultural dynamics, see Jack M. Sasson, “The King’s Table: Food and Fealty in Old Babylonian Mari,” in Food and Identity in the Ancient World, ed. Cristiano Grottanelli and Lucio Milano, HANES 9 (Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2004), 179–215.

20

Chapter 2

together.” 56 This dimension holds not only for polytheistic contexts such as Ugarit, Assyria, and Babylon, 57 but also in orthodox Yahwism. MacDonald notes, As a human king exhibits his rule through providing for his people and raising his chosen courtiers to the royal table, so also Yhwh does the same for his people. The table, then, becomes a window onto the heavenly banquet and the distribution of divine favour. 58

Hence, Jehoiachin’s position as the highest of the vassal kings indicated honor and acceptance but also his dependence and subservience to his Babylonian overlord.

Conclusion This chapter has briefly discussed historical and cultural realities that will enhance our reading of biblical texts. As a postscript, my historical investigations evoke surprise once again that Jehoiachin would be the focus of so much attention in the Bible. Politically, he ascended the throne only to be deposed by Nebuchadnezzar, and thus was a pawn in a much larger power struggle between Babylon and Egypt. Thereafter, he was harbored as a possible tool for exerting influence on Judea, a tool whose usefulness faded after the Babylonians demolished Jerusalem and terminated indigenous kingship. His place of high favor at Evil-Merodach’s table is therefore perplexing. Although the akītu festival provides one explanation for Jehoiachin’s release, it does not explain the high seat he occupied over the other kings in captivity. These riddles drive us to renewed investigation of the biblical texts. 56. MacDonald, “Eyes of All,” 10. 57. A. J. Ferrara and S. B. Parker, “Seating Arrangements at Divine Banquets,” UF 4 (1972): 37–39; J. B. Lloyd, “The Banquet Theme in Ugaritic Narrative,” UF 22 (1991): 169– 93; Francis Joannès, “Quand le roi mange comme un dieu . . .: Les transferts entre table divine et table royale en Assyrie et en Babylonie au Ier millénaire av. J.-C.,” in Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique, ed. Catherine Grandjean, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2013), 327–42. 58. MacDonald, Not Bread Alone, 178.

Chapter 3

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings Jehoiachin appears twice in 1–2  Kings. His brief reign and subsequent capture by Nebuchadnezzar are recorded in 2 Kgs 24, but scholarly attention has centered on his rehabilitation in 2 Kgs 25:27–30. This chapter will examine Jehoiachin’s roles in both texts but will focus on 2 Kgs 25:27–30 because of its relative importance. The modern debate about these mysterious four verses began with Martin Noth’s and Gerhard von Rad’s opposing positions. 1 Noth read the passage negatively, seeing it as simply the last historical event the author knew of to record, thus ending a long and depressing history of decline and in no way sounding the hope of a new era beginning. 2 Von Rad read the passage positively, interpreting it as a hopeful word that God’s promises to David would still be realized despite the obstacle of exile, and perhaps even in an eschatological, messianic manner. 3 At present most favor some kind of mediating position (for example, Wolff, Begg, Murray), where hope is mixed with a resignation to exile. 4 With von Rad, we will argue that Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation is to be interpreted positively, but in a subtle and qualified manner. 5 The qualifications stem from our agreement with the mediating position’s point of departure, namely, that we must grapple with both the positive and negative dimensions of this passage. With its high concentration of allusions, its important position at the end of a long narrative, and its cryptic phrasing, these four verses sound many notes at once, many of which are not easily categorized as positive or negative. We hope to enhance the discussion by 1. A recent and relatively complete treatment of the history of scholarship is given in Donald F. Murray, “Of All the Years the Hopes—or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30),” JBL 120 (2001): 245–47 and David Janzen, “An Ambiguous Ending: Dynastic Punishment in Kings and the Fate of the Davidides in 2 Kings 25.27–30,” JSOT 33 (2008): passim, and need not be rehearsed here. 2. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 12, 74, 98. 3. Gerhard von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, trans. David Stalker (Chicago: Regnery, 1953), 86, 90–91. For further discussion of von Rad’s position, see p. 45. 4. See Hans Walter Wolff, “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work,” in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions, ed. Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff, trans. Frederick C. Prussner (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 83–100; Christopher T. Begg, “The Significance of Jehoiachin’s Release: A New Proposal,” JSOT 36 (1986): 49–56; Murray, “Of All the Years.” Janzen recently argued a fourth interpretation, saying the passage is inherently ambiguous (“An Ambiguous Ending”). 5. On the subtlety of von Rad’s own view, see p. 45 n. 118.

21

22

Chapter 3

seeking to synthesize the full range of themes and allusions woven together in this text. To show as many themes and allusions as possible, I will approach Jehoiachin in Kings in three ways. First, I will focus narrowly on 2 Kgs 24:8–17 and 25:27–30 in their immediate contexts at the end of 2 Kings. Next, I will identify the many narrative analogies that Jehoiachin’s release evokes as it echoes previous narratives in the Primary History (for example, Jehoiachin as a new Mephibosheth). Third, I will evaluate some key themes that extend back through the Primary History and that are relevant to Jehoiachin’s release, even though they are not directly invoked (such as the Davidic covenant). Finally, we will ask, what picture of Jehoiachin emerges when these three perspectives are brought together?

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings 24:8–17 and 25:27–30 A close examination of 2 Kgs 24:8–17 and 25:27–30 yields a subtle and ambiguous picture of Jehoiachin. He appears late in a story that has taken a decided turn for the worse. After the northern kingdom’s deportation, Manasseh distinguished himself as the only Judean king to cause the people to sin (‫חטא‬hiph; 2 Kgs 21:11, 16), a transgression that spelled irrevocable doom for every Israelite dynasty. 6 That Yahweh was determined to judge Judah for Manasseh’s sin appears from his refusal to relent even in the face of Josiah’s zealous purge and whole-hearted repentance (2 Kgs 23:26; cf. 24:3). After Josiah’s death, Judah was reduced to a pawn in the larger power struggle between Babylon and Egypt. Pharaoh Neco rapidly deported Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim’s 11-year reign is recounted only to mention his provocation of Nebuchadnezzar, who will eventually displace Egypt’s hegemony over the land (24:7). The account of Jehoiachin’s reign in 2 Kgs 24 has the following structure: vv. 8–9: Introduction vv. 10–17: Body vv. 10–12a: Siege of Jerusalem and Jehoiachin’s surrender vv. 12b–16: Nebuchadnezzar despoils Jerusalem and exiles many Judeans v. 17: Nebuchadnezzar establishes Zedekiah in place of Jehoiachin

The introduction informs us that Jehoiachin’s mother was the daughter of Elnathan, a figure who (if we are correct to connect him with Elnathan ben-Achbor) has both positive and negative connotations in Jeremiah ( Jer 26:22; 36:25). The narrator’s evaluation of Jehoiachin indicates that he has committed ‫ הָרַ ע‬like his father (2 Kgs 24:9). 7 The use of the singular (‫ָביו‬ ִ ‫)א‬ 6. Janzen, “An Ambiguous Ending,” 44–50. 7. Erich Zenger points out that Jehoiachin is passed over in Zedekiah’s evaluation (2 Kgs 24:19), which reads: “he [Zedekiah] did what was evil in the sight of the

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

23

focuses the comparison on Jehoiakim, similar to the later evaluation of Zedekiah (v. 19). However, in spite of this negative evaluation, no specific transgressions are listed for Jehoiachin (a situation that is also true only for Jehoahaz). Indeed, Jehoiachin’s one recorded act as king was to surrender to the King of Babylon, which should be interpreted positively (see below). Rather than focusing on Jehoiachin’s actions, vv. 10–17 depict Jehoiachin as passively enduring the consequences of his father’s rebellion. The principal actor instead is Nebuchadnezzar, who is said to come (‫)בוא‬, take (‫)לקח‬, bring out (‫יצא‬hiph), cut (‫)קצץ‬, exile (‫גלה‬hiph; 2x); lead away (‫הלך‬hiph), bring (‫בוא‬hiph), cause to reign (‫מלך‬hiph), and change [Zedekiah’s name] (‫סבב‬hiph). Nebuchadnezzar’s presence also proves decisive for Jehoiachin’s surrender. Nebuchadnezzar’s servants had Jerusalem under siege for an unspecified period of time (v. 10), 8 but shortly after the king of Babylon arrived, Jehoiachin capitulated (vv. 11–12a). 9 Jehoiachin then faded into the background as the narrator lists him along with the captives and spoil removed from Jerusalem (vv. 12b–16). The author signals the shift in focus from Jehoiachin to Nebuchadnezzar by noting that Jehoiachin’s capture took place in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (v. 12b), the first time in the book of Kings that an event has been dated by a foreign ruler’s regnal years. The details of the subsequent despoliation notice need not detain us except to notice those who are associated with Jehoiachin in his exile. Many argue that the redundant and (apparently) contradictory phrasing of vv. 12b–16 provides strong evidence for vv. 13–14 as a later insertion. 10 Whatever the textual history may be, the repetition of the strong, skilled, and wealthy classes who were deported serves a rhetorical purpose: it underlines the virtually complete depletion of skill and leadership from Jerusalem. All officials (‫)ׂשִרים‬, ָ mighty men of wealth (‫[ ִּגּבֹורֵי ַה ַחיִל‬v. 16: ‫)] ַא ְנׁשֵי‬, 11 craftsmen Lord, according to all that Jehoiakim had done” (“Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins,” BZ 12 [1968]: 29). This may suggest that Jehoiachin has been morally vindicated, perhaps in his ready acquiescence to Nebuchadnezzar (see pp. 34–36). However, 2 Kings lacks an explicit mention of his repentance. 8. From the Babylonian Chronicle we know that it is no more than two or three months. See p. 11. 9. Verse 11b, as a waw + x + qatal construction, conveys the circumstances of Nebuchadnezzar’s arrival, not an intervening period between his arrival and Jehoiachin’s surrender (see Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson, JSOTSup 86 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 66). ְ ‫) ַוּיֵצֵא עַל־ ֶמל‬. Jehoiachin’s surrender is conveyed with an unusual construction (‫ֶך ָּבבֶל‬ The verb ‫ יצא‬is not used in combination with ‫ עַל‬in any other surrender context. Normally this combination means “to go out through” a land (e.g., Gen 41:45), but it can also mean “to go out to fight against” (e.g., Deut 20:1; usually in combination with ‫)ל ִַּמ ְל ָחמָה‬. 10. See esp. Marc Zvi Brettler, “2 Kings 24:13–14 as History,” CBQ 53 (1991): 541–52. 11. That these are probably wealthy men as opposed to warriors, see 2 Kgs 15:20. However, cf. Josh 1:14; 8:3; 10:7, in which the context lends itself more naturally to a military interpretation.

24

Chapter 3

ִ‫)ס‬, and nobles (‫אֵילֵי ָה ָארֶץ‬, (‫ ;חָרָׁש‬2×), smiths (‫ ;מ ְַסּגֵר‬2×), 12 eunuchs/officials (‫ָריס‬ qere) went into exile with the royal household ( Jehoiachin’s mother, wives, and servants). Thus, Jehoiachin went into exile with the elite of society as well as the finest trappings of the temple (namely, the gold). Significantly, this despoliation is said to have been according to the word of Yahweh (v. 13: ‫ֲׁשר ִּדּבֶר יְהוָה‬ ֶ ‫) ַּכא‬, although it is unclear which word of Yahweh is in view. The possibilities include: Yahweh’s warning to Solomon after­ the temple’s dedication (1 Kgs 9:1–9) and Isaiah’s prophecy to Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:16–18). 13 Given the immediate context of wealth, Isaiah’s prophecy is the most likely (see 20:17). 14 If so, the other part of Isaiah’s prophecy may soon be fulfilled (that Hezekiah’s offspring will become ‫יסים‬ ִ ‫ָר‬ ִ‫ ס‬in the palace of the king of Babylon). It is uncertain whether the word ‫ָריס‬ ִ‫ ס‬in biblical texts necessitates the translation “eunuch” or whether it could indicate the status of a court official more broadly. 15 Regardless, the suggestion of castration brings ominous overtones to Jehoiachin’s capture. Yahweh’s intention to remove the rest of Judah culminates in Zedekiah’s rebellion (2 Kgs 24:20). When Zedekiah rebeled against Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonians responded with a swift and brutal reprisal. After a two-year siege, Zedekiah’s sons and the remaining officials were killed, Zedekiah was taken to Babylon, and the city was razed. 16 The pericope concludes with sober finality: “So Judah was taken into exile out of its land” (25:21, ESV). Two brief units follow, both of which operate as epilogues, although with pronounced differences. 17 The first deals with the last vestiges of the 12. The precise occupation denoted here is uncertain. Describing people, the word appears only four times, and all in the context of Jerusalem’s deportation (2 Kgs 24:14, 16; Jer 24:1; 29:2). It is also used for a prison in Ps 142:7[8]; Isa 24:22; 42:7. 13. Another possibility is the futility curses in Deut 28:30–33, but the linguistic links are not strong. 14. Meik Gerhards argues this in defense of his thesis that Dtr2 (the exilic redactor who wrote 2 Kgs 25:27–30 in his view) is strongly anti-monarchical. That 2 Kgs 20:18 uses the plural (“eunuchs”) would indicate that not just Jehoiachin but his whole house have become servants (“Die beiden Erzählungen aus 2. Kön 20 und 2. Kön 20,18 als Ankündigung der Begnadigung Jojachins [2. Kön 25,27–30],” BN 98 [1999]: 12). Against him, Iain Provan argues that it is “Zedekiah, and not Jehoiachin, who ends up effectively as ‘a eunuch in Babylon’ (20:18), a mutilated man deprived of an heir who might later claim the throne” (1 and 2 Kings, NIBC [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995], 280). It is certainly possible that the prophecy could be aligned with both individuals, and that this plurality of fulfillments corresponds to the plural ‫יסים‬ ִ ‫ָר‬ ִ‫ ס‬in 2 Kgs 20:18. 15. See B. Kedar-Kopfstein, “‫ָריס‬ ִ‫ס‬,” TDOT 10:344–50. 16. See Murray’s excellent discussion of the structure of 2  Kings 25 (“Of All the Years,” 248–50). 17. Boris Eikhenbaum identifies two formal characteristics of an epilogue: “[1.] it sets the perspective by a shift in timescale or orientation; [2.] it provides some element of Nachgeschichte (after-history) for the major characters” (summarized in Marianna Torgovnick, Closure in the Novel [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981], 11). Susan Zeelander, building on Berlin’s work, adds another: epilogues often provide a “time-bridge”

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

25

population in Judah (vv. 22–26). When Gedaliah encouraged submission to their humble situation, Ishmael and others rejected his counsel, murdered him, and fled to Egypt. Thus, the narrator effectively closes the door on this wing of Judah. 18 In contrast, the final pericope, which deals with the Judeans in Babylon (vv. 27–30), is an epilogue with a very different outcome. Unlike most epilogues that tie up loose ends (as in vv. 22–26), this epilogue unravels what was formerly neatly tied. How these final four verses unseat the closure that had previously been achieved will be a major theme in our discussion below. Verses 27–30 exhibit the following structure: vv. 27–28: Evil-Merodach elevates Jehoiachin out of prison in a fourfold sequence: he lifts Jehoiachin’s head, brings Jehoiachin out of prison,19 speaks “good things” (‫ )טֹבֹות‬with him, and sets his throne in a high place.20 v. 29: Resulting actions on Jehoiachin’s part: he changes his prison garments and dines at the king’s table. v. 30: Summary: a regular allowance is given to Jehoiachin for the rest of his days.  19 20

When all seems lost, v. 27 suddenly propels the narrative forward some 20 years, making us privy to a remarkable reversal in the course of Judah’s exile. On the last day of Evil-Merodach’s accession year, 21 he “lifted the head” (‫ )נׂשא רֹאׁש‬of Jehoiachin. The attested occurrences of this idiom are quite diverse, ranging from a literal carrying of heads (1 Chr 10:9) to several figural uses, including the idea of “to exult (perhaps audaciously)” ( Job 10:15; Ps 24:7, 9; 83:2; Zech 1:21), “to take a census” (Exod 30:12; Num 1:2, 49; etc.), and “to examine, pay attention to” (Gen 40:13, 20). 22 Based on Akkadian parallels several scholars argue that the phrase is best translated in 2 Kings as something like “be mindful of ” or “summon to an examination.” 23 This definition fits the ambiguous context of Gen 40, in which the same phrase that connects the story to the present audience (Closure in Biblical Narrative, BibInt 111 [Leiden: Brill, 2012], 47). 18. On connections here to the covenant curses in Deuteronomy, see p. 36. 19. The phrase ‫ וַּיֹצֵא אֹותֹו‬is absent in L, but it does appear in several other Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX, the Syriac, the Targums, and the parallel passage in Jer 52:31 (cf. BHS). I therefore favor its restoration in 2 Kgs 25:27, along with BHS; Becking, David to Gedaliah, 175; Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1988), 328; Georg Fischer, “Jeremia 52—Ein Schüssel zum Jeremiabuch,” Bib 79 (1998): 336. 20. Every other instance of ‫ְהי‬ ִ ‫ ַוי‬+ temporal phrase + qatal + wayyiqtol sequence in Kings indicates that the qatal verb is to be understood as the first in a series of actions that are continued by the wayyiqtol sequence. See 1 Kgs 14:25–26; 2 Kgs 18:9; 25:1, 25. 21. On ‫ָלכֹו‬ ְ ‫ׁשנַת מ‬ ְ and the release of prisoners before the akītu festival, see p. 18. 22. See D. N. Freedman and B. E. Willoughby, “‫ָׂשא‬ ָ ‫נ‬,” TDOT 10:37. 23. “Be mindful of ”: David Marcus, “‘Lifting up the Head’: On the Trail of a Word Play in Genesis 40,” Proof 10 (1990): 22; E. A. Speiser, “Census and Ritual Expiation in

26

Chapter 3

is used to preface two very different outcomes (a beheading and a reinstatement), and may be the best understanding of the phrase in Kings as well. However, the evidence for the traditional reading of “grant favor to” is equally strong: when the expression is used reflexively (“to lift one’s own head”; Judg 8:28; Job 10:15; Ps 83:2; Zech 1:21), it denotes a subjective movement from discouragement to exultation. By analogy, when a party “lifts the head” of another (as is the case here), the meaning would be that the lifter exalts or restores the other (a meaning that fits well both in Gen 40:13 and here). 24 In the end, the semantic difference between these two options (“summoning to an examination” vs. “granting favor to”) is inconsequential: even if the former option is preferred, the context clarifies that the outcome of the examination is one of favor for Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation involves Evil-Merodach speaking ‫ טֹבֹות‬with him. Zenger and others argue that “speaking ‫ ”טֹבֹות‬should be interpreted as the initiation of covenant relations between Evil-Merodach and Jehoiachin. 25 Becking counters that this theory hangs entirely on the phrase ‫יְדַ ּבֵר ִאּתֹו‬ ‫טֹבֹות‬, which could just as easily be translated “he spoke kindly with him.” 26 However, as we will see below regarding Jehoiachin’s eating privileges, there are other indications that Jehoiachin had a formal, client relationship with Evil-Merodach. What remains unclear is whether this covenant stipulates any derivative authority for Jehoiachin. 27 Evil-Merodach’s act of setting Jehoiachin’s throne higher than the other kings in Babylon does not clarify Jehoiachin’s status. Clearly Jehoiachin is the recipient of preferential treatment, but he is still classed among subjected rulers, 28 with no indication that he exercised any authority. The use of the word ‫ ִּכּסֵא‬is ambiguous: there is insufficient information to distinguish whether the word denotes a “throne,” implying a special office, or simply a “seat” at Evil-Merodach’s table. 29 But the repetition of this word Mari and Israel,” BASOR 149 (1958): 22. “Summon to an examination”: Zenger, “Rehabilitierung,” 22–23. 24. For the traditional rendering of “grant favor to,” see the defense in Murray, “Of All the Years,” 253. 25. Zenger argues for his vassal status on the basis of Evil-Merodach speaking “good things” to him, which is well-attested covenantal language (“Rehabilitierung,” 24; see Michael Fox, “Ṭôḇ as Covenant Terminology,” BASOR 209 [1973]: 41–42; W. L. Moran, “A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefîre Stelas,” JNES 22 [1963]: 173–76; Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West,” JAOS 93 [1973]: 193). 26. Becking, David to Gedaliah, 176. See Jer 12:6; Zech 1:13. 27. On the lack of evidence that Jehoiachin ever exercised authority in Judea during his exile, see pp. 11, 13. 28. The Unger Prism lists several exiled kings (from Tyre, Gaza, etc.) in Babylon (“The Court of Nebuchadnezzar,” trans. E. Unger [ANET, 308]). 29. The idea of exalting a throne appears frequently in the OT, but with the general idea of conveying honor, not implying a particular status (see 1 Kgs 1:37, 47; Esth 3:1; Ps 113:7; H.-J. Fabry, “‫ּכּסֵא‬,” ִ TDOT 7:257).

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

27

in 1–2 Kings in the special sense of the “throne of David” or the “throne of Israel” (see p. 38) underscores the irony of Jehoiachin’s position: the very expression that indicated his exalted status among the other kings in Babylon reminds the reader that this ‫ ִּכּסֵא‬is not the throne of David, which does not presently exist. The shift from wayyiqtol to weqatal at the beginning of v.  29 does not introduce direct speech from Evil-Merodach, 30 but instead marks a change in perspective to Jehoiachin as the recipient of Evil-Merodach’s favor, as well as a change to Jehoiachin as the subject of the verbs. 31 As Yoshinobu Endo notes, a weqatal construction at the end of a wayyiqtol chain can function simply as “a goal verb without inversion and does not express synchroneity,” 32 a feature that is quite common in 2 Kings (14:13–14; 21:3– 4; 23:4, 8, 12, 15). Hence, v. 29 shows the outcome of Evil-Merodach’s gracious actions in vv. 27–28: Jehoiachin changed his clothes and dined before Evil-Merodach. 33 Changing clothes is a pervasive symbol in the Bible and the ANE for a change in status, often in the context of an exaltation or restoration to office (Gen 41:14, 42; Esth 8:15; Zech 3:4). 34 Conversely, torn clothes and sackcloth are common pictures of mourning (Gen 37:34; 2 Sam 19:24), and taking them off indicates that the period of mourning is over (2 Sam 12:20; Esth 4:4; but cf. Deut 21:13). 2 Kings 25:29 emphasizes Jehoiachin’s removal of his prison clothes, which might suggest the decisive end of his imprisonment. However, unlike Joseph (Gen 41:42), Jehoiachin apparently did not receive the garments of state. Along with the recognition that Jehoiachin was still being retained in Babylon, this point undercuts his liberation; Jehoiachin’s station was improved, but his imprisonment had not in fact come to a decisive end. 30. Contra Becking, David to Gedaliah, 175. 31. The shift in subject from Evil-Merodach to Jehoiachin is perhaps the reason for the shift in verb form from wayyiqtol to weqatal in v. 29. For discussion, see Robert E. Longacre, “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-Modular Approach,” in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert D. Bergen (Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994), 58–59. See also John A. Cook, who identifies several purposes for departures from the wayyiqtol besides background or indirect speech (“The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” JSS 49 [2004]: 264). 32. Yoshinobu Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis, SSN (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996), 148. 33. Murray argues that the weqatal here indicates a modal shift to the frequentative, something that makes sense for eating (“he used to eat”), but not for changing clothes. (“Of All the Years,” 251). 34. Edgar Haulotte, Symbolique du vêtement selon la Bible, Théologie 65 (Paris: Aubier, 1966), 76–80; Ora Horn Prouser, “Suited to the Throne: The Symbolic Use of Clothing in the David and Saul Narratives,” JSOT 71 (1996): 27–37; M. E. Vogelzang and W. J. van Bekkum, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts,” in Scripta Signa Vocis (Groningen, Netherlands: Forsten, 1986), 265–284.

28

Chapter 3

A similar mixture of reserved celebration is evident in the notice about Jehoiachin’s dining privileges (vv. 29b–30). Jehoiachin ate bread continually before the king, and received a daily portion from Evil-Merodach all the days of his life. The language of eating bread continually (‫)אכל ֶלחֶם ָּת ִמיד‬ is used elsewhere in David’s elevation of Mephibosheth (2 Sam 9:7, 10, 13), and, as Jeremy Schipper notes, Mephibosheth at David’s table recalls David at Saul’s table. 35 But Schipper also highlights the mixed blessing of this sort of position. On the one hand, it is a great honor for the king to extend such an offer (cf. 1 Kgs 2:7), but on the other, it may be an act of suspicion that allows the king to keep his eye on a dangerous person. 36 Moreover, the privilege of eating before the king must be balanced with the recognition that such a posture expresses submission, most likely covenantal submission. 37 Verse 30 also emphasizes Jehoiachin’s dependence on the king. The text does not clarify the quantity of Jehoiachin’s provision. 38 Instead, it accents the constancy of these rations by the twofold repetition of ‫ּכָל־ ְימֵי ַחּיָיו‬ (vv. 29, 30), which also implies that Jehoiachin’s life did not improve through the rest of his exile. Our initial examination of the Jehoiachin texts in Kings has uncovered an ambiguous portrait. Even though 24:9 says he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, in both 24:8–17 and 25:27–30 it is difficult to evaluate him morally, and the new status he attained under Evil-Merodach is equally nebulous. He was no longer in prison or clothed with shame; instead, he sat above all other foreign kings and ate before the king of Babylon. And yet, his retention in Babylon, his apparent vassal status, and his dependence on Evil-Merodach for sustenance all underscore that Jehoiachin was ultimately still a prisoner. We therefore adopt the language of “ameliorated exile” 39 to describe Jehoiachin’s new situation. This categorization (over against “subdued restoration”) will receive considerable expansion below.

Excursus: The Primary History as a Literary Unit 2 Kings 24–25 brings a story to an end, but which story? As James Muilenburg pointed out, determining the “limits or scope of the literary unit” is a basic first step in a holistic reading. 40 Since Noth, many scholars have 35. Jeremy Schipper, Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story, LHBOTS 441 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 112. 36. Ibid., 112–13. 37. On the connection between covenant and eating, see pp.  18–20 and Alan W. Jenks, “Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament,” ABD 2:252–53. 38. Against Murray, ‫ארֻחָה‬ ֲ does not denote “limited rations,” only “rations” (“Of All the Years,” 257–59). Murray’s argument depends on his reading of Prov 15:17, where he contrasts ‫ אָבּוס‬with ‫ארֻחָה‬ ֲ . But ‫ אָבּוס‬qualifies the ox, not the portion. Moreover, in Jer 40:5 there is no indication of stinginess on Nebuzaradan’s part. As I argue in ch. 2, the Weidner­tablets are irrelevant to this question. 39. Used also by Murray but with different import, see pp. 48–50, nn. 132, 138. 40. James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” JBL 88 (1969): 9.

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

29

treated 1–2  Kings as the conclusion of the Deuteronomistic History, although the question of whether Deuteronomy through Kings manifests a coherent outlook has occasioned a proliferation of redactional theories. 41 As important as these diachronic questions are, my present concern is the literary context of 2 Kgs 24–25. I will evaluate the various options on the basis of narratival coherence, defined as the extent to which a text is a selfcontained story with a recognizable plot (having a beginning, a middle, and an end  42), a set of central themes, and significant infra-referentiality. 43 The three options we will evaluate are 1–2 Kings, the Deuteronomistic History (DH; defined as Deuteronomy through 2  Kings, not including Ruth), and the Primary History (PH; defined as Genesis through 2 Kings, not including Ruth). All three are “sprawling, capacious narratives” 44 made up of many smaller narratives that are loosely juxtaposed. Nevertheless, I submit that all three are viable units, which should be viewed as ever-­ widening concentric circles. As the smallest unit, the book of Kings has the highest degree of thematic and linguistic consistency, including features (such as the evaluation formulae and the sustained concurrent narration of the northern and southern kingdoms) that are found nowhere else in the PH. Against those who find contradictions in the book, 45 the work of Linville and others demonstrate the viability of 1–2 Kings as a literary unit, 46 41. See Thomas Römer and Albert de Pury, “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues,” in Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, ed. Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and JeanDaniel Macchi, JSOTSup 306 (Sheffield: Sheffield, 2000); Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in Deutero-Jeremianic Prose, OTS (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 27–39. 42. As classically defined by Aristotle (Poetics 1450b.21–33). 43. Cf. Leo G. Perdue, The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 247; Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 14. Whybray also emphasizes structure as an essential criterion for coherence. As Erhard Blum cautions, intra-textuality on its own is insufficient to establish texts as being part of a single work (“Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch? Or: How Can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?” in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, ed. Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid, SBLAIL 8 [Atlanta: SBL, 2011], 48). 44. Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen, “Story and Biblical Theology,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al., SHS 5 (Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2004), 159, quoting Eugene Peterson. They use this phrase to describe the Bible as a whole. 45. E.g., Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 278; Richard Elliott Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works, HSM 22 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 33. 46. James Richard Linville, Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity, JSOTSup 272 (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1998). Cf. George Savran, “1 and 2 Kings,” in The Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1987), 146–64.

30

Chapter 3

and in my discussion of the Davidic covenant below, I will undercut one of the main obstacles to a unified reading. 47 But Kings is also oriented back to Deuteronomy (e.g., 2 Kgs 17:15–17; 22:8– 13) and shares many thematic and linguistic features with Joshua–­Samuel. It resumes the plot where 2 Samuel leaves off, a common feature at the beginning of books in the DH. As a literary unit, the DH has much to commend it. 48 Moshe Weinfeld has catalogued a large set of shared language. 49 Deuteronomy also functions as a new beginning, introducing the theological charter that provides the interpretive lens for the following books. 50 And yet, J. G. McConville and Claus Westermann have demonstrated that each book in the DH is sufficiently distinct in theme, style, and design to require conceptualizing the DH as a compilation of discrete, chronologically ordered books rather than a single, segmented work. 51 Moreover, the DH is not strongly self-contained as a literary unit. The opening sermon (Deut 1:1–4:43) reminds the audience of the failure at Kadesh, and the DH conspicuously lacks an Exodus narrative. 52 These considerations do not completely undermine the DH as a unit, but they suggest that Deuteronomy is a transitional book in a larger narrative, the Primary History. 53 As McConville writes, Deuteronomy is “both a 47. For others who argue for a unified reading of 1–2 Kings, see Janzen, “An Ambiguous Ending,” 42. 48. I use the title “Deuteronomistic History” for the sake of convenience without necessarily espousing the redaction-critical assumptions that may accompany this term. 49. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972). 50. J. G. McConville, “The Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship,” Them 22 (1997): 9–10. 51. Idem, Grace in the End: A Study of Deuteronomic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 159; idem, “Historical Books,” 10–11; Claus Westermann, Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk?, TB 87 (Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1994), 110. See also John Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, 2nd ed., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 1–5. 52. Westermann, Die Geschichtsbücher, 37. 53. David Noel Freedman was the earliest to argue for the PH as a unit (“The Law and the Prophets,” in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962, VTSup 9 [Leiden: Brill, 1963], 251–59), a position that more scholars are adopting. See Ehud Ben Zvi, “Looking at the Primary (Hi)story and the Prophetic Books as Literary/Theological Units within the Frame of the Early Second Temple: Some Considerations,” SJOT 12 (1998): 26–43; David J. A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help: And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament, JSOTSup 94 (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1990), 85–105; Paul J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha, JSOTSup 224 (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1996); J. G. McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology, Genesis–Kings, LHBOTS 454 (London: T&T Clark, 2006); Marco Nobile, “Les quatre pâques dans le cadre de la rédaction finale de Gen–2 Rois,” in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989, ed. C. Brekelmans and J. Lust (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 191–96; Konrad Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story:

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

31

culmination and a beginning.” 54 It is a mountain that towers at the center of the PH, summing up the Pentateuch and simultaneously introducing the DH. The Primary History also manifests considerable narratival coherence: there is a clear beginning (creation), and each book resumes the story where the previous one left off, resulting in “a unified story-line which begins with creation and ends with Israel’s exile.” 55 Although not without problems, one can even perceive a unified chronology throughout. 56 Linguistic links abound, and shared motifs such as the promises to the patriarchs, the Exodus, and the Sinai covenant provide consistency. 57 And yet, like the DH, the books of PH have their own literary integrity. As our contextual horizon broadens, we must be more careful to respect the boundaries between subunits, while at the same time not losing sight of the common story that unites them. Within the umbrella of the PH, subunits may evidence diversity on a host of issues (for example, the overt restoration hopes of Deuteronomy as opposed to the muted hopes of Kings). This diversity must be upheld even as we attempt to coordinate these books on the basis of the narrative unity we have just argued. These literary conclusions require us not only to ask how the story of Jehoiachin in 2 Kgs 24–25 functions within Kings, but also within the everbroadening contexts of the DH and the PH. Understanding Gen 1–11 as a prologue, 58 I will proceed to reading Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation as the conclusion of the grand story that began with the call of Abraham.

Narrative Analogies to Jehoiachin When one reads the story of Jehoiachin in Kings against the background of the PH, a number of narrative analogies emerge. Narrative analogies (or patterning) are common in OT narrative, 59 and involve portrayals of one plot element (such as a character or event) in such a way as to invite Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. James D. Nogalski, Siphrut 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010). 54. McConville, Earthly Power, 168. 55. Kissling, Reliable Characters, 13. 56. Schmid, Moses Story, 17–19. 57. Against Schmid (ibid., 92), I do not consider these motifs to be artificially wedged together, but an intricately synthetic whole. See Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help, 93–98; idem, The Theme of the Pentateuch, rev. ed., JSOTSup 10 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997). For a rich exposition of some of the intertextual links across the PH, see John E. Harvey, Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives, JSOTSup 403 (London: T&T Clark, 2004). 58. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 66–86. 59. See Daniel I. Block, “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature: A Study in Judges 19,” WTJ 52 (1990): 325–341; Robert L. Cohn, “Convention and Creativity in the Book of Kings: The Case of the Dying Monarch,” CBQ 47 (1985): 603–16; Peter J. Leithart, “Counterfeit Davids: Davidic Restoration and the Architecture of 1–2 Kings,” TynBul 56 (2005): 19–33.

32

Chapter 3

comparison­with another element that appeared earlier in the same narrative. 60 I will rely on the helpful methodological discussions in Moshe Garsiel and Joshua Berman, 61 but some additional comments are necessary on the question of how one detects narrative analogies. Because analogies are often triggered by linguistic allusions, the criteria developed in intertextual studies for detecting a quotation, allusion, or echo may be reapplied here. 62 But to a greater degree than with these word-centered phenomena, narrative analogies are also established on the basis of nonlinguistic connections. Sometimes a similarity in the scene (for example, Jehoiachin and Mephibosheth at another king’s table) or a similarity in broad narrative structures (I discuss Jehoiachin and Joash below) signal an analogy. This is not to deny that nonlinguistic patterns are often reinforced by shared language, such as “eating bread continuously” in both Jehoiachin’s and Mephibosheth’s stories. Regardless of how the analogy is signaled, in every case, clear points of contact invite a broader comparison, 60. Thus narrative analogies are distinguished from type scenes, where the narrative element under inspection is compared with a convention, not a specific previous narrative (see Harvey, Retelling the Torah, 36–39). This distinction also highlights the difference between narrative analogies and the conventional patterns uncovered in a Proppian analysis such as that of Diane M. Sharon, Patterns of Destiny: Narrative Structures of Foundation and Doom in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002). Narrative analogies are also distinct from typology. Typology is similar in many respects to narrative analogies, but with the crucial difference that typology (as I will define it later, in ch. 9) is forward-looking, whereas narrative analogies look backward. 61. Joshua Berman, Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and Their Equivalent Non-Battle Narratives, VTSup 103 (Leiden: Brill, 2004); Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat-­Gan, Israel: Revivim, 1985), 16–32. For a helpful taxonomy of narrative parallels, see Aulikki Nahkola, Double Narratives in the Old Testament: The Foundations of Method in Biblical Criticism, BZAW 290 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001), 168–75. 62. See Cynthia Edenburg, “Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,” JSOT 35 (2010): 131–48; Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 29– 32; Will J. Kynes, My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms, BZAW 437 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), 17–60. For a recent overview on intertextuality, see Geoffrey D. Miller, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” CBR 9 (2010): 283–309. For the purpose of this volume, we adopt a mediating approach between diachronic and synchronic dimensions of intertextuality. Reading the canon in its final form, my approach is synchronic. Also, the abundance of references to other biblical texts suggests that the ideal reader should possess an exhaustive literary competence of the Bible (Edenburg, “Intertextuality,” 134; see the discussion concerning “parallelomania” below, p.  33). However, we incorporate a diachronic dimension in that the direction of influence will be traced, not on the basis of relative dates of texts, but on the basis of the narrative order as it is presented in the corpus (hence the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin in 2 Kgs 25:27–30 may have narrative analogies back through the Primary History, while the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin in Jer 52:31–34 must be read in light of the foregoing book of Jeremiah).

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

33

similar to the way metaphors work. And as with all intertextuality, the “volume” of some analogies is weak, 63 exhibiting links that are tenuous or obscure. In these cases, I suggest a link cautiously, and accord these analogies lighter weight when considering all the analogies together. Once the connection has been established, differences are often as important as the similarities. Some analogies function more as “anti-­analogies” than as analogies, often yielding an ironic portrayal (for example, Jehoiachin as an “anti-Solomon”). The multiplicity of analogies for a single character in Kings is also crucial. Josiah is misunderstood if he is only seen to be a new Hezekiah, zealous for the law of Yahweh and cult reform. He is also tragically patterned on Ahab: in the cases of both Josiah and Ahab, repentance was effective in prolonging the end of their dynasties, but both were ineffective in reversing the divine decree that their dynasties must in fact end (1 Kgs 21:29; 2 Kgs 22:15–20; 23:25–26). 64 The juxtaposition of these positive and negative patterns makes Josiah’s character particularly interesting, and offers a way of communicating a complex theological agenda through narrative. In the case of Jehoiachin, we have identified four distinct groups of narrative analogies that provide helpful perspectives on this king’s mysterious rehabilitation. 65 Each group may contain multiple analogies, with all the analogies in a given group having a common thematic thrust. But while we hold that at least four different analogy groups are at work in this brief pericope, we do not claim that they are making four entirely different points. As in language generally, the text exhibits redundancy. Many of these analogy groups are mutually reinforcing so that one may grasp the basic point even if an analogy is missed. Finding so many analogies in a text so short raises the possibility of “parallelomania.” Is it really plausible to find four different groups of analogies invoked by a mere four verses at the end of Kings? To what extent can we be certain that it is appropriate to bring these other contexts to bear on our passage? Or that we have invoked the appropriate aspects of those other contexts? Several considerations may be helpful. First, one must reckon with how important narrative analogies are for biblical narrative. While this device may not be utilized in Western literature in the same manner or with the same frequency, it is well attested throughout the Bible. 66 Moreover, 63. Cf. Hays, Echoes, 30. 64. Iain W. Provan, “The Messiah in the Book of Kings,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995), 75. 65. A good beginning of this kind of treatment can be found in Jan Jaynes Granowski, “Jehoiachin at the King’s Table: A Reading of the Ending of the Second Book of Kings,” in Reading Between Texts, ed. Danna Nolan Fewell (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 173–88, but he only examines three patterns: Mephibosheth, Joseph, and Abraham. 66. See p. 32 n. 61.

34

Chapter 3

sometimes narrative analogies are so important that the book of Kings explicitly draws attention to them (for example, the repeated comparisons between Judean kings and David, or between Manasseh and Ahab, 2 Kgs 21:3, 13). Are we only to recognize these explicit patterns and not others? Our sense of plausibility in patterning must accord with the text’s own practices, as well as the worldview from which the text has sprung. As Alter notes, a working assumption of Israelite historiography is that “everything, however perplexing, was ultimately linked to everything else in the large movement of God’s purpose through the difficult medium of history.” 67 This sort of environment is highly conducive to narrative analogies. Finally, we have endeavored to identify analogies in a disciplined manner, looking for multiple connections between Jehoiachin and the analogy in question and recognizing that some analogies are of lower volume than others. The redundancy of analogies also provides a useful check against unwarranted connections. Analogy Group 1: Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Ishmael What could these five figures possibly have in common? All share a common feature: they rebel against a more powerful foreign nation. In this key respect they differ from Jehoiachin, who (along with Gedaliah) is the paradigm of humble submission to foreign powers in the book of Kings. This submission appears not only in his willingness to sit at Evil-Merodach’s table, but also in his one recorded act as king: that he “went out” (‫ )יצא‬to the king of Babylon in the midst of the siege of 597 (2 Kgs 24:12). Jehoiachin’s decision to capitulate under siege has been interpreted by Provan as a sign of the weakness of his faith, especially in contrast with Hezekiah, whose trust in God led to the annihilation of the Assyrian army when it was besieging Jerusalem. 68 Hezekiah’s radical trust in Yahweh is certainly portrayed positively in 2 Kings. 69 But this does not mean that Jehoiachin’s surrender to the king of Babylon should be interpreted negatively. After the positive portrayal of Hezekiah’s rebellion, Josiah’s death at the hands of Neco comes as a shock (2 Kgs 23:29–30). It is not clear how 67. Robert Alter, “Sodom as Nexus: The Web of Design in Biblical Narrative,” in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory, ed. Regina M. Schwartz (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990), 159. 68. As Provan says, “Jehoiachin is no Hezekiah” (1 and 2 Kings, 278). Thomas Römer is more correct when he says, “In contrast to Hezekiah who resisted the Assyrian assault with Yahweh’s help, there is no possibility to escape from the Babylonian attack, because Yahweh himself sent the Babylonian army (24.2 and 20a) in order to annihilate Judah and Jerusalem” (The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction [London: T&T Clark, 2005], 162), and hence Jehoiachin is right to capitulate. 69. Note 2 Kgs 18:7 NASB: “And the Lord was with [Hezekiah]; wherever he went out, he prospered” immediately before it records that Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria. Gary N. Knoppers also notes that what makes Hezekiah incomparable as a king is his trust, the very issue at stake in the Assyrian siege (“‘There Was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings,” CBQ 54 [1992]: 418–25).

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

35

the narrator views Josiah’s attack of Neco, 70 but it is clear that because of Manasseh’s sin, Yahweh is no longer the defender of Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 21:12–15; 22:16–17; 23:26). Instead, Yahweh has aligned himself with foreign powers. For this reason Huldah warned Josiah that Yahweh was bringing a disaster on Judah that could not be averted (22:16–17). Thus, Josiah’s death marks a transition: subsequent rebellions against foreign powers are no longer depicted as an act of trust (as with Hezekiah), but as an act of rebellion against Yahweh himself. The same root used for Hezekiah’s rebellion against Assyria, ‫( מרד‬18:7), is used again for Jehoiakim’s and Zedekiah’s rebellions against Babylon (24:1, 20). But the rebellion of these latter two kings immediately brings on them the full brunt of the Babylonian army, a military action that the author in both cases explicitly ascribes to God’s wrath against Judah (24:3–4, 20). The coup of Ishmael ben Nethaniah is no different. In contrast to Gedaliah urging the people to submit to Babylon, Ishmael and his party assassinate Gedaliah along with the Jews and Chaldeans who were with him. The narrator condemns Ishmael’s action: Gedaliah showed them a way to be free of fear (v. 24), but the result of Ishmael’s act was fear (v. 26). Ishmael’s act also brings the theme of depopulation to a climax. The previous rebellions of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah led to many people being deported, but the text always carefully notes that some were still left (2 Kgs 24:14; 25:12). Here, when the people flee to Egypt, no such notice is given. While archaeologists debate the size of Judea’s population after 586, 71 in the world of the text the land is now empty, 72 indicating that Ishmael’s deed has led to the full realization of the covenant curses (cf. Deut 28:63–64). 73 In continuity 70. Laato argues that Josiah’s death was solely on account of “the sins committed by the people during the reign of Manasseh” (Josiah and David Redivivus, 39–41), which contrasts with the Chronicler’s clear indictment that Josiah has ignored the word of Yahweh to his peril (2 Chr 35:22). 71. Cf. the “myth of the empty land” school, with its seminal articulation in Hans M. Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period, SO 28 (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996), as well as the weighty rebuttals in B. Oded, “Where Is the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’ to Be Found? History Versus Myth,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 55–74; Schniedewind, Bible, 140–49; Vanderhooft, “Babylonian Strategies,” 252–56. For a recent summary that balances both sides, see Peter van der Veen, “Sixth-Century Issues: The Fall of Jerusalem, the Exile, and the Return,” in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, ed. Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 387–96. 72. Christoph Levin, “The Empty Land in Kings,” in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin, BZAW 404 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 84–85. 73. That Ishmael brings the curses to a climax is also alluded to by his flight to Egypt, which resonates (although perhaps not in all the details) with the final curse in Deut 28:68.

36

Chapter 3

with the kings previously mentioned, the reference to Ishmael being of the royal seed (‫מּזֶרַ ע ה ְַּמלּוכָה‬, ִ 25:25) is striking. Even though the last Davidic king has been removed, the house of David continues to bring disaster on the land through its rebellion. Becking summarizes the moral of the story well: “Grasping power even by a descendant from the Davidic dynasty is not the way out of the darkness of the exile.” 74 These figures serve as anti-patterns to Jehoiachin. Begg rightly sees a common message in 2 Kgs 25:22–26 and 25:27–30. 75 Ishmael rebels and it goes badly for him; Jehoiachin submits and it goes well. 76 Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation demonstrates that if one accepts foreign rule, it is possible to enjoy some prosperity even while under the curse of exile. 77 Analogy Group 2: Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, and Mephibosheth The second analogy group makes a complementary point. Several features in Kings suggest that Nebuchadnezzar and his line are the divinely appointed successors of the Davidic dynasty: Gedaliah urges submission to the King of Babylon in a way that implies his legitimacy to rule; 78 events begin to be reckoned by the Babylonian kings’ regnal years (24:12; 25:1, 8, 27), 79 and Nebuchadnezzar takes possession of the land (delineated so as to recall Solomon’s territory: “from the Brook of Egypt to the river Euphrates,” 24:7, ESV; cf. 1 Kgs 4:21). 80 To this point, the book of Kings has emphasized the deeds of Davidides, but hereafter the Babylonian kings occupy the center stage. The Davidides may have a special covenant with Yahweh, but for the time being Yhwh has sanctioned the transition of power to the Babylonians. That David’s dynasty is passé appears also in the narrative analogy between Jehoiachin and Mephibosheth. This analogy is well defended by Schipper, who identifies not only a linguistic link between the two passages (both “eat bread continually” at their superior’s table) but also strong thematic links. 81 Just as David cares for the last member of Saul’s line by per74. Becking, David to Gedaliah, 173. 75. Begg, “Jehoiachin’s Release,” 53–54. 76. Jehoiachin’s act of submission (he went out [‫ ]יצא‬to Nebuchadnezzar, 24:12) is also linguistically linked to his rehabilitation (Evil-Merodach brought him out [‫ יצא‬Hiphil] of prison, 25:27), though this connection depends on the text-critical argument I made on p. 25 n. 19. 77. Thomas Römer, “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘Book-Finding’ and Other Literary Strategies,” ZAW 109 (1997): 11. On Römer’s proposal, see p. 51 n. 140. 78. Note the deuteronomic language of “that it may go well with you” (2 Kgs 25:24; cf. Deut 4:40; 5:16; 6:3; etc.). See also Jer 27:7. 79. See John Hill, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT, BibInt 40 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 104. 80. Peter J. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, BTCB (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006), 272. 81. The language of eating bread continually (‫ ָּת ִמיד‬+ ‫ ֶלחֶם‬+ ‫ )אכל‬is identical in 2 Sam 9:7, 10 and 2 Kgs 25:29, the only places where the idiom appears, besides Jer 52:33. ( Jeremy

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

37

mitting Mephibosheth to eat at his table, so Evil-Merodach provides food for Jehoiachin. In one respect, this analogy supports the theme of the previous paragraph: just as Mephibosheth’s submission confirms David’s ascendancy, so Jehoiachin’s position confirms the superiority of the Babylonians. But this analogy has even darker implications. Mephibosheth provided a parting glance at the Saulide dynasty before it disappeared altogether, raising the question whether the Davidides will similarly disappear. It is possible to evaluate the analogy this way, but as Schipper notes, Mephibosheth himself emphasizes his survival in contrast to the rest of his father’s house, who are dead men (‫ ; ַא ְנׁשֵי־ ָמוֶת‬2 Sam 19:28[29]). 82 Moreover, 2 Sam 9:1 attributes Mephibosheth’s survival to David’s faithfulness to his covenant with Jonathan even when Jonathan is dead and the Saulide dynasty is defunct. David indicates that this faithfulness is somehow an expression of God’s faithfulness (‫) ֶחסֶד אֱל ִֹהים‬. 83 By analogy, even though Evil-Merodach plays the part of David here, Jehoiachin’s survival hints of God’s faithfulness to his covenant to David even after the Davidides have been dethroned. As I will argue below, the ongoing validity of God’s oath to David implies that Babylonian rule is temporary. Therefore, even as 2 Kings legitimates the shift to Babylonian rule, it also emphasizes Jehoiachin’s survival, a survival that is due in part to his submission to this new hegemony. Analogy Group 3: Solomon This commingling of positive and negative trajectories is also found in the elaborate “anti-analogy” between Jehoiachin and Solomon. To our knowledge, Nelson is the only one heretofore to have identified this connection, albeit briefly. 84 He identifies three points of contrast. The first pertains to the theme of thrones, a prominent feature in Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation (v. 28). The background to this theme is the divine promise to David that God would establish the throne of David’s son forever (‫;ּכּסֵא‬ ִ 2 Sam 7:13, 16). Throne language is central to Solomon’s rise to power (‫ ִּכּסֵא‬appears 20 times in 1 Kings 1–2), a narrative that highlights Solomon as the heir to David’s throne (2:12, 24, 45). As an expression of his glory, Solomon constructs a magnificent, incomparable throne (1 Kgs 10:18–20). In this light, the statement in 2 Kgs 25:28 that Evil-Merodach “set [ Jehoiachin’s] throne above the throne of the kings who were with him in Babylon” (NASB) is ironic. This “lofty” throne is hardly the glorious throne of David on which Schipper, “‘Significant Resonances’ with Mephibosheth in 2 Kings 25:27–30: A Response to Donald F. Murray,” JBL 124 [2005]: 521–29; idem, Disability Studies, 116–22). See also Robert Polzin, who argues that the decline of Saul is a narrative pattern repeated on a larger scale with the Davidic house (Samuel and the Deuteronomist: 1 Samuel, vol. 2 of A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989], 213–15). 82. Schipper, Disability Studies, 121. 83. I am indebted to Mark Boda for this observation (personal communication). 84. Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings, IBC (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 266.

38

Chapter 3

Solomon sat, and any comparison quickly calls to mind Evil-Merodach, who sits on a throne still higher than Jehoiachin’s. Nelson’s second and third points of contrast between Jehoiachin and Solomon concern their relationship to foreign kings. Not only does Solomon surpass the contemporary kings of the earth in riches and wisdom (1 Kgs 10:23), but Solomon receives magnificent presents from them (10:10–15). In some cases, these gifts are tribute, the fruit of a suzerain relationship that Solomon enjoys over some of the surrounding nations (1 Kgs 4:21, 24 [MT/ LXX: 5:1, 4]). Jehoiachin is in the opposite situation: he is the vassal. 85 In an ironic twist, a Davidide is still fed by foreigners, but this time he is the servant, not the master (contrast 1 Kgs 4:22–23 with 2 Kgs 25:29–30). 86 This diminution of the Davidic line is the terminus of a long downward spiral that began with Solomon himself and continued throughout their history. It is seen especially in 2 Kgs 23:31–35, where Solomon’s descendant becomes a vassal to Egypt, and in 2 Kgs 24:2, where Solomon’s old vassals (the Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites) rise up with Babylon in opposition to the Davidides. 87 Solomon ruled the kings of the earth “all the days of his life” (‫ּכָל־ ְימֵי ַחּיָיו‬, 1 Kgs 4:21 [MT/LXX: 5:1]; 11:34), but now Jehoiachin serves the king of Babylon “all the days of his life” (‫ּכָל־ ְימֵי ַחּיָיו‬, 2 Kgs 25:29–30). 88 Thus, Jehoiachin at the end of Kings forms an inclusio with Solomon at the beginning: Jehoiachin represents the complete stripping of Solomon’s glory. Everything that made Solomon glorious is either missing from Jehoiachin (for example, riches, sovereignty, temple) or present in an ironic way (for example, throne, food). 89 However, there is another side to this comparison with Solomon, for the portrayal of Solomon himself in Kings is not wholly positive. Solomon enjoyed peace, but it was a peace accomplished through a marriage alliance with Pharaoh. In the case of the temple, Solomon built it with great wisdom, but he levied forced labor from all Israel to accomplish this project (5:13 [MT/LXX 5:27]). This negative depiction of Solomon climaxes with his apostasy in ch. 11. 90 If Jehoiachin is the opposite of Solomon in terms 85. See the defense of Jehoiachin’s vassal status on pp. 26, 28. 86. In 1 Kgs 10:25, the peoples of the earth bring their riches to Solomon regularly (“the thing of a year in its year”; ‫ׁשנָה‬ ָ ‫ַר־ׁשנָה ְּב‬ ָ ‫)ּדב‬, ְ while Jehoiachin receives his rations regularly in a phrase that echoes Solomon’s treatment: “the thing of a day in its day”: ‫ְּדבַר־‬ ‫( יֹום ְּביֹומֹו‬2 Kgs 25:30). 87. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 281. 88. The only other instances of this phrase in Kings is in 1 Kgs 15:5–6. 89. Murray recognizes 2 Kgs 25:27–30 as a farce by observing two other faint parodies on Davidic texts (“Of All the Years,” 261–62). While he interprets them as undermining the Davidic hope as a whole, they seem instead to underscore that at present Jehoiachin is decidedly not enjoying the blessings of the Davidic promise. 90. Some scholars take this negative undercurrent too far and overemphasize Solomon’s vices (Ashley S. Crane, “Solomon and the Building of the Temple,” in Text and Task: Scripture and Mission, ed. Michael Parsons [Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2005], 33–49; Lyle

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

39

of glory, these critiques of Solomon suggest that Jehoiachin’s contrast with Solomon may have a positive flipside, a point to which we will return below. Analogy Group 4: Zedekiah and other Final Kings; Joash, Joseph Above, I noted that, like Mephibosheth, Jehoiachin was the lone survivor of a dynasty that had been all but terminated. This positive trajectory accords well with the fourth analogy group, which involves kings who suffer a similar fate as Jehoiachin (deportation) but, unlike him, are never heard of again. The contrast is most striking with Zedekiah. As mentioned above, Jehoiachin surrendered quickly to Nebuchadnezzar, while Zedekiah put up a long siege and eventually attempted a desperate escape. When the city was taken the first time, Jehoiachin’s household was preserved in exile, while the second time Zedekiah’s family was killed (2 Kgs 25:7). 91 The remaining officials and priests were slain after Zedekiah’s capture (25:18–21), but this same class of people went to exile when Jehoiachin was deported (24:12, 14–16). Although Jehoiachin’s sons are not mentioned in the deportation list (he was 18 years old at the time), his wives went with him to Babylon, implying the possibility of progeny. In contrast, none of Zedekiah’s wives are mentioned and his sons were all killed. From the perspective of the narrative, Zedekiah’s line was permanently terminated. 92 Then, when Jehoiachin was rehabilitated, the narrator comments that Evil-Merodach “spoke kindly” to him (‫ ַויְדַ ּבֵר ִאתֹו טֹבֹות‬, 25:28), language that reflects a striking reversal of Zedekiah’s fate, seeing that a little earlier Nebuchadnezzar had “spoken judgment” to Zedekiah (‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫ ַויְדַ ְּברּו ִאתֹו ִמ‬, 25:6). 93 Finally, even though Zedekiah was the last king to reign in Judah, Jehoiachin was the last in the book of Kings to be called the “king of Judah,” an epithet that is repeated twice in v. 27. 94 As Provan points out, the very existence of this M. Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God, JSOTSup 84 [Sheffield: Almond, 1989]). J. Daniel Hays is more nuanced but still unbalanced (“Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1–11,” JSOT 28 [2003]: 149–74). Gary N. Knoppers and others read the narrative more charitably (and convincingly) when they argue that Solomon’s glory had legitimacy for the narrator, even though he ironically critiques Solomon. Deuteronomy 17:16–17 forbids the accumulation of silver, gold, and horses, 1 Kgs 3:13 explicitly says that Solomon receives these things from the hand of God (“Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings,” CBQ 63 [2001]: 411). The glory and beauty of Solomon’s reign must therefore be read in conjunction with the hints of his oppression and pragmatism leading up to his outright apostasy in 1 Kings 11. See also Linville, Israel, 286–93. 91. Iain W. Provan, “Kings,” NDBT 185. 92. On Zedekiah as a possible fulfillment of the prophecy that Hezekiah’s sons would be “eunuchs” in Babylon, see p. 24 n. 14. 93. See p. 26. 94. Klaus Baltzer, “Das Ende des Staates Juda und die Messiasfrage,” in Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen, ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Klaus Koch

40

Chapter 3

story about Jehoiachin stands in marked contrast to the silence about Zedekiah’s fate. 95 Thus, even though both Jehoiachin and Zedekiah did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, Jehoiachin’s story runs counter to Zedekiah’s at three crucial points: the respective kings’ responses to the Babylonian siege, their consequent fates, and their prospects for the future. 96 While not as elaborate as the contrast between Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, Jehoiachin is also contrasted with other deported kings. Both Jehoiachin and Jehoahaz reigned three months, were quickly imprisoned by a foreign king, were replaced by another Davidide whose name was changed, and were hauled away to another land. 97 And while both died in exile, the reports of this death differ significantly: Jehoahaz’s death is reported directly (‫ׁשם‬ ָ ‫ ַוּיָמָת‬, 2 Kgs 23:34), 98 but the narrator only alludes to Jehoiachin’s death, instead emphasizing that he received provision all the days of his life (‫ּכֹל ְימֵי ַחּיָו‬, 2 Kgs 25:29, 30). Similarly, 1–2 Kings records the fall of many dynasties, none of which is heard from again. 99 Indeed, the theme of the total annihilation of every member of a dynastic house (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:29, 2 Kgs 10:7) underscores the finality of their fall. Even the last Israelite king (Hoshea), who did not die in a bloody coup, is contrasted with Jehoiachin. Both were imprisoned in a ‫( ּבֵית ֶּכלֶא‬2 Kgs 17:4; 25:27), but there is no mention of Hoshea ever leaving his prison. 100 These anti-analogies imply that Jehoiachin was uniquely preserved and favored by Yahweh. 101 An additional analogy with Joash strengthens this (Neukirchen-­Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), 38. It is possible that the reference to Jehoiachin’s throne being set above the others who were with him in Babylon (v. 28) is also a veiled jab at Zedekiah. Although we know from the Unger Prism that the kings of Tyre, Gaza, and so on were also exiled to Babylon (ANET, 308; Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 329), in the world of the text Zedekiah is the only other king we know of who was taken to Babylon. 95. Provan, “Messiah,” 72. 96. Juha Pakkala interprets this extended contrast politically, arguing that the writer of Kings was immersed in a debate about who is the legitimate heir to the dynasty: Jehoiachin or Zedekiah. In Pakkala’s view the author of this section of Kings was vehemently pro-Jehoiachin (“Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession,” JBL 125 [2006]: 449–50). But this makes little sense of the many negative points we have already observed about Jehoiachin, as well as others we have not yet mentioned (e.g., that Jehoiachin did evil in the sight of Yahweh, 2 Kgs 24:9). 97. Robert L. Cohn, 2 Kings, BerOl (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000), 163–64. 98. Interestingly, this brief phrase and its context of political upheaval recalls two very negative analogies: Adoni-bezek ( Jdg 1:7) and Ahaziah (2 Kgs 9:27). 99. The one possible exception is the line of Ahab, which lives on in some sense in Judah, having mingled with the Davidides. But this point is used more to color negatively the final Davidides than to suggest that Ahab’s dynasty has somehow survived. 100. Linville, Israel, 262. 101. Cf. Leithart, “Counterfeit Davids,” 33.

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

41

positive point while also sounding discordant notes of humiliation. Both Leithart and Provan have already observed the coordination between Joash and Jehoiachin: the Davidic seed was apparently entirely extinguished, but one last son was hidden away for a long period while a foreigner ruled, only to emerge suddenly when all seemed lost. 102 This analogy is thus a strong pointer that Jehoiachin’s release is to be understood as an act of Yahweh’s faithfulness to the Davidic line. The persistence of the Davidic line in contrast to other dynasties signals the covenant faithfulness God exercised uniquely toward the sons of David. 103 But the correlation between Joash and Jehoiachin is not complete. Joash emerged from the temple to slay the foreign ruler (Athaliah) and reign as a full-fledged king, which included his project to restore the temple (2 Kgs 12:4–16). In contrast, Jehoiachin emerged from prison to be ruled by the king of Babylon, while the temple continued to lie in ruins. The Joash analogy suggests hope, but it is muted. In addition to the analogies charted above, several scholars suggest a parallel between Jehoiachin and Joseph. Both were removed to a foreign land, imprisoned, and then released. The phrase “lift the head” (‫ )נׂשא רֹאׁש‬figures prominently in both (see Gen 40:13, 19, 20), as does a change of clothes (Gen 41:14, 42). 104 Despite these parallels, it is difficult to assess the significance of this analogy. On the one hand, the continuities above point in a positive direction: Chan and Granowski suggest that just as Joseph was the forerunner of the exodus, so also Jehoiachin’s exaltation was a harbinger of a new beginning. 105 But important points of discontinuity point in the other direction. 106 First, it was not Joseph himself whose head was lifted in Genesis but the two servants of Pharaoh (the cupbearer and the baker). Second, Joseph earned his freedom based on his insight in interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, whereas nothing is said about whether Jehoiachin ever earned his 102. Ibid., 29; Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, 280; Provan, “Messiah,” 75; cf. the larger pattern noted by Leithart in 1 & 2 Kings, 22–23, 266, that cycles of decline followed by revivals of the Davidides are a larger structuring device in the book of Kings as a whole. 103. It is not clear why Murray insists that Jehoiachin’s parallel to Joash is incomplete when there is no mention of Jehoiachin’s progeny (“Of All the Years,” 262). Simply the emergence of a Davidide after a long period of absence is enough to arouse hope in both cases. Similarly, for Murray the non-mention of Jehoiachin’s progeny in 2 Kgs 25:27–30 carries considerable weight (it is one of his primary arguments against a Davidic hope in 2 Kgs 25:27–30; ibid., 262–63). As I demonstrate below, the endurance of Jehoiachin’s line can be very much in view without explicitly mentioning his sons. 104. For a full list of parallels, see John E. Harvey, “Jehoiachin and Joseph: Hope at the Close of the Deuteronomistic History,” in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions, ed. Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin, LHBOTS 469 (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 54–55; Michael J. Chan, “Joseph and Jehoiachin: On the Edge of Exodus,” ZAW 125 (2013): 569–77. 105. Chan, “Joseph,” 575–76; Granowski, “Jehoiachin,” 185. 106. A point Granowski himself makes (ibid., 184–85).

42

Chapter 3

freedom. Third, God’s instrumentality is explicitly invoked in the Joseph narrative (Gen 41:25, 39; 45:5, 7; 50:20), whereas it is conspicuously absent in Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation. 107 Finally, Joseph was exalted to the highest possible position under Pharaoh (Gen 41:40). But this kind of genuine power and authority is not implied in Jehoiachin’s exaltation: all that is said was that he is higher than the other kings who were with him in Babylon, not that he was second-in-command of the whole empire. As Granowski puts it, “Jehoiachin takes the place reserved for the preeminent vassal, the chief puppet king.” 108 In contrast to the positive suggestion of a new exodus, these differences suggest that Jehoiachin is portrayed as an anti-Joseph, lacking Joseph’s virtue, power, and explicit divine support. Hence, as Harvey notes, it is difficult to know “whether Dtr drew the Joseph-Jehoiachin parallel in order to fulfill or frustrate the Joseph schema,” 109 especially because the narrative ceases immediately after Jehoiachin’s release. This section has examined four groups of analogies between the narrative of Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation and other narratives in the PH. Before these analogy groups can be coordinated, we need to introduce some thematic considerations.

Themes Pertaining to Jehoiachin While the previous section drew connections with specific narratives in the Primary History, the present section deals with two broader themes in the PH that are important for understanding Jehoiachin in 2 Kings: the promise to David and the promises of national restoration. The Promise to David Understanding the terms that regulate God’s relationship to the house of David is essential for interpreting the fate of a specific Davidide, Jehoiachin. 2 Samuel 7:16 states that David’s house will endure forever (‫)עַד־עֹולָם‬. 110 Does the fall of the Davidic house to Nebuchadnezzar constitute the termi107. Begg, “Jehoiachin’s Release,” 50–51. 108. Granowski, “Jehoiachin,” 185. 109. Harvey, “Jehoiachin and Joseph,” 55. 110. Some argue that ‫ עַד־עֹולָם‬does not necessarily imply an “eternal” arrangement. They point to Eli’s house, which had a promise that they would walk before God “forever” (‫ ;עַד־עֹולָם‬1 Sam 2:30), but this promise was later revoked (e.g., Janzen, “An Ambiguous Ending,” 51; McConville, Earthly Power, 143; Matitiahu Tsevat, “Studies in the Book of Samuel III: The Steadfast House: What Was David Promised in II Sam. 7:11b–16?” HUCA 34 [1963]: 76). Levenson responds by saying that in the case of the word to Eli, the promise of a priesthood still stands, only the beneficiary of the promise has been changed (“On the Promise to the Rechabites,” CBQ 38 [1976]: 513). However, it is hard to distinguish changing a beneficiary and instituting a new covenant. David was the new recipient of the kingship, but he was not inheriting an existing covenant with Saul.

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

43

nation of this promise? The answer is no; the covenant in 2 Sam 7 remains in force. 111 Many consequences may befall the Davidic kings for their repeated transgressions (including the loss of the throne), but the dissolution of this foundational covenant is not one of them. A survey of the relevant texts in the PH supports this conclusion. In 2 Sam 7:14, God declares that he will discipline the son of David with “the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men” (ESV), but this warning is followed by the insistence that such discipline will never involve God removing (‫סור‬hiph) his ‫ ֶחסֶד‬from David. Instead, his house and his kingdom will endure forever (vv. 15–16). Thus a perpetual covenant is consistent with punishment for sin, and the category employed for punishment is a father’s discipline, which suggests a remedial rather than retributive purpose. The book of Kings shows the form this discipline could take. When Solomon apostatized from Yahweh, the consequence was the loss of the northern ten tribes (1 Kgs 11:11–13). 112 But even this consequence is not depicted as a permanent loss; instead, it was a temporary affliction (v. 39 ESV: “And I will afflict the offspring of David because of this, but not forever.”). 113 As drastic as the loss of these tribes may have been, God’s discipline of David’s house had a second, more severe form: dethronement. Several passages in 1–2 Kings warn that continuance on the throne is only assured for those In response to Tsevat et al., God is free to revoke promises that are not bound with an oath. Eli’s house was unfaithful, so they lost the promise of the priesthood (1 Sam 2:30). However, God promised that he would not withdraw his promise from David even in the face of infidelity. Other texts (Ps 89:3, 43, 49; 132:11) understand an oath to be transacted here, perhaps on the basis of the covenantal language in 2 Sam 7:14–16. For a further defense of this distinction between divine promises in general and divine oaths, see p. 68 and appendix 2. 111. Many see the Davidic covenant as dissolved by exile (e.g., Richard D. Nelson, “The Anatomy of the Book of Kings,” JSOT 40 [1988]: 46; Marvin A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001], 318– 19; Marvin A. Sweeney, “King Manasseh of Judah and the Problem of Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History,” in Good Kings and Bad Kings, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, LHBOTS 393 [London: T&T Clark, 2005], 274). But they assume that for the Davidides to lose the throne was to nullify the covenant, which I show below is not necessarily the case. 112. Cf. Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 165–67; Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 104, who hold that the loss of the ten tribes provides a way for explaining how the Davidic covenant is both conditional and unconditional. However, they explain the more severe punishment of dethronement using a double redaction theory. 113. This verse is absent from the LXX, but the LXX is noticeably more pro-Solomon than the MT (Linville, Israel, 136; Frank H. Polak, “The Septuagint Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient Recension,” in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998, ed. Bernard A. Taylor, SBLSCS 51 [Atlanta: SBL, 2001], 150–51), which suggests a tendentious translation strategy rather than a different Vorlage.

44

Chapter 3

kings who walk according to the Torah (1 Kgs 2:3–4; 8:23–25; 9:4–5; cf. Deut 17:14–20). The language in all three passages is “You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel” [‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫]לֹא־ִיּכָרֵת ְלךָ ִאיׁש ֵמעַל ִּכּסֵא י‬, which indicates that this threat is not merely for individual kings but that the dynasty of David itself could be terminated as a consequence of disobedience. Hence, we must distinguish between “dynasty of David” and “line of David.” By “dynasty,” we refer to the Davidides as a sequence of ruling monarchs. By “line,” we refer to the descent from father to son, where the son inherits the promise made to David. The line of David may continue even after the dynasty is cut off (that is, no Davidide rules any longer). But does dethronement constitute a nullification of the Davidic covenant? Three indications in the PH demonstrate that it does not. 114 The first is the foregoing analysis of 2 Sam 7:14–16: notwithstanding the discipline God will bring on the sons of David for their sin, he pledges never to remove his ‫ ֶחסֶד‬from David’s line. Second, the contrast in 2 Sam 7:15 between David’s line and Saul’s is instructive: God says that he removed his ‫ ֶחסֶד‬from Saul, but that he will never do this to David. Saul’s dynasty may have terminated permanently, but God will not permit this outcome for David. This contrast between the transience of other dynasties and the permanence of David’s is also latent in Ahijah’s word to Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:31–39): whereas God had an abiding promise for David’s line, Jeroboam had yet to attain this privilege. Indeed, the examples in analogy group 4 above (pp. 39–41) show the uniqueness of David’s line vis-à-vis other dynasties. However, even if David’s dynasty is unique, it came to an end as the other dynasties did (though the line continues). What grounds are there for expecting a future for the Davidic dynasty when other lines that underwent the same fate did not have such a future? This question brings us to our third indicator, which is the pattern of “Davidic revivals” that Leithart has shown to be an important structuring device in 1–2 Kings. 115 To summarize my discussion above, revivals such as Joash’s (and Leithart would add Hezekiah’s) demonstrate that even when the Davidides were cut off from the throne, hope remained. Therefore, the loss of the northern 10 tribes and even the loss of the throne did not signal the abrogation of the Davidic covenant. Instead, the Davidic covenant itself provides the category of temporary discipline for these situations (2 Sam 7:14), and the thematic considerations above invite us to expect that the promise to David will continue to govern God’s dealings in history even after the exile of the sons of David. 114. In addition, see Ps 89, which affirms—albeit with lamentation and confusion— God’s unfailing commitment to David even in the face of the catastrophe of exile (see R. W. L. Moberly, Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013], 220–33). 115. Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings, 22–23.

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

45

Viewed in light of this theme, Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation in 2 Kgs 25 has a decidedly positive hue. 116 The conclusion to 1–2 Kgs testifies that a Davidic heir lived on long into exile, and while the kind treatment he received from the Babylonian king hardly reversed the dismantling of the nation that took place several decades previously, it nevertheless intimated that God had not forgotten his oath to David. Von Rad’s classic interpretation is correct: Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation was the outworking of the promise to David. 117 But we should not say too much. 118 Jehoiachin’s removal from prison was a new beginning, but the glowing terms of God’s promise to David (see especially 2 Sam 7:15–16) remind us that Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation was no more than a beginning: the son of David was hardly reestablished in his kingdom. Expectations of National Restoration The PH contains several prophecies regarding exile and beyond, which provide an essential background for understanding the end of the PH: how far has the narrative progressed in reaching these promises? The PH is largely pessimistic about Israel’s ability to keep God’s law and thus portrays exile not only as a threat but also as an inevitable outflow of the people’s stubbornness (Lev 26:27–33; Deut 4:25–28; 30:1; 31:29; 32:15–25; Josh 24:19; 1 Kgs 8:46–53). 119 But some of these same contexts contain prophecies that the tragedy of exile will not be the end of the story (Lev 26:40–45; Deut 4:29–31; 30:1–10; 32:36–43; 1 Kgs 8:46–53). The faithlessness (‫ ) ַמעַל‬and evil (‫ )רַ ע‬of Israel will not overcome the faithfulness (‫ ) ֶחסֶד‬of Yahweh. 120 Instead, when Israel would be in the depths of exile, Yahweh 116. Murray contends that in order to bring the Davidic promise into view here “the reader would at least need evidence that the royal line will not cease with Jehoiachin, coupled with some optimistic invocation of Yhwh’s promise to David of an enduring dynasty” (“Of All the Years,” 261). But one of the key themes of 1–2 Kings is the endurance of the Davidic dynasty; this theme does not need to be explicitly invoked when it is consistently in view. 117. Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 86, 90–91. 118. Contrary to some summaries of him, von Rad himself is restrained in his interpretation, not saying much more than that 2 Kgs 25:27–30 indicates that “the line of David has not come to an irrevocable end” (ibid., 90–91) and the vague comment that certain passages “exhibit a traditional element which is wholly undeuteronomic, namely, a cycle of definite Messianic conceptions” (ibid., 86). However, he does not balance this point with the more negative trajectories that others have since noted. 119. Deuteronomy 30:1 is particularly noteworthy in its view of the inevitability of exile: “And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse.” A. D. H. Mayes writes, “The curse and blessing of the covenant are presented [in Deut 30:1] not as alternative possibilities dependent on disobedience or obedience, but rather as successive periods of Israel’s history in which the curse is followed by the blessing” (Deuteronomy, NCB [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 156). 120. Walter Brueggemann writes, “Even when Israel does not do ‘good’ to Yahweh as she swore to do, it is still possible to have life. . . . Dtr theology departs from a simple

46

Chapter 3

would remember his covenant with the fathers with compassion (Lev 26:42; Deut 4:31; 32:36), and the people of Israel would call to mind Yahweh’s covenant with them (Deut 30:1). Thereupon, both Israel and Yahweh would turn to one another again, 121 and Yahweh would pour out the blessings he had promised in a way that would surpass what he had previously done (Deut 30:5). Even the crucial problem of Israel’s sin would be resolved once and for all by Yahweh himself, who would circumcise their hearts (Deut 30:6). Moreover, the scope of these blessings would be nationwide: the ideal previously experienced by individual Israelites would be realized by the entire nation. 122 These glowing texts evoke the question: Does 1–2 Kings ever embrace this hope? 1 Kings 8:46–53 provides the strongest possibility of a hope beyond exile, however muted. But this text only reflects a hope for ameliorated conditions within exile, not restoration itself. The intertextual links between 1 Kgs 8:46–53 and Deut 30:1–10 indicate that the restoration hoped for in Deut 30 provides the background of 1 Kgs 8:46–53. 123 But whereas Israel’s wholehearted repentance in Deut 30 leads to a glorious restoration, 1 Kgs 8 only envisions compassion from their captors. One could either read this development as indicating two conflicting views of restoration, 124 or as introducing a new phase in the progress from exile to restoration. In my view, 1 Kgs 8 establishes a schema of: (1) apostasy, (2) exile, and (3) ameliorated exile, with (4) (it is assumed) restoration to follow. This observation is supported by several features. First, Solomon explicitly mentioned restoration to the land in v. 34, and thus he did not repudiate a hope for restoration. Second, the plea for compassion in the eyes of their captors implies that they were still in captivity, whereas other restoration passages indicate that restoration was coordinate with the destruction of their enemies (Deut 30:7; cf. 32:36–43). Third, the narrator’s reticence to speak of restoration acretribution scheme and affirms graciousness as a central theme of covenant faith, one particularly relevant for exile” (“Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian: Gospel for Exiles,” Int 22 [1968]: 390). 121. The order of turning is difficult to establish: does Yahweh’s turning to the people precede the people’s turning to Yahweh? See J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy, ApOTC 5 (Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2002), 432; Kenneth J. Turner, Death of Deaths in the Death of Israel: Deuteronomy’s Theology of Exile (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 172–78 for surveys of the discussion. 122. Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 700–703. 123. E.g., ‫ֶל־לּבָם‬ ִ ‫ׁשוב א‬hiph (Deut 30:1; 1 Kgs 8:47); ‫ׁשם‬ ָ ‫ּובכָל־נ ְַפ‬ ְ ‫ָל־ל ָבבָם‬ ְ ‫( ׁשוב ְּבכ‬Deut 30: 2, 6, 10; 1 Kgs 8:48). See Wolff, “Kerygma,” 96–97. Wolff notes that “the reader was directed from the start [that is, from Deut 4:25–31 and 30:1–10] to a proper understanding of the entire [Deuteronomistic] work” (ibid., 97). 124. So J. G. McConville, “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature,” in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. James M. Scott, JSJSup 72 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 14.

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

47

cords well with the deferral of hope found at the end of 2 Kings. The book of Kings prepares its readers for a longer exile than may be inferred from earlier restoration texts. Thus, the contrast between the radiance of Deut 30:1–10 and the dimness of 1 Kgs 8:50 suggests that 1 Kgs 8 envisions a period of ameliorated exile prior to restoration. When one compares this network of expectations with the end of 2 Kings, what degree of closure has been achieved? We first note that the expectation of Israel’s ruin has been emphatically realized. Following Israel’s deportation, 1–2 Kings mentions two deportations for Judah, including the dismantling of the temple and the razing of Jerusalem. The destruction is sealed with “So Judah was taken into exile out of its land” (2 Kgs 25:21, ESV). 125 Although it is puzzling that the fall of Judah lacked a peroration like that given for the northern kingdom (2 Kings 17), 126 the narrator leaves little room for questioning whether Judah has received the full brunt of the curses of the covenant. And now that the climactic curse of exile has descended on them, the reader’s expectations might leap to the restoration envisioned in Deut 30 and elsewhere. And yet, the glowing terms of restoration found in those passages contrast strongly with the understated rehabilitation of Jehoiachin in 2 Kgs 25. As Begg observes, 2 Kgs 25:27–30 is most conspicuous in what it does not say: there is no mention of Yahweh’s intervention, no fulfillment notice (for example, with respect to the Davidic covenant), no mention of Jehoiachin’s repentance, no indication he was allowed to return to the land, and no mention of Jehoiachin’s sons. 127 The absence of the restoration that was expected produces a pronounced lack of closure at the end of 2 Kings. However, this lack of closure does not mean that the ending is “open” in the sense that no structures have been provided for how the story will proceed from this point. Magness rightly observes that 2  Kgs 25:27–30 is not so much an open ending as an omitted ending. 128 It lacks closure because the ending that the narrative conditioned us to expect is missing. However, 125. However, cf. how the flight to Egypt in 2 Kgs 25:22–26 recalls (to some degree) the final curse in Deut 28:68. 126. Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative, 6. 127. Begg, “Jehoiachin’s Release,” 50–53; cf. Murray, “Of All the Years,” 260–63 on no sons being mentioned. Murray also notes that God’s absence is most critical when we consider that it is Evil-Merodach who is bestowing favor on Jehoiachin, not God (ibid., 254–56). This renders all this special favor highly tenuous, for there may always arise a king “who knew not Jehoiachin” (as in fact happened in the space of a few years when Neriglissar acceded in 560). Also, cf. Isaac B. Gottlieb’s observation about how frequently biblical books end with the root ‫ ׁשוב‬when restoration is in view (“Sof Davar: Biblical Endings,” Proof 11 [1991]: 218–21). This root is absent from 2 Kgs 25:27–30, which is especially significant given its prominence in the restoration texts we have just been considering. 128. J. Lee Magness, Marking the End: Sense and Absence in the Gospel of Mark (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 56.

48

Chapter 3

there are strong indications that the expected ending will eventually come, especially considering how absorbed 1–2 Kings is with the word of God being fulfilled in history. 129 Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation fostered this hope in a future restoration by recalling Solomon’s prayer. As discussed above, in 1 Kgs 8:50 Solomon echoed the restoration hopes of Deut 30:1–10 and prayed that when God’s people are in captivity, God would nevertheless grant them compassion before their captors. 130 The context of exile and the kind treatment Jehoiachin receives from Evil-Merodach matches well as an answer to this petition. Moreover, as I will conclude below, the category of ameliorated exile that was developed above for 1 Kgs 8:46–53 lines up exactly with the status of Jehoiachin in 2 Kgs 25:27–30. However, the link is weakened by the absence of any repentance from Jehoiachin or forgiveness from God (cf. 1 Kgs 8:47–50), and Begg is also correct to notice that there is no fulfillment formula in 2 Kgs 25:27–30. 131 Solomon is not directly praying for compassion but is praying that God would grant compassion when his people in exile pray toward the land, a prayer that is nowhere recorded in 1–2 Kings. Nevertheless, these observations do not negate the parallels between Jehoiachin’s rehabiliation and Solomon’s prayer. While the link is admittedly imperfect, the distinctive parallels already cited suggest that Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation is a partial fulfillment of Solomon’s final petition. 132 And while we cannot say that Jehoiachin’s emergence from prison is itself a fulfillment of restoration prophecy, its character as an answer to Solomon’s prayer encourages the view that history is continuing to move forward under divine superintendence and therefore closer to restoration. 133 129. Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 78–91. 130. While not explicitly predictive, Solomon’s petition nevertheless sets up an expectation for the future, especially given Yahweh’s acceptance of his prayer in 1 Kgs 9:3. 131. Begg, “Jehoiachin’s Release,” 51. However, Begg’s argument is weakened by several cases in Kings in which a prophecy is clearly fulfilled but no fulfillment notice is given (e.g., in 1 Kgs 17:1 Israel’s rebellion brought drought on them, which fulfills a covenant curse in Deut 28:23–24). 132. See R. A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964), 265. This view is distinct from the qualified stance that Murray takes (“Of All the Years,” 264–65) in that it does recognize Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation as a partial fulfillment of 1 Kgs 8:50. Also, Murray believes that there are no grounds for attributing divine agency to Jehoiachin’s release. While divine agency is not mentioned directly, it is strongly implied both by the faint recollection of 1 Kgs 8:50 and the fact that 1–2 Kings consistently views divine providence as encompassing all of history. 133. This sense of a new beginning is strengthened by another narrative analogy not discussed above but observed by Granowski. He makes a connection between Jehoiachin and Abraham, noting that “the Davidic line has made a full circle and united itself with the patriarch Abraham’s place of birth” (“Jehoiachin,” 186). This return to the beginning of Israel’s story hints that the stage is set for a new pilgrimage from Babylon to the land.

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

49

Reading 2 Kgs 25:27–30 in light of the prophecies of restoration provokes the unsettling feeling that the book is ending when the story is not yet over: the PH itself is not self-contained. 134 In lieu of a satisfying ending, Jehoiachin’s emergence from prison functions synecdochically for the ending that is not (yet) there. 135 Rather than decisively concluding the story, the emergence of this key figure from prison is a muted but insistent reminder that the story that began long ago in Genesis is not yet over. Instead, it opens a fresh chapter, inviting the reader of the canon to press on to discover how this new story will end. 136

Conclusion In this study of Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation, I have identified many motifs from the Primary History that have been woven together. These motifs have emerged from particular stories from earlier in the PH as well as from more general thematic considerations. Both have filled out the concise picture we find in 2 Kgs 25:27–30. It now remains to juxtapose these motifs and ask how they form a composite whole. At first sight, there seems to be considerable dissonance. The first three analogy groups all carry a note of grim finality: the days of Solomonic glory are forever past, now to be replaced with Babylonian supremacy. Over against those who rebel against this shift (for example, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, Ishmael), Jehoiachin models in Mephibosheth-like fashion the passive resignation that seems to be the only way forward. But unlike Mephibosheth (as well as Jehoahaz, Zedekiah, and many other final kings), Jehoiachin did not fade into obscurity. Instead, like Joash and Joseph, Jehoiachin emerged from prison to occupy a seat of honor. And yet, these honors pale in comparison to Solomon’s glory. 137 Clearly, a transition had taken place in exile: 134. Zeelander’s discussion of closure in biblical narrative highlights this point. While the Jehoiachin coda has some of the closural elements she describes, the story as a whole lacks the sense of satisfaction and completeness that comes when the destabilizing element (in our case, Israel’s sin and exile) has been resolved (Closure, 36–37; see also 181–95 on lack of closure). 135. Frank Kermode writes, “we can derive the sense of fulfilled expectation, of satisfactory closure, from texts that actually do not provide what we ask, but give us instead something that, out of pure desire for completion, we are prepared to regard as a metaphor or synecdoche for the ending that is not there” (The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction [New York: Oxford University Press, 1967], 65). 136. Dempster argues that 2 Kgs 25:27–30 comprises the pivotal point at the center of the entire OT canon. According to Dempster, at this crucial moment, the canonicler insists that exile is not the final word for David’s house (“An ‘Extraordinary Fact,’” 214–15; Dominion and Dynasty, 153–56). We are in substantial agreement with his interpretation, but see our reservations about canonical book order on pp. 6–7. 137. Thus, Leithart goes too far when he says that “The book of Kings tells the story of the death and resurrection of David’s dynasty, the death and resurrection of David’s son” (1 & 2 Kings, 23). Death, yes, but resurrection is too strong for Jehoiachin’s release.

50

Chapter 3

Jehoiachin was no longer in prison, dressed in prison clothes, and with questionable access to provisions, but was now seated at Evil-Merodach’s table. How do we describe this transition? For all its connections to previous patterns, Jehoiachin’s release offered something new. It takes its cue from previous situations in Israel’s story, but it also breaks the molds, and thus we must both depend on narrative analogies and know when to depart from them. In this respect the thematic considerations developed above provide helpful guardrails: based on the indefatigable faithfulness of God to the Davidic dynasty and the promises of restoration for the nation, we expect that exile cannot be the last word. Especially since the king embodies the nation, Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation stands as a pledge, insisting that though Israel had forsaken her covenant and been humbled by exile, God had not forgotten his covenant with her or with David. Moreover, the restoration prophecies supply the outline of the story to come: in the depths of exile, Israel and Yahweh will turn back to each other, resulting in a new and lasting fulfillment of the ancient promises. Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation, coming as the first good news since the nation’s coffin was sealed decades ago, could not but excite the hope of more positive developments to come. But is this new phase the commencement of the promised restoration, or is it a continuation of the exile? Our analysis of 1 Kgs 8:46–53 suggests that the transition we witness in 2 Kgs 25:27–30 is not a transition from exile to restoration, but a transition from utter exile to ameliorated exile. 138 And to judge by the twofold repetition of “all the days of his life” (vv. 29, 30), this improved state of exile would not change in Jehoiachin’s lifetime. In the words of Ezra 9:8, Israel has received “a little reviving in their bondage” to help sustain it in the long years of waiting for restoration. By having its king removed from prison, it had a precious token that, though she was humiliated, she would not be forgotten. In the face of these exciting prospects, we must give careful attention to the understated, ironic, anti-celebratory tone of this passage. 139 The contrast between Jehoiachin and Solomon cuts deep: Jehoiachin’s status was humiliating compared with Solomon, whose unrivalled glory constituted an initial fulfillment of the promises to Abraham. But this glory was also a liability and led to the oppression of Israel, crippling foreign alliances and eventually, apostasy (cf. Deut 31:20; 32:15). Thus 1–2 Kings undercuts Solomon’s kind of glory, and does not encourage Israel to long for a return to it. Rather, the book leaves us with Jehoiachin, the anti-Solomon, whose rehabilitation was a paradoxical conflation of humiliation and exaltation. 138. Murray develops a similar category of ameliorated exile (“Of All the Years,” 264– 65), but he denies that it was brought about by divine agency, an all-important difference. 139. J. G. McConville, “1 Kings VIII 46–53 and the Deuteronomic Hope,” VT 42 (1992): 76, 79.

Jehoiachin in 2 Kings

51

In this way, the final four verses of the PH gesture toward a new phase of Israel’s history where Israel and the monarchy will continue, albeit profoundly transformed by the humiliation of exile. That this humiliation was not merely a dilemma but also a step forward will be a theme to which we will return in later chapters. 140 140. This reading resembles Römer’s notion that Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation exemplifies the transition from exile to diaspora (“Transformations,” 10–11; The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 143, 177). His description of how exile is transformed into a time when “[o]ne can live very well outside eretz yisrael and manage interesting careers” accords somewhat with the idea of ameliorated exile we are proposing, especially in its recognition that exile has been reinterpreted positively. However, there are a couple areas where we disagree with Römer. First, the language of exile is important because it connotes ideas of divine wrath (there is no indication that this wrath has been lifted). Second, Römer’s idea of diaspora implies a contentment with their exilic situation, to the point that restoration is no longer to be anticipated or desired.

Chapter 4

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah What is the significance of Jehoiachin for the book of Jeremiah? In answering this question, I will seek to overcome (or at least question) several “givens” in contemporary Jeremiah scholarship. First, in keeping with my final-form approach, I will attempt to read Jeremiah (MT) 1 as a coherent literary whole. Many find Jeremiah to be “unreadable” or “an experience of chaos.” 2 Earlier scholars such as Sigmund Mowinckel observed the book to be “governed by a remarkable haphazardness.” 3 But recently scholars have contended that to make sense of the book is to misread it! To quote Robert P. Carroll’s last published work on Jeremiah: “the book of Jeremiah is a very difficult, confused and confusing text. . . . I refuse not to be confused by it.” 4 Or as Walter Brueggemann writes, “‘unreadable’ is not a profound problem in the book of Jeremiah but rather a core datum to be attended to as a crucial part of the book’s testimony.” 5 The premise in all these cases is that the book 1. Many understand the Vorlage of Jeremiah LXX to antedate Jeremiah MT because Jeremiah MT’s variants have an expansionist flavor. For a survey of this scholarship as well as a creative rebuttal, see Mark Leuchter, The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 17–20, 144–55. If the Vorlage of Jeremiah LXX antedates Jeremiah MT, then we should treat the LXX first. However, I will not do so. First, I regard the evidence for MT as a later expansion to be inconclusive (ibid.). One intractable difficulty is distinguishing between expansions (indicating MT is later) and condensations (indicating that LXX’s Vorlage is later). Second, for the purpose of this volume, I focus on Jeremiah MT as a Protestant canonical decision to favor MT over LXX. As I stated above, canonical boundaries can be debated, but in the practice of interpretation as it takes place here, they are assumed. Because my goal is to understand Jehoiachin in the text of Jeremiah MT as it stands, the comparison to Jeremiah LXX is a secondary task I can undertake later. Third, although there are important differences between Jeremiah MT and LXX concerning Jehoiachin (which we survey below), I will argue that the portrait of Jehoiachin is roughly similar in both. Thus, for the purposes of this volume, it would make little difference even if I read Jeremiah MT as an expansion of the Vorlage of Jeremiah LXX. On important textual differences in 22:30, see p. 68 n. 95. 2. Kathleen M. O’Connor, “Terror All Around: Confusion as Meaning-Making,” in Jeremiah (Dis)placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman, LHBOTS 529 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 70. 3. Quoted in Else K. Holt, “The Meaning of an Inclusio: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah MT,” SJOT 17 (2003): 184, Mowinckel’s emphasis. 4. Robert P. Carroll, “Halfway through a Dark Wood: Reflections on Jeremiah 25,” in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 75, emphasis his. 5. Walter Brueggemann, “Next Steps in Jeremiah Studies?” in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 417, emphasis his.

52

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

53

of Jeremiah is such a dense and conflict-ridden mass of traditions that to claim coherence is either to homogenize its disparate voices 6 or to enact an “exploitive hermeneutic” that squelches opposing perspectives in the text. 7 Moreover, several interpreters have called attention to how the book actually communicates through its aporia: it “reads the abyss” and thus honors the despair of exile; it also enables coping by encouraging criticism of the prophet and thus makes passive victims into the makers of meaning. 8 A sustained response to this perspective is not possible here. 9 However, one strategy is simply to show how the inconsistencies on which this view is premised are not actually inconsistent, while at the same time not downplaying the diversity in the book. 10 In this respect, I hope to contribute to the discussion in a small way by showing the coherence of Jeremiah’s outlook on King Jehoiachin. 11 6. Mark E. Biddle, Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature: Rereading Jeremiah 7–20, SOTI 2 (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 5, 128. 7. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, 167; Carolyn J. Sharp, “Jeremiah in the Land of Aporia: Reconfiguring Redaction Criticism as Witness to Foreignness,” in Jeremiah (Dis)placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman, LHBOTS 529 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 39, 45. From O’Connor’s perspective, different groups in the book claim authority for themselves, with no resolution (“Terror All Around,” 74), and Walter Brueggemann believes a “single reading” reflects “a theological commitment to closure that expects nothing and will receive nothing” (“An Ending That Does Not End,” in Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader, ed. A. K. M. Adam [St. Louis: Chalice, 2001], 128). 8. O’Connor, “Terror All Around,” 71–72. The phrase “reading the abyss” is from Walter Brueggemann, “Meditation upon the Abyss: The Book of Jeremiah,” WW 22 (2002): 340–50. 9. Occasionally, one detects the necessary self-criticism that finding Jeremiah “unreadable” may be “more a judgment on the reader than on the material” (idem, “Next Steps,” 417). For helpful coherent readings of Jeremiah, see J. G. McConville, Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah (Leicester: Apollos, 1993); Louis Stulman, Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry, BibSem 57 (Sheffield: Sheffield, 1998). 10. The expectation of coherence is supported by the book’s form. The narrative framework shows that Jeremiah’s oracles have been removed “from [their] original settings in life (Sitze im Leben) and recontextualized . . . in literary settings (Sitze im Buch)” (Louis Stulman, “The Prose Sermons as Hermeneutical Guide to Jeremiah 1–25: The Deconstruction of Judah’s Symbolic World,” in Troubling Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999], 39). This observation does not necessarily imply that “the prose framework . . . tames the raging counter-coherence [of Jeremiah’s original oracles]” (idem, Order Amid Chaos, 45), but it does suggest a mature understanding that comes from hindsight: the book thus is a “digested reflection” on Jeremiah’s preaching ( J. G. McConville, “Jeremiah: Prophet and Book,” TynBul 42 [1991]: 86, 92). 11. In keeping with this literary approach, we will adopt the literature’s manner of speaking about the author (calling him “Jeremiah”), even though diachronic considerations may question the text’s relationship to the historical Jeremiah. The one exception will be ch. 52, which the final form itself identifies as the work of another (51:64: “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.”).

54

Chapter 4

To make this argument, I must answer another “given” of scholarship, namely, that political motives provide the fundamental impetus for the prophet Jeremiah and any subsequent redactors. 12 On this view, the most important question is “whose political interests are advanced by this text?” 13 Jehoiachin lies at the heart of this discussion, especially the vision of the figs in ch. 24. For example, O’Connor writes, “Jeremiah’s vision [in ch. 24] is an elegant power play that benefits returnees, members of the former­ruling class, who seek to reassert control and claim divine authority for their position.” 14 Instead of employing a hermeneutic of suspicion, I will approach the book “naively,” reading Jeremiah “with the grain.” I enter the world that the text projects, understanding Jeremiah to be an authorized representative of the divine court. 15 As such, any political interests are subordinate to theological purposes. 16 While a few contemporary scholars point in this direction, 17 it is basically discounted: “It is the important merit of Robert Carroll that he has irreversibly introduced the category of ‘ideology’ into Jeremiah studies, so that neither historical-critical nor innocently theological interpretation [that is, my approach] is any longer credible.” 18 The merits of a naive reading vis-à-vis a hermeneutic of suspicion are not easily debated, based as they are on presuppositions about the nature of biblical texts. Nevertheless, the fruits of my theological approach will 12. See Walter Brueggemann, “The ‘Baruch Connection’: Reflections on Jer 43:1–7,” JBL 113 (1994): 410–11 for a helpful set of definitions of “advocacy” “ideology,” and “innocence” in the context of Jeremiah. 13. For redactional theories founded on this approach, see Seitz, Theology in Conflict; Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 118 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978); Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology. 14. “Terror All Around,” 72. 15. See Jer 1:4–10; 23:18, 22; Patrick D. Miller Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis, SBLMS 27 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 103. 16. Edward J. Young, My Servants, the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 82: “[The prophets’] political activity is always subservient to a religious end. They did serve as the counsellors [to human kings], but they did so in order that the theocratic kingdom might prosper.” 17. Gary Yates, “New Exodus and No Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45: Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon,” TynBul 57 (2006): 1–22; Hill, Friend or Foe, 139. David J. Reimer advocates a mediating approach, where the prophet’s allegiance “transcends the state level,” but the prophet is still shaped by contemporary politics (“Political Prophets? Political Exegesis and Prophetic Theology,” in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel, ed. Johannes C. De Moor, OtSt 40 [Leiden: Brill, 1998], 140–41). For another mediating approach, see the following footnote. 18. Brueggemann, “Next Steps,” 404. However, elsewhere Brueggemann understands Jeremiah himself to be “innocent” in the sense that “the poetic tradition of Jeremiah sought to cut underneath specific political recommendations to more elemental theological matters, even though those theological matters had important, if unspecific political implications.” Brueggemann believes this poetry was co-opted by the more blatant politics of the deuteronomists (“Baruch Connection,” 411–13).

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

55

hopefully vindicate its presuppositions: if the book of Jeremiah can be read both with integrity and without recourse to subversive ideological/political explanations, are such explanations still necessary? Beyond this broader critique, we will engage particular ideological readings below. 19 Approaching Jeremiah as a coherent, theologically driven book, we will show that the book does have a prominent Davidic hope, and that Jehoiachin is at its center. Scholars frequently assert that Jeremiah opposed the monarchy. 20 They make this point in several ways. Some simply ignore the positive passages relating to David’s line. Alex Varughese summarizes his treatment of Jeremiah on the Davidic monarchy by saying, “The Jeremiah tradition thus flatly rejects the conventional royal ideology that claimed an irrevocable and sacrosanct relationship between God and the descendants of David.” 21 His article helpfully shows how Jeremiah holds the kings responsible for exile, but all the positive passages on the monarchy are relegated to a footnote and not integrated into the discussion. 22 Another common approach is represented by Ronald E. Clements, who argues that Jeremiah himself was not interested in the restoration of the monarchy but that subsequent redactors could not imagine a restoration without a Davidide, so they added him later. 23 A third approach assumes that because Jeremiah opposed a carte blanche attitude about the monarchy and the temple (cf. Jer 7, 28), he opposed the monarchy categorically. For example, John Bright believes that Jeremiah was against unconditional promises altogether: “The notion that God had guaranteed the continuance of the dynasty, or the existence of the Temple and its cult, or the defense of the city in which the Temple stood, was simply incompatible with [ Jeremiah’s] profoundest theological 19. For a discussion of Carroll in particular and his understanding of Jehoiachin, see ch. 6, pp. 142–145. 20. E.g., Walter Brueggemann, The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 17, 30, 139, 142; Ronald E. Clements, Jeremiah, Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 137; Siegfried Herrmann, Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel, BWANT 85 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965), 241; Perdue, The Collapse of History, 108. 21. Alex Varughese, “The Royal Family in the Jeremiah Tradition,” in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon, ed. John Kaltner and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 378 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 328. 22. Ibid., 28 n. 17. For a similar downplaying of the pro-Davidic texts, see Mark Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 52–55, 125. However, compare his qualifications in Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response, HBM 6 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 172. 23. Ronald E. Clements, “The Prophet and His Editors,” in Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 228–29. However, Clements offers no reasons here (or elsewhere, as far as we can tell) for his assertion that Jeremiah was uninterested in the monarchy or that the passages that are interested in the monarchy are the work of redactors.

56

Chapter 4

convictions.” 24 Bright concludes that apart from 23:5–6, “the hope of an ideal Davidic king plays no role in Jeremiah’s thinking at all.” 25 This negative understanding of the monarchy in Jeremiah is also carried over to individual monarchs. 26 In the case of Jehoiachin, 27 most scholars point to Jer 22:24–30 as the definitive word against him but ignore the positive passages pertaining to him (e.g., 24:4–7), 28 usually because they consider these passages to be secondary. 29 They assume that 22:24–30 speaks strongly of the absolute end of Jehoiachin’s line and that anything to the contrary is evidence of redactional tampering. 30 For example, after surveying the oracles of judgment against the monarchy in 21:11–22:30, Joep Dubbink writes, “Every utterance, however slightly reflecting in favour of the ruling David ideology [e.g., 23:5–6], would have weakened the clarity of [ Jeremiah’s] proclamation.” 31 Dubbink’s statement provides a helpful segue into our proposal because he identifies a tension between Jeremiah’s absolute statements of judgment and his glowing promises of restoration. How could a man like Jehoiachin, who is “written down as childless,” secure the future of the Davidic line? For a single author to make both claims seems incoherent. However, we will show the coherence of this twofold claim by reflecting on Jeremiah’s theology as a whole, and in particular the book’s programmatic verse, 1:10: “See, I have set you this day over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant” (ESV). 32 24. John Bright, Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in PreExilic Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 160. 25. Ibid., 162; see also pp. 172, 193–94. 26. Ironically, some believe Jeremiah has a high regard for Zedekiah, against which I will argue below. See Abraham Malamat, “Jeremiah and the Last Two Kings of Judah,” PEQ 83 (1951): 85–87; Hermann-Josef Stipp, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character,” CBQ 58 (1996): 642–43. 27. For clarity’s sake, I will consistently refer to him as “Jehoiachin” even when the text employs different names for him. For a full treatment of Jehoiachin’s names, see appendix 1. 28. Sometimes the stance against Jehoiachin is subtle: e.g., Hill’s statement that Nebuchadnezzar is “the only king—apart from the dead Josiah—to be portrayed in a positive light” (Friend or Foe, 87; cf. 84). 29. On the so-called gôlâ redaction, see p. 75 n. 125. 30. Noth, “Catastrophe,” 267–70. See p. 75 n. 125. 31. Joep t, “Cedars Decay, a Sprout Will Blossom: Jeremiah 23:5–6, Conclusion of the Prophecies on Kingship,” in Unless Some One Guide Me . . . : Festschrift for Karel A. Deurloo (Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2000), 164. Even those who do not believe the positive texts are secondary still treat Jer 22:30 as conclusive. McConville writes that this text “makes it impossible to interpret the release of the same king, recorded in Jeremiah 52:31–34 . . . as an expression of hope for the coming restoration of the monarchy” (Judgment and Promise, 57). 32. The language of 1:10 appears repeatedly in the book, often at crucial junctures: e.g., 1:10; 12:14–17; 18:1–11; 24:4–7; 29:5, 28; 31:27–30, 40; 42:10; 45:4. Cf. Brueggemann, The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, 38.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

57

This verse announces the twofold nature of Jeremiah’s mission: it is a mission both of destruction and of building anew, of divine judgment and restoration. Instead of understanding these two fates to be incompatible, 33 the “main theological point of the juxtaposition,” as Brueggemann states, is “that the God who judges to death is a very God who works new life.” 34 Jeremiah 1:10 thus reveals an architectonic principle of the book’s theology: judgment and restoration are complementary, with the sequence of judgment followed by restoration being essential to the overall message. Jeremiah systematically isolates and demolishes the people’s false trust in the uniqueness of their temple (7:1–10:16), the covenant (11:1–17:27), their distinction from Gentiles (18:1–20:18), and the Davidic kings (21:1–24:10), 35 repudiating the idea that these institutions permitted them to sin without consequences (see especially 7:8–15). None of these special privileges was intended to replace obedient trust in Yahweh himself, and none of these institutions can deflect the judgment that must soon come. The result is a complete demolition of the old order (the great national institutions that surround the Sinai covenant). But the flip side to this destruction is the building that will follow (31:28), a new beginning made possible by the judgment that preceded it. The complete realization of the covenantal curses is a necessary precursor to a new beginning, 36 for the wrecking ball of exile clears away a temporary redemptive order that was always intended to be a type of something greater. 37 This pattern of judgment followed by restoration provides the basic structure for analyzing Jehoiachin in Jeremiah. We will begin by treating texts relating to his judgment (22:24–30; 36:30–31; 13:18–19), and then consider the texts relating to his restoration (24:4–7; 27:16–22; 28:1–17; 29:1–14; 52:31–34). 33. So Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology, passim. 34. Walter Brueggemann, “A Second Reading of Jeremiah after the Dismantling,” ExAud 1 (1985): 157. Holt thinks Stulman is overly positive for emphasizing this hope (“Meaning of an Inclusio,” 186), but he is actually more nuanced: in his view, chs. 26–52 “foregound” building and planting but are not necessarily governed by this theme (Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 19). Perhaps Hill is the most accurate: he argues that hope is present but is subdued by the structure of Jeremiah, which closes on an exilic note (ch. 52) (Friend or Foe, 17, 31–32). Holt argues for a similar point but oversteps her conclusion by denying that the restoration is eschatological (that is, judgment could recur; “Meaning of an Inclusio,” 186) and asserting that Jeremiah’s subdued ending entails pessimism (ibid., 187). 35. “Nothing can save Judah: neither temple, covenant, its status as an elect people, nor Davidic king. All security systems of the former world order are dreadfully inadequate and ineffectual” (Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 51–52, cf. pp. 31–32). 36. Or, in the words of Deuteronomy 30 (which is often in the background in Jeremiah): only once “all these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse” (v. 1), can there be a new and better order (vv. 3–10). See Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 54. 37. Cf. ibid., 54, 79–80.

58

Chapter 4

Jehoiachin Uprooted Two texts explicitly refer to Jehoiachin in the context of judgment (22:24–30 and 36:30–31). In addition to these, there are several other texts that scholars have dated to the 597 siege. 38 However, of these other texts we will only treat 13:18–19, because the other texts are either not particularly relevant to Jehoiachin, or their proposed date is too uncertain. Jeremiah 22:24–30 Jeremiah’s oracle against Jehoiachin is the last of a series of oracles against the kings of Judah. These oracles against specific kings are prefaced by 21:11–22:10, which provides a general orientation by emphasizing justice and righteousness as essential to the continuation of the monarchy (21:12; 22:3–7). Three of the last four kings of Judah are then condemned in historical order: Shallum (22:11–12; a.k.a. Jehoahaz), Jehoiakim (22:13–19), 39 and Coniah (22:24–30; a.k.a. Jehoiachin). Interestingly, only Jehoiakim is specifically accused of having failed to do justice and righteousness (22:13, 17). A negative fate is proclaimed over both Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, but in neither case does Jeremiah name specific sins that warrant their punishment. 40 After these three kings, instead of proceeding to Zedekiah, as one would expect (following the chronological order), the next unit offers eschatological hope (23:1–8). 41 Within this literary context, what purpose does Jeremiah’s oracle against Jehoiachin serve? 42 The oracle against Jehoiachin begins with the oath for38. For example, William Lee Holladay dates 9:17–22 and 10:17–22 to the time of the 597 siege (“The Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching,” Int 37 [1983]: 154–55). 39. The function of 22:20–23 is unclear. The shift to 2fs syntax signals that Jehoiakim is no longer being addressed, but who is? Proposals vary from the king’s palace (Christof Hardmeier, “Zur schriftgestützten Expertentätigkeit Jeremias im Milieu der Jerusalemer Führungseliten ( Jeremia 36): Prophetische Literaturbildung in die Neuinterpretation älteren Expertisen in Jeremia 21–23,” in Die Textualisierung der Religion, ed. Joachim Schaper, FAT 62 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 130), Jerusalem (Robert P. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah [New York: Crossroad, 1981], 146) and the queen mother (W. J. Wessels, “Jeremiah 22, 24–30: A Proposed Ideological Reading,” ZAW 101 [1989]: 234), but none of these are conclusive. For a helpful summary, see Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 153. 40. Hence Claus Westermann uses 22:24–30 as a central example of a “judgment speech without a reason” (Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. Hugh Clayton White [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991], 161–63). See also Sensenig, “Jehoiachin and His Oracle,” 84, 108, 200. 41. On 23:6 as polemic against Zedekiah, see p.85. 42. John Brian Job and others question the pursuit of a single literary purpose for 22:24–30, finding in it “the most striking example within so narrow a compass, not simply of redaction, but of dramatic changes of thrust as the tradition developed” ( John Brian Job, Jeremiah’s Kings: A Study of the Monarchy in Jeremiah, SOTSMS [Aldershot: Ashgate,

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

59

mula ‫חַי־ ָאנִי‬, which recalls the only other oath Yahweh has made in this section: “But if you [the Davidic kings] will not obey these words, I swear by myself [‫ַע ִּתי‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּב‬ ְ ‫]ּבי נ‬, ִ declares Yahweh, that this house shall become a desolation” (22:5, ESV). Determining what Yahweh swears in 22:24–30 depends on the structure of this text: While the oracle against Jehoiachin continues, the oath ends here (at the end of v. 27). Verse 28 begins a new trope, asking in lament-fashion why Jehoiachin must be flung out like a useless broken pot. Thus while the prophecy concludes with the consequences for Jehoiachin’s removal (namely, that none of his offspring will reign), this conclusion is not located within the oath of vv. 24–27. 43 The oath in v. 24 begins with the metaphor of Jehoiachin as a “signet ring” (‫)חֹותם‬ ָ on Yahweh’s right hand. 44 The significance of the signet ring has received much attention. Kessler and Rose argue that the ring is a metaphor for something extremely precious (cf. Song 8:6). 45 The contrast between the ring in v. 24 and the worthless jar in v. 28 certainly reinforces this position. But their key counterargument against the ring representing royal authority is that it is located on the hand of Yahweh, and Yahweh could never have authority delegated to him. 46 However, the royal overtones of the metaphor should not be ignored on this account. The ring could still manifest Yahweh’s authority (much as Jezebel used Ahaz’s signet to convey his authority; 1 Kgs 21:8). Signet rings were not worn only by those with delegated authority but by kings themselves. 47 Therefore, when Yahweh discards his signet, he rejects something precious to him and the Davidides as the concrete instantiation of his authority. 48 2006], 96; cf. William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986], 1:lxxviii). However, the coherence demonstrated in the present study undermines many presuppositions of Job’s work. 43. This point is argued more extensively below. 44. Against Rose, we believe “signet ring” is the proper translation here. Rose thinks that “seal” is a better translation than “signet” because “signet” implies a ring, for which ‫ ַט ַּבעַת‬would be the more likely word (Zemah and Zerubbabel, 221). This argument is sound, and in no other place does ‫חֹותם‬ ָ clearly refer to a ring (cf. Song 8:6, where the ‫חֹותם‬ ָ is worn on the arm). However, the explicit indication here is that Yahweh’s ‫חֹותם‬ ָ is worn on his hand (‫ְמינִי‬ ִ ‫)עַל־י ַד י‬, implying a ring. 45. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 230, 239; Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 222–29. 46. Kessler, Book of Haggai, 230. 47. See Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 156. 48. On the signet ring indicating authority, see Dexter E. Callender Jr., “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSymS 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 182–84. There may also be a connection to Nebuchadnezzar as “Yahweh’s servant,” where Yahweh gives his signet into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar in order to signal a transfer of authority to the Babylonian king.

60

Chapter 4 Table 1.  The Structure of Jeremiah 22:24–27

Introductory oath: Yahweh swears by his own life.a Concession to a possible condition:b Even if Jehoiachin is precious . . .

‫חַי־ ָאנִי ְנאֻם־יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫ָקים ֶמל‬ ‫ֶך‬ ִ ‫ִהיֶה ָּכ ְניָהּו בֶן־יְהֹוי‬ ְ ‫ִּכי ִאם־י‬ ‫ְמינִי‬ ִ ‫חֹותם עַל־י ַד י‬ ָ ‫ְהּודה‬ ָ ‫י‬

Oath stipulations: notwithstanding the previous acknowledgement (v. 24b), a certain future reality: 1. The ring will be torn off.c 2. Jehoiachin will be delivered over to the Babylonians. 3. Jehoiachin and his mother will be hurled into another land, where they will die. 4. They will never return.

ָ‫ֶּת ֶק ְנּך‬ ְ ‫ִּכי ִמּשָׁם א‬ ָ . . . ‫ׁשך‬ ֶ ‫ּונְתַ ִּתיךָ ְּבי ַד ְמב ְַקׁשֵי נ ְַפ‬ . . . ָ‫ֶת־א ְּמך‬ ִ ‫ְו ֵהט ְַל ִּתי א ְֹתךָ ְוא‬ ‫ׁשם ָּתמּותּו‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫לֹא יָׁשּובּו‬. . . ‫ְועַל־ ָה ָארֶץ‬

a. On this construction, see Blane Conklin, Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew, LSAWS 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 24–30; Moshe Greenberg, “The Hebrew Oath Particle Ḥay/ḥē,” JBL 76 (1957): 34–39; Manfred R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 83–86; Jerzy Woźniak, “Bedeutung und Belege der Schwurformel ḥaj Jahwe,” BZ 28 (1984): 245–49; Joüon §165a. b. The complex oath construction of (oath introduction + . . . + ‫ ִּכי‬+ . . . + ‫ ִּכי ִאם‬+ . . .) is found only in two other places (1 Sam 14:39; 2 Sam 15:21). The key issue is whether the second clause (followed by ‫)ּכי ִאם‬ ִ is an actual or a possible condition (that is, should it be translated “even though Jehoiachin is a signet ring” or “even if Jehoiachin is a signet ring”?). Based on the parallels in Samuel, Conklin, and Lundbom rightly note that grammatically speaking Jehoiachin’s status as a signet ring is probably a possible condition (“even if ”) (Conklin, Oath Formulas, 75; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 155). Contextual considerations (for example, the people’s lament in v. 28, where Jehoiachin is a precious object that is lost) hint that this possible condition is an actual reality for the people, but Yahweh’s view of Jehoiachin is opaque. Only insofar as Jehoiachin is a legitimate Davidic king can he objectively be Yahweh’s signet. But in lieu of clearer data, we adopt the more conservative “possible condition” reading (“even if ”). See also John Kessler, The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud, VTSup (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 230; Wolter H. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period, JSOTSup 304 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield, 2000), 244–47. c. The unusual form ָ‫ֶּת ֶק ְנּך‬ ְ ‫ א‬most likely derives from ‫ נתק‬with an energic nun (so GKC §58i). The Talmudic preference for the rare root ‫“( תקן‬to straighten”) does not make sense in context. See Jeremy Schipper, “‘Exile Atones for Everything’: Coping with Jeremiah 22:24–30,” JSOT 31 (2007): 486.

The unusual form of Jehoiachin’s name (‫ ) ָּכ ְניָהּו‬in v. 24 (as well as in v. 28) also merits attention. Its only other instance (37:1) is also linked thematically, in that it records the fulfillment of this oracle when Jehoiachin was deposed and replaced by Zedekiah. What is the significance of this unusual form? It could be Jehoiachin’s personal name (as opposed to his throne

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

61

name), 49 in which case it recalls Jehoahaz being called “Shallum” in v. 11. By stripping these men of their throne names, the passage would undermine their legitimacy as kings. 50 But this position is weakened by a lack of evidence about Jehoiachin’s personal name, a problem also faced by those who claim that ‫ ָּכ ְניָהּו‬is hypocoristic. 51 Over against these proposals, we note that the transition from ‫ָכין‬ ִ ‫ יְהֹוי‬to ‫ ָּכ ְניָהּו‬involves two changes: the repositioning of the theophoric element (now at the end), as well as a change in tense (from yiqtol to qatal). While the repositioning of the theophoric element is not significant, 52 the change of tense is. If the qatal is understood as a pluperfect, 53 calling Jehoiachin ‫ ָּכ ְניָהּו‬laments the fall of the Davidic dynasty: Yahweh had established it, 54 but will do so no longer. This conclusion finds support in the transition back to the yiqtol in 24:1 (‫) ְי ָכ ְניָהּו‬, 27:20 (‫יְכֹו ְניָה‬ kethiv / ‫ ְי ָכ ְניָה‬qere), and 29:2 (‫) ְי ָכ ְניָה‬, a move consistent with Yahweh making a new beginning with the exiled Jehoiachin in those texts. 55 Verse 25 continues the oath, announcing Jehoiachin’s certain capture by the Babylonians. The language of ‫ נתן ְּבי ַד‬is stereotypical for a military victory (e.g., 20:4, 5; 22:25; 32:4, 24, 25, 36, 43; 34:21; 46:24). 56 But the fourfold repetition of ‫ ְּבי ַד‬clauses moves artistically from the general (“those who seek your life”) to the specific (Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans), a movement that is also found in Jeremiah as a whole. 57 The naming of the Babylonians is significant, because the metaphors for destruction in chs. 1–20 are “subsumed by the figure of Babylon” when Jeremiah mentions the Babylonians by name for the first time in 20:4. 58 In so doing, Jeremiah joins Jehoiachin’s dethronement to the larger calamity befalling Judah and the whole earth, a point to which we will return. The oath against Jehoiachin intensifies in v. 26 with the language of Yahweh hurling (‫טול‬hiph) him and his mother into another land. The historical 49. So John Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed., AB 21 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973), 143. 50. Carroll, From Chaos to Covenant, 142. 51. E.g., John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 3:119. 52. Jeaneane D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study, JSOTSup 49 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 34; Martin Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung, BWANT 10 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928), 202. However, it does parallel the reversal of Zedekiah’s name in 23:6, ‫יְהוָה ִצ ְדקֵנּו‬, on which see p. 85. 53. Joüon §112c. 54. Note the significant use of ‫ כון‬in 2 Sam 7:12, 13, 16, 24, 26. 55. For a full discussion of Jehoiachin’s names, see appendix 1. 56. See John Applegate, “The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah (Part 1),” VT 48 (1998): 143–145. Daniel I. Block notes that this “divine committal formula” derives from the sphere of commerce, where it is used for the transference of property (Judges, Ruth, NAC 6 [Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999], 147–48). 57. See Hill, Friend or Foe, 63. 58. Ibid.

62

Chapter 4

significance of Jehoiachin’s mother has already been discussed in ch. 2 (see p. 13), but by mentioning her here, Jeremiah connects this passage with other passages pertaining to Jehoiachin and his mother (13:18; 29:2; cf. 2 Kgs 24:12, 15). 59 The language of Yahweh hurling them into “another land” (‫ ) ָה ָארֶץ ַא ֶחרֶת‬is particularly significant because it occurs elsewhere only in Deut 29:28. Deuteronomy 29 explains the devastation of the land as the result of the people’s apostasy and the consequent wrath of Yahweh. This anger culminates in the people being uprooted (‫ )נתׁש‬and cast away (‫ )ׁשלך‬to another land. Jeremiah thus locates Jehoiachin’s exile in the deuteronomic curse tradition that he has already been expounding (e.g., 11:1–8), a tradition that explicitly names the king as a recipient of God’s wrath (Deut 28:36). 60 In keeping with this curse tradition, Jer 22:26 emphasizes Jehoiachin dying away from his birthplace. 61 Being separated from the land was the ultimate covenant curse, and being buried outside of the land seals this curse: Jehoiachin was not “gathered to his fathers.” 62 The death of Jehoiachin and his mother, taken together with v. 27 (which emphatically states that they will not return to the land) highlights another allusion, this time to Num 14. There, in Yahweh’s ‫ חַי־ ָאנִי‬oath, the wilderness generation is forbidden to see the land of promise (v. 23). Moreover, a second ‫ חַי־ ָאנִי‬oath avers that they will die in the wilderness (vv. 28–35), and culminates with, “and there they shall die” (v. 35, ‫ׁשם יָמֻתּו‬ ָ ‫ ְ;ו‬cf. Jer 22:26: ‫ׁשם‬ ָ ‫ְו‬ ‫)ּתמּותּו‬. ָ Just as the wilderness wandering was long (40 years), so also the exile will be long (70 years), and Jehoiachin will never return to the land of promise. As such, Jer 22:24–27 is a strong polemic against Hananiah’s prophecy of a swift return for Jehoiachin (28:4). As noted above, v. 28 initiates a new section in this prophecy, including a change in speaker. The change in voice is marked by: (1) the twofold rhetorical question in v. 28, which is a signature of Jeremiah’s preaching; and (2) the reference to hearing the word of Yahweh (v. 29), which indicates that Jeremiah as speaker on behalf of Yahweh is now foregrounded (as opposed to Yahweh’s direct address in vv. 24–27). 63 The following table reflects the structure of vv. 28–30: 59. These passages refer to her as the ‫ְבירָה‬ ִ ‫ּג‬. On the deportation of Jehoiachin and his mother in 2 Kgs 24, it is curious that this event is assumed in Jeremiah but never narrated. This suggests that Jeremiah should be read against the background of 2 Kings. 60. On the prophets expounding pentateuchal traditions of cursing, see McCon­ ville, Judgment and Promise, 156–57; Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC 31 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), xxxi–xlii. 61. Cf. Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 253. 62. Cf. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 108. 63. Also, vv. 24–27 are mostly consistent in addressing Jehoiachin in the second person (except for v.  24b and v.  27), while vv.  28–30 consistently speak of him in the third person.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

63

Walter Brueggemann’s article on Jeremiah’s rhetorical questions will serve as our point of departure for v. 28. 64 He helpfully demonstrates the power of this device, for in Jeremiah twofold questions (marked by ‫ ִאם‬. . . ‫)ה‬ elicit a single answer with which both poet and listeners would agree. 65 This common ground is then exploited in a rhetorical reversal, such as a refutation of some false conclusion the listeners hold, or a lament over their sin. 66 Brueggemann treats 22:28 in detail 67 but arrives at exactly the opposite conclusion than the text demands. He assumes that the “obvious answer” to Jeremiah’s questions is that “yes,” Jehoiachin is a despised, broken pot, a vessel for which no one cares. But this conclusion is not so obvious. Yahweh has just identified Jehoiachin as his signet ring, a most precious possession. Moreover, the subsequent question (“Why have he and his descendants been hurled out?”) makes no sense unless it is assumed that Jehoiachin is not a worthless vessel. 68 Anyone would cast aside useless trash, but it is very strange for someone to throw out his most prized possession. This paradox produces the urgent questions of v. 28. The function of these questions depends on whether they emerge from God or from the people. If the speaker is Jeremiah speaking on behalf of God, then the question challenges the people to comprehend God’s mysterious action in removing Jehoiachin. If the speaker is Jeremiah speaking on behalf of the people, 69 then the question laments Jehoiachin’s fate and registers the people’s complaint against God. 70 The evidence seems to support the latter. 71 Hans-Jürgen Hermisson notes that 22:24–30 has the same basic structure as 14:1–15:4: “Unheilswort, Klage und verstärkte[s] Unheilswort.” 72 64. Walter Brueggemann, “Jeremiah’s Use of Rhetorical Questions,” JBL 92 (1973): 358–74. 65. Ibid., 359. 66. Ibid., 360, 364. 67. Ibid., 368. 68. So also Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 609; Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, WBC 26 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 322. Cf. especially Jer 25:34, which identifies the shepherds (or rulers) as choice vessels (‫ֶמָּדה‬ ְ ‫)כ ִלי ח‬. ְ 69. Or perhaps the people themselves are speaking. 70. See the summary in Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 96–97, as well as Wessels, “Jeremiah 22, 24–30,” 244. Laato believes that v. 28 cannot be Jeremiah’s lament on behalf of the people because there is no pity in the following verses (he also points to Jer 36:30–31). Cf. Hermisson’s rebuttal below. 71. Cf. John MacLennan Berridge, Prophet, People and the Word of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah, BaselST 4 (Zürich: EVZ, 1970), 179; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 609. 72. Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “Jeremias Wort über Jojachin,” in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus Westermann, ed. Rainer Albertz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 268; see 264–65. Hermisson considers 15:3–4 to be secondary. Hermisson does recognize that 14:1–15:4 has more iterations of the dialogue (and thus the structure is more complex than 22:24–30), but his basic point holds.

64

Chapter 4 Table 2.  The Structure of Jeremiah 22:28–30

Twofold rhetorical question: Is Coniah a despised, broken pota or an undesirable vessel? Lament: why are he and his seed cast out? b

. . . ‫ִבזֶה נָפּוץ‬ ְ ‫ַה ֶעצֶב נ‬ ‫ם־ּכ ִלי אֵין ֵחפֶץ ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫ִא‬ ‫ַּדּוע הּוטֲלּו הּוא ְוז ְַרעֹו‬ ַ ‫מ‬ ‫ָדעּו‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר לֹא־י‬ ֶ ‫ֻׁש ְלכּו עַל־ ָה ָארֶץ א‬ ְ ‫ְוה‬

Divine response (vv. 29–30) Vocative address: land, land, land! Call to listen Oracle formula Command to write Jehoiachin as childless Explanation of v30b: he will not succeed in his daysc Continuation of the explanation: neither­will his children succeed

‫ֶארֶץ ֶארֶץ ָארֶץ‬ ‫ׁש ְמ ִעי ְּדבַר־יְהוָה‬ ִ ‫ּכֹה ָאמַר יְהוָה‬ ‫ֲר ִירי‬ ִ‫ָאיׁש ַהּזֶה ע‬ ִ ‫ִּכ ְתבּו אֶת־ה‬ ‫ִצלַח ְּביָמָיו‬ ְ ‫ֶּגבֶר לֹא־י‬ . . . ‫ִצלַח ִמּז ְַרעֹו ִאיׁש‬ ְ ‫ִּכי לֹא י‬

a. The hapax ‫ ֶעצֶב‬cannot be understood as an idol (so Duhm: “Gebild”) or as a “puppet” (so William Lee Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986], 610). Given the context, it is unlikely that preexilic Judah would have seen idols as worthless, nor does Holladay’s definition (“puppet”) fit a literary context where “smashed” is part of the description. Instead, the traditional translation of “pot” or “jar” makes the most sense, especially given the parallelism. See McKane, Jeremiah, 1:546 for a detailed discussion. b. In LXX, ‫ מַּדּו ַע‬has become ὅτι (Rahlfs) or ὅ τι (Ziegler) This move appears to stem from the decision to understand v. 28a as indicative clauses, rather than questions. But the ‫ ִאם‬. . . ‫ ה‬sequence clearly marks a question in MT. Also, LXX lacks the phrase “he and his seed,” an omission that curiously goes in the opposite direction of 2 Kings LXX, which adds καὶ οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ (“and his children”) to the list of captives whom Nebuchadnezzar led away from the city (2 Kgs 24:12). c. This phrase is lacking in LXX. See discussion on p. 68.

In both texts, the prophet offers up the lament of the people using the ‫ִאם‬ . . . ‫ ה‬construction (see 14:19, 22). 73 Yahweh responds in both cases, 74 but contrary to the desires of the people, he intensifies the previous word of judgment (15:1–4; 22:29–30). If we understand the people to be speaking in 22:28 (or Jeremiah on their behalf ), then both 22:28 and ch. 14 portray the people at their best in the book of Jeremiah. 75 Chapter 14 comes close to being a model penitential 73. See also Jer 3:5; 8:19, where this construction is used when Jeremiah is speaking on behalf of the people. 74. Berridge notes that lamentations in Jeremiah are almost always followed by a response from Yahweh (Word of Yahweh, 155–56). 75. However, even here piety is mixed with self-interest. For a nuanced discussion of the prophet as the people’s representative but also distinct from them, see Timothy Polk,

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

65

prayer, 76 and v. 28 uses Ps 2 in a sensitive and poignant manner. 77 This allusion is signaled by the imagery of the shattered, undesirable vessel. Whereas Ps 2:9 has the Davidic king installed with divine support in Zion and smashing (‫ )נפץ‬the nations like pottery (‫)כ ִלי יֹוצֵר‬, ְ in Jer 22:28 the people lament that Yahweh has authorized the nations (represented by Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans) to smash (‫ )נפץ‬the Davidic king, who is discarded as though he were worthless pottery (‫) ֵחפֶץ ּבֹו אֵין ְּכ ִלי‬. In his response to the people, God intensifies the judgment, but he does not condemn the people’s sentiment (so also in 15:1–4). On the contrary, 22:29–30 echo several features of v. 28. God refers to Jehoiachin as “this man” (‫ ִאיׁש ַהּזֶה‬cf. v. 28a), and he employs his own allusion to the Davidic tradition: the use of seed (‫ )זֶרַ ע‬and throne (‫)ּכּסֵא‬ ִ in v. 30 recalls (and reverses) the promise to David of an everlasting dynasty (2 Sam 7:12–13, 16). 78 These commonalities and the positive portrayal of the people contribute to a larger theme in Jeremiah, which McConville calls the “closing down of hope.” 79 In the case of the people in ch. 14 and of Jehoiachin here, it does not matter how repentant the people are or how precious Jehoiachin is. Neither factor can avert Judah’s certain judgment. Moreover, the ironic allusions to the Davidic tradition mentioned above (Ps 2; 2 Sam 7) show that the Davidic covenant also cannot avert this judgment. Several commentators observe that Jer 22:24–30 as a whole is an antiroyal installation oracle. 80 Wessels helpfully lists some core features of a royal oracle: it legitimates a new ruler’s authority, it announces that the new The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self, JSOTSup 32 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 75–102. 76. Mark J. Boda, “From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical Window of Jer 14,1–15,4,” ZAW 113 (2001): 186–97. 77. Berridge, Word of Yahweh, 180; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 611. William Lee Holladay helpfully demonstrates that sometimes Jeremiah’s use of the psalter is ironic. E.g., see idem, “Indications of Jeremiah’s Psalter,” JBL 121 (2002): 258. 78. Allen, Jeremiah, 253. If the command to “write down” refers to a census, then Holladay is correct in noticing another irony here, for Jehoiachin is the one registered whereas usually kings initiate censuses (Jeremiah 1, 611). I discuss the framework of the “anti-royal installation oracle” that helps substantiate these allusions below. 79. McConville, Judgment and Promise, 43–60. Jeremiah Unterman also notes the transition from opportunities for repentance (mostly found toward the beginning of Jeremiah’s ministry) to certain doom (From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah’s Thought in Transition, JSOTSup 54 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987], 176–77). 80. Allen, Jeremiah, 253; Wessels, “Jeremiah 22, 24–30,” 245. Berridge also sees a reversal of an Egyptian execration ritual (Word of Yahweh, 180). What makes this connection unlikely is that Jeremiah is more concerned to overturn misunderstandings of Israel’s own traditions. For instance, in 21:1–10, he reverses the Exodus, the life and death pericope in Deut 30:11–14, and divine war motifs from Hezekiah’s day (Hill, Friend or Foe, 77; Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 50–51). Chapter 20 seems to reverse the covenant with the patriarchs (William Lee Holladay, “Covenant with the Patriarchs Overturned: Jeremiah’s Intention in ‘Terror on Every Side,’ Jer 20:1–6,” JBL 91 [1972]: 305–20). However, as we will argue,

66

Chapter 4

ruler has been chosen, and promises him authority. 81 This oracle announces the exact opposite. Instead of the king being installed, he is dethroned. Instead of his seed being promised everlasting tenure on the throne, they are forbidden it. However, Brueggemann goes too far in suggesting that “the dynastic promise rooted in 2 Sam. 7:13–16 is now terminated, albeit with grief and pathos. . . .There will be no heir.” 82 One of the core arguments of this study is that the divine oath to David can never be repealed, while the blessings promised to David (for example, the throne) can be temporarily revoked. Brueggemann is correct, however, to note the pathos that accompanies the pointed questions of v. 28. Verse 29 continues this tone of pathos with a remarkable threefold invocation of the land. 83 Such a stark threefold repetition of a word is encountered elsewhere only in Isa 6:3 and Ezek 21:27[32]. 84 However, in those contexts, the repeated word is not a vocative, as ‫ ֶארֶץ‬seems to be here. Thus, the closest syntactical parallels are 2 Sam 19:1[18:33], where David bewails the death of his son Absalom, and Jer 4:19, where Jeremiah laments the horrific destruction of the land. 85 In both cases the repeated word is a vocative, but even in these cases the parallel is not exact, for the vocative is not followed by an imperative (cf. “hear the word of Yahweh!” in this text). Verse 29 thus serves a double purpose: by his repetition of ‫ ֶארֶץ‬, Jeremiah mourns for the land (cf. 2 Sam 19:1[18:33]; Jer 4:19) while also addressing it (and metonymically the people as well) with an oracle. 86 That the land should be lamented in connection with an oracle against a Davidic king is not unnatural, since the weal of the land and the people is so often correlated with the fate of the kings (cf. Ps 72). 87 Further, Jeremiah used the these “reversals” are partial: they demonstrate that the blessings of Israel’s relationship with God are revocable, even while God will continue to remember his oaths. 81. Wessels, “Jeremiah 22, 24–30,” 245. 82. Walter Brueggemann, To Pluck Up, to Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 1–25, ITC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 197. 83. The LXX has only two instances of γῆ in this verse. 84. See also Jer 7:4; Nah 1:2. Johannes Herrmann and Robert P. Carroll note a striking parallel in Mesopotamian literature, where Gilgamesh casts a spell using a threefold repetition of land (irṣitum; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986], 439–41; Johannes Herrmann, “Zu Jer 22:29; 7:4,” ZAW 62 [1950]: 321– 22). However, it is hard to imagine a thoroughgoing Yahwist such as Jeremiah employing “magic” against Jehoiachin as Carroll suggests. 85. The threefold repetition of ‫ הֵיכַל יְהוָה‬in Jer 7:4 is also close syntactically, but there Jeremiah is citing the people to refute them (hence it does not function as a vocative or a lament). 86. Cf. Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia, 2nd ed., HAT 12 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958), 133. Hardmeier thinks that Jeremiah is now addressing the ‫ עַם ָה ָארֶץ‬in particular, but this is speculative (“Zur schriftgestützten Expertentätigkeit,” 129). 87. John M. Bracke, Jeremiah 1–29, WestBC (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 181.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

67

words ‫ׁש ְמ ִעי ְּדבַר־יְהוָה‬ ִ in 21:11 and 22:2 to address the kings, but in this verse he uses them to address the land. 88 This shift points once again to Yahweh’s removal of the Davidides, a theme that climaxes in v. 30. The oracle in v. 30 begins with a rhetorical command to “write this man down as childless.” The following lines develop and clarify this opening phrase, but first two important points must be made. One is to consider the significance of writing. Proposals for the social context of this command to write abound: is Jeremiah referring to a Babylonian register of exiles, a census list, a chronicle, or a land register? 89 Or is he alluding to the heavenly books of destiny (cf. Exod 32:32; Ps 69:29; 139:16)? 90 But the passage does not offer enough information to disambiguate. Instead, it is helpful to notice that, whatever the particular social context, the injunction to write is often closely associated with the preservation of a word for future generations (Exod 17:14; Deut 31:19; Isa 30:8; Jer 32:10, 12). 91 The unchangeable character of writing adds weight and permanence to an oracle of judgment (e.g., Jer 17:13), as well as emphasizing the certainty that it will come about (see 25:13; 36:28; 51:60). Whatever the exact social context being invoked, the use of writing in v. 30 marks the judgment that follows with both pathos and gravity. The second point to consider is the term “childless” (‫ֲר ִירי‬ ִ‫)ע‬. This form appears only twice, here and in Gen 15:2, both with the idiomatic meaning “childless.” 92 The recollection of Gen 15:2 signals a provocative parallel­. There, Abraham complained to God that any reward would be fruitless, because he lacked an heir who was his own offspring. In this instance, Jehoiachin may well have had biological children, 93 but by divine decree he lacked an heir to sit on the throne of David. 94 A second allusion to Abraham in 33:22 intensifies the parallel. There Yahweh promises, “As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me” (ESV). The motifs of sand and stars strongly

322.

88. Hardmeier, “Zur schriftgestützten Expertentätigkeit,” 129. 89. See the summary of scholarship in Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25,

90. See H. Haag, “‫ּכָתַ ב‬,” TDOT 7:380. 91. Ehud Ben Zvi, “Introduction: Writings, Speeches and the Prophetic Books— Setting an Agenda,” in Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd, SBLSymS 10 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 13. However, Ben Zvi does say that writing could still entail and even encourage changes (ibid., 14). 92. Lev 20:20, 21, the only other instance of the word, has the adjective in the plural. The root, ‫ערר‬, and its other derivative, ‫ע ְַרעָר‬, appear five times (cf. the more common byform ‫)ערה‬. ‫ ערר‬means “stripped,” hence the metaphorical sense here. The LXX has ἐκκήρυκτον, meaning “banished” (lit., banished by a herald). See McKane, Jeremiah, 549–51. 93. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 162; Schipper, “Exile Atones for Everything,” 483. 94. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 163.

68

Chapter 4

recall Gen 15:5; 22:17 (and parallels). If, as we will argue below, Jehoiachin is indeed the recipient of the Davidic promise, then this cluster of allusions allows us to reframe Jehoiachin’s plight in Abrahamic categories: how can an heirless man such as Jehoiachin later become the recipient of such vibrant promises for the house of David? I will answer this question below. The final two lines of this oracle elaborate the implications of writing Jehoiachin down childless. Neither he nor his seed will ‫צלח‬, a word that basically means to prosper or succeed, but here involves the idea of ruling (note the two participles that follow in apposition). The two lines move from the present ( Jehoiachin will not prosper “in his days” 95) to the indefinite future (his seed will not “rule again [‫ ]עֹוד‬in Judah”). The intended meaning of ‫עֹוד‬ is unclear: is it saying that his line will “no longer” rule, or that his line will “never again” rule? The context demands the first (vv. 26–27), while opening the possibility for the second. Although clues in this text point to hope, no promises are made: the royal prospects for Jehoiachin’s line are discontinued indefinitely. 96 The fate that befalls Jehoiachin in this text is intensified by the many parallels between Jehoiachin’s fate and the fate of the people as a whole. Jehoiachin is hurled (‫טול‬hiph) out of God’s presence like the rest of Judah (7:15; 10:18; 16:13), both of them to a land they do not know (16:13; 17:4). Jehoiachin is given into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar (‫)נתן ְּבי ַד‬, just like the whole land (27:6; 32:28). He is like a shattered pot (22:28), an analogy that has been drawn elsewhere with Judah (13:14; ch. 19). 97 Notwithstanding the positive hints we have uncovered, these links to the uprooting of the people reinforce the main point of this text: faced with the unremitting doom of exile, Jehoiachin is cursed for the rest of his days. This doom of exile applies to Jehoiachin’s offspring, but not with the same severity. I argued above that God’s oath against Jehoiachin extends 95. Because this phrase (along with ‫ִצלַח‬ ְ ‫ ) ֶּגבֶר לֹא־י‬is lacking in LXX, it is widely seen as a later interpolation (e.g., Rudolph, Jeremia, 132–33). Laato argues that its intent is “to reinterpret vv. 28–30 [so that] only Jekoniah’s contemporaries are affected” (Josiah and David Redivivus, 95), a point that echoes Jerome (Commentary on Jeremiah, trans. Michael Graves, AChrT [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011], 136–37). However, we have already demonstrated that there are possibilities for Jehoiachin’s future, which weakens the motivation for Laato’s reconstruction. On the attempt to limit v. 30 to Jehoiachin’s days, see p. 143, where I argue that the phrase “in his days” applies to Jehoiachin, not his offspring. The consequences for his offspring are therefore not limited to Jehoiachin’s lifetime. 96. A similar scenario obtains in Deut 28:46, which states that the curses of the covenant “shall be a sign and a wonder against you and your offspring forever [‫ּובז ְַרעֲךָ עַד־‬ ְ ‫( ”]עֹולָם‬ESV). And yet, this sort of pronouncement does not negate the possibility of restoration (cf. 30:1–10). 97. The language of “undesirable vessel” (‫)ּכ ִלי אֵין ֵחפֶץ‬ ְ suggests that Jehoiachin is being compared to the northern kingdom (Hos 8:8) and Moab ( Jer 48:38) as well.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

69

from 22:24 to 22:27, which is followed by a strong break. Thus, the final word of judgment concerning Jehoiachin’s offspring (v. 30) is not within the purview of the divine oath. This point is critical, for in biblical prophecy, only words that Yahweh seals with an oath are irrevocable. Other prophetic words are open to repeal if circumstances change. 98 Yahweh’s oath in vv. 24–27 irrevocably commits him to have Jehoiachin die in exile with his mother. Verse 30 then says that Jehoiachin’s offspring will not reign on the throne of David any more (‫)עֹוד‬, a doom that extends beyond Jehoiachin’s days. Jehoiachin’s line is cut off from the throne for the indefinite future. But because v. 30 is not part of a divine oath, it is open to repeal should circumstances change (cf. Jer 18:1–10). Thus, Yahweh does not disown Jehoiachin’s line in the ultimate sense. This condemnation is perpetual, but it is not irrevocable. 99 Therefore, Jer 22:24–30 contributes to the overall impact of the oracles against the kings: each branch from Josiah has been systematically pruned, 100 effectively cutting off the immediate prospects for the Davidic line. Whatever long-term hope Jeremiah may eventually hold out for David’s offspring, the oracles against the kings have established for the monarchy what Jeremiah establishes elsewhere for other institutions in Judah: the certainty that God’s wrath will descend on them and sweep them away. 101 The monarchy will be plucked up and broken down, destroyed and overthrown. Jeremiah 13:18–19 In the midst of an oracle against Judah, Jer 13:18 addresses a king and a gěbîrâ with a brief word of judgment. 102 Because both are unnamed, it is difficult to establish with certainty that this word is directed against Jehoiachin and his mother. However, the only other occurrence of gěbîrâ in Jeremiah is in 29:2, which associates her with Jehoiachin. 103 Because no other 98. A full defense of this idea is not possible here, but because of its importance for our argument we discuss it in appendix 2. Concerning the unchangeable character of oaths, see Ps 110:4; Heb 6:17–18. See also R. L. Pratt Jr., “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions,” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 180–203 and Robert B. Chisholm, “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic,” JETS 53 (2010): 561–77, both of whom draw heavily on Jeremiah 18 to show that predictions that are not explicitly conditional nevertheless function in this way when not sealed with an oath. 99. This point makes unnecessary the suggestion in the Talmud that 22:30 is an oath that Yahweh has annulled. See Schipper, “Exile Atones for Everything,” 485. 100. For oracles against Zedekiah, see 21:3–7; 23:6. On 23:6 being against Zedekiah, see p. 85. 101. See p. 57 n. 35. 102. For ‫ְבירָה‬ ִ ‫ּג‬, the LXX has τοῖς δυναστεύουσιν, “to those in power.” 103. By the singular “mother” and the plural “wives” in 2 Kgs 24:15, we understand the ‫ְבירָה‬ ִ ‫ ּג‬here to be Jehoiachin’s mother.

70

Chapter 4

king’s mother figures with any prominence in Jeremiah, 104 the reference in 29:2, along with the mention of Jehoiachin’s mother in 22:26, strongly suggest that Jehoiachin and his mother Nehushta are the addressees in Jer 13:18. 105 The oracle is a single sentence with two parts: a hendiadys (‫ַׁש ִּפילּו ׁשֵבּו‬ ְ ‫ה‬, “take a lowly seat”) followed by an explanation: ‫ִּכי יָרַ ד מ ְַראֲׁשֹותֵ יכֶם עֲ ֶטרֶת‬ ‫ּת ְפא ְַר ְּתכֶם‬. ִ  106 The “crown of beauty” is a stylized expression that appears elsewhere (Isa 62:3; Ezek 16:12; 23:42; Prov 4:9; 16:31). However, it is curious that the noun here is singular, while the possessive is plural. Evidently, gěbîrôt were also crowned, which is suggestive of the genuine authority that they exercised. 107 Though compact, this sentence encapsulates a narrative: the crowns of the king and the gěbîrâ have come down from their heads, thus delegitimizing their claim to the throne. Therefore, Jeremiah calls on them to come down from their lofty seat and occupy a lowly seat. How does this small declaration of judgment fit into the larger context? The immediately surrounding unit is a poetic oracle extending from v. 15 to v. 27, and this unit shares many features in common with the two preceding illustrations of the linen cloth (vv.  1–11) and the jars of wine (vv.  12–14). A running theme is that things made for glory and blessing will come to shame because of Judah’s pride. The linen waistcloth was made for praise and glory (v. 11), but is good for nothing on account of pride (vv. 9–10). Jars that were intended to hold wine will be smashed (vv. 12, 14), and the pride of Jerusalem (v. 17) will lead to public shame (vv. 26–27). Moreover, the text consistently portrays Judah as hardened in her pride, refusing and even unable to listen to reproof (vv. 10, 17, 22–23). The removal of the rulers’ crowns and their corresponding dethronement comprise an important subset of these themes. The people’s beauty (‫ּת ְפ ֶארֶת‬, ִ v. 11) was to be expressed through her kings, whose beautiful crowns (‫עֲ ֶטרֶת ִּת ְפ ֶארֶת‬, v. 18) should have been an outward expression of their willing submission to Yahweh (see 22:3–4). Because the kings were complicit in the people’s proud refusal to listen (see 36:24, 31), it is fitting that they should 104. The only reference to another king’s mother in Jeremiah is in Jer 52:1, which mentions Zedekiah’s mother in a regnal formula. 105. So the majority of commentators (see the summary in Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 132). However, against this, Hermisson argues that it is unlikely that 13:18 is about Jehoiachin because 18 years of age is too old for a king to be under guardianship (“Jeremias Wort über Jojachin,” 267). However, this point assumes that the ‫ְבירָה‬ ִ ‫ ּג‬functions as a guardian, which is not necessarily the case. 106. Cf. McKane, Jeremiah, 304. The pointing for ‫ מ ְַראֲׁשֹותֵ יכֶם‬is unusual. Based on the versions, Holladay revocalizes to ‫מֵרָאׁשֹותֵ יכֶם‬, which is probably correct (Jeremiah 1, 408). But cf. Georg Fischer, Jeremia 1–25, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 460, for a defense of “Kopfputz” (“headdress”). 107. See chapter 2, p. 13.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

71

face divine justice as well (13:13, 18). The loss of crown and throne represent a particularly royal way of participating in the widespread humiliation that is overtaking Judah. In this way Jer 13:18 emphasizes the solidarity of Jehoiachin’s uprooting with the uprooting of his people, a theme we have already encountered in 22:24–30. Jeremiah 36:30–31 The refusal to listen found repeatedly in ch. 13 is also a major theme in Jer 36. 108 In this much-discussed passage, Jehoiakim’s response to Yahweh’s word is diametrically opposed to Josiah’s response decades before. 109 Josiah tore (‫ )קרע‬his clothes in repentance and burned Judah’s idols, but Jehoiakim tears (‫ )קרע‬the scroll in hardness of heart and burns it. This defiance is met with an appropriately harsh oracle against Jehoiakim, the center of which concerns Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s seed. After the accusation (v. 29), Jeremiah moves in classic prophetic style to the announcement of judgment (vv. 30–31). 110 This announcement has four parts: (1) Jehoiakim will lack one sitting on David’s throne; (2) Jehoiakim’s corpse will be cast out to the elements; (3) God will “visit” (‫ )פקד‬Jehoiakim, his seed, and his servants for their iniquity; and (4) God will bring against them and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the evil that he has threatened but they have ignored. All four bear on Jehoiachin, but particularly the first and third parts. I begin with the third judgment as an occasion to note briefly how Jeremiah groups Jehoiachin with others in general indictments. The 3mp suffix on ‫ עָֹון‬in v. 31 makes clear that the iniquity is not only Jehoiakim’s but that of his seed ( Jehoiachin) and his servants. In keeping with Jer 31:30, the judgment occasioned by Jehoiakim’s sin may fall on his progeny and servants, but they are all guilty. Several other passages identify Jehoiachin as a sinner­ who is worthy of judgment. In ,y discussion of ch. 13, I noted that Jehoiachin and his mother were included among the general populace in their refusal to heed God’s word, and 23:1–2 concludes with an indictment against “the shepherds” (‫)ר ִֹעים‬, an epithet that encompasses all the preceding kings. 111 There, the shepherds are castigated for scattering and destroying the flock 108. Gary Yates, “Narrative Parallelism and the ‘Jehoiakim Frame’: A Reading Strategy for Jeremiah 26–45,” JETS 48 (2005): 264. 109. See Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 90, 93. 110. Cf. Westermann’s paradigm of the “judgment speech to individuals” in Basic Forms, 131. 111. While “shepherds” in Ezekiel refers more narrowly to kings (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48, NICOT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 282), in Jeremiah “shepherds” may encompass “royal rule, the priesthood and prophetic leadership” (Michael R. Stead, “The Three Shepherds: Reading Zechariah 11 in the Light of Jeremiah,” in A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday, ed. Jamie A. Grant, Alison Lo, and Gordon J. Wenham, LHBOTS 538 [New York: T&T Clark, 2011], 152).

72

Chapter 4

instead of attending to them. 112 Thus, Jeremiah groups Jehoiachin with the rest of sinful Judah, but at the same time he does not focus on particular sins that he committed. 113 Returning to 36:30–31, in the first judgment against Jehoiakim (v. 30), Jehoiakim is told that he will have no one to sit on David’s throne. The language of sitting on David’s throne recalls several passages in Jeremiah (13:13; 17:24; 22:2, 4, 30; 29:16; 33:17). Three of these refer generally to Davidic kings (13:13; 22:2, 4), one refers to Zedekiah (29:16), and two involve restoration promises (17:24; 33:17). But the oracle against Jehoiachin (22:30) provides the closest parallel. In both cases, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin are told they will not have an offspring sitting on the throne of David (in 36:30: ‫ִהיֶה־‬ ְ ‫לֹא־י‬ ‫ַל־ּכּסֵא ָדִוד‬ ִ ‫ ;ּלֹו יֹוׁשֵב ע‬in 22:30: ‫ַל־ּכּסֵא ָדִוד‬ ִ ‫ִצלַח ִמּז ְַרעֹו ִאיׁש יֹׁשֵב ע‬ ְ ‫)לֹא י‬. Although Jehoiachin ben Jehoiakim reigned only three months, he is still recognized everywhere as a legitimate king. For this reason, some commentators understand 36:30 to be a failed prophecy. 114 However, this conclusion depends on a forced reading of 36:30. Jehoiachin certainly reigns as a legitimate king for a short time, but his reign is extremely short: he comes to power only to abdicate the throne. In our view, 36:30 is fulfilled by the immediate removal of a son of Jehoiakim from kingship. 115 112. For a powerful narrative portrayal of this same motif, see Ishmael (who is of “royal seed” [‫]זֶרַ ע ה ְַּמלּוכָה‬, 41:1) in Jer 40–41 (Gary Yates, “Ishmael’s Assassination of Gedaliah: Echoes of the Saul-David Story in Jeremiah 40:7–41:18,” WTJ 67 [2005]: 105–6, 111). 113. See my discussion of 22:24–30 as a “judgment speech without a reason,” p.  58 n. 40. In light of these observations, Laato’s idea that Josiah and Shallum are models of good kings in Jeremiah, while Jehoiakim and Jechoniah are prototypes for evil kings is to be rejected (Josiah and David Redivivus, 89). Equally problematic is Applegate’s conclusion that “Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin are also criticized for their extravagance and social crimes (xxii 13–19), but primarily for their rejection of Yahweh’sword (cf. esp.  Jer. xxvi, xxxvii 1–2)” (“The Fate of Zedekiah (Part 1),” 142, my emphasis). 114. See Konrad Schmid, “Nebukadnezars Antritt der Weltherrschaft und der Abbruch der Davidsdynastie: Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung und universalgeschichtliche Konstruktion im Jeremiabuch,” in Die Textualisierung der Religion, ed. Joachim Schaper, FAT 62 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 155. 115. We are indebted to Henk de Waard for this point (personal communication). See Schmid (“Nebukadnezars Antritt,” 157–63), who understands 36:30–31 as an attempt to explain why both 22:18–19 and 22:30 did not happen (in addition to Zerubbabel reigning, Schmid thinks Jehoiakim did receive a proper burial based on 2 Kgs 24:6). Schmid believes that the reference to the fourth year of Jehoiakim in 36:1 forges a link between this text and 25:1, where Nebuchadnezzar is named Yahweh’s servant. For Schmid, Nebuchadnezzar is Yahweh’s servant in a Davidic sense in that he assumes David’s role of being Yahweh’s vassal Weltherrscher (world-ruler; see Jer 27:5–7). Therefore, although the Davidic dynasty would not historically end until Zedekiah’s deposition in 586, the dynasty had already reached its theological termination when Nebuchadnezzar was declared Yahweh’s servant in 604. While some aspects of Schmid’s proposal stretch the data (for example, “servant” is not an exclusively Davidic title), his insights complement our proposal by identifying Nebuchadnezzar as a functional replacement for the Davidides.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

73

Summary It seems that Jeremiah agreed with the historian’s assessment in 2 Kgs 24:9 that Jehoiachin did evil in the eyes of Yahweh. 116 While 22:24–30 is silent on his character, 36:31 declares him guilty of ‫עָֹון‬, and elsewhere he is associated with all Judah in their sin (e.g., 13:18–19). But these are mere hints compared to the sustained castigation of Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and also Ishmael. 117 Instead of drawing attention to Jehoiachin’s character, Jeremiah’s focus in these “uprooting” texts is on his exilic fate. His exile is deeply intertwined with the broader judgment God is enacting against his own people: just as God closes down their hopes of avoiding this curse, so God casts Jehoiachin away with a solemn oath, without offering repentance. The onceprecious signet of Yahweh is uprooted with the rest of Judah, his dynasty is terminated indefinitely, and his prospects are bleak: he will die in exile. This dreadful fate is an ineluctable dimension of Yahweh’s plucking up and breaking down: the judgment befalling all the people is borne in a particularly Davidic way by Jehoiachin. Jehoiachin embodies the fate of the nation.

Hope for Jehoiachin’s Planting Before discussing texts that point to a hope beyond exile for Jehoiachin, we note that even within judgment, there is a ray of hope for Jehoiachin. Indeed, three of the allusions detected in 22:24–30 recall temporal frameworks in which trouble gave way to blessing: Abraham eventually begot Isaac; the cursed wilderness generation of Num 14 died, but their children took possession of the land; and the curses recalled in Deut 29:28 are eventually surpassed by restoration (Deut 30:1–10). The parallel to the wilderness generation is particularly significant, because even though that generation was sealed under a divine oath forbidding their return to the land, this did not preclude their children from becoming heirs of the promise. I will argue that a similar dynamic obtains with regard to Jehoiachin. In this section, I will proceed chronologically from passages that articulate Jehoiachin’s status in exile to those that speak of a future beyond exile. Jeremiah 27:16–28:17 These verses contain two closely related units: 27:16–22, regarding the temple vessels; and 28:1–17, the dispute with Hananiah. 118 In 27:16, Jeremiah 116. Schipper gives an interesting summary of how scholarly opinion has moved from viewing Jehoiachin negatively to positively as the “innocent boy-king” (“Exile Atones for Everything,” 489). 117. See pp. 83–85. 118. The larger unit in which 27:16–22 is found is 27:1–22, but we treat only the last section because of its special relevance to Jehoiachin. However, this last section is markedly shorter in the LXX, which lacks the promise that the temple vessels would return. Emanuel Tov argues that the LXX is to be preferred because the promise of the

74

Chapter 4

repudiates the notion that the temple vessels that were deported with Jehoiachin will soon return, a sentiment that is directly at issue in ch. 28. However, the debate is not whether the vessels will return but when. Hananiah claims that within two years God will restore not only the temple vessels but also Jehoiachin himself. By minimizing God’s judgment, Hananiah identifies himself as one of the prophets of peace (‫)ׁשלֹום‬ ָ whom Jeremiah so often denounces (6:14; 8:11; 14:13; 16:5; 23:17). Moreover, by shortening Jehoiachin’s exile, Hananiah fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God’s judgment: it is a profound time of discontinuity, where old structures are dissolved so that a fresh beginning can be made. 119 But Jeremiah himself becomes a prophet of ‫ׁשלֹום‬ ָ (29:7, 11; 33:6, 9), 120 and therefore the difference between Jeremiah and Hananiah is their theology of exile, not the possibility of restoration. 121 Jeremiah’s 70 years (25:11–12; 29:10), during which Jehoiachin must certainly die (22:26), stands polemically over against Hananiah’s 2. 122 Although Jeremiah does not employ the word ‫ׁשלֹום‬ ָ in a restoration oracle until 29:7, the promise that closes ch. 27 prepares the reader for his reversal: the rest of the temple vessels must go into exile, and then God will visit (‫ )פקד‬them (the vessels) and restore them to Jerusalem: ‫יתים‬ ִ ‫ֲל‬ ִ ‫ְו ַהע‬ ‫ֲׁשיב ִֹתים אֶל־ ַהּמָקֹום ַהּזֶה‬ ִ ‫ ַוה‬. If 27:16–22 is understood as the true prophecy to counter Hananiah’s false prophesy, 123 then two important points can be made. First, Jeremiah is not categorically opposed to the return of these vessels, which suggests that his reply in 28:6 should not be read sarcastically. Second, a precondition for this hope is the complete deportation of all the temple vessels. The unusual syntax in 27:19–22 results from an oracle regarding the vessels deported with Jehoiachin (vv. 19–20) being followed by an oracle about the vessels that remain in Jerusalem (vv. 21–22). Only once temple vessels returning undercuts the rebuttal to the false prophets, who also say that the vessels will return (“The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture,” in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, ed. Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, ASBT [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008], 39–40). But the issue is not whether the vessels will return but when. Thus, even if the MT results from a later expansion, it is not inconsistent with the larger theology of the book. 119. According to Stulman, what is wrong with Hananiah’s prophecy about the return of Jehoiachin is that “its reading of Israel’s future includes the restoration of the royalcultic symbol system and its representative institutions virtually unscathed by exile and dislocation” (Order Amid Chaos, 74). 120. See McConville, Judgment and Promise, 89, 96. 121. Martin Kessler, “Jeremiah Chapters 26–45 Reconsidered,” JNES 27 (1968): 83. 122. In this crucial disagreement over timing, we see the wisdom of Buber’s comment: “false prophecy is simply ‘the right word for the wrong time’” (quoted in Daniel L. Smith, “Jeremiah as Prophet of Nonviolent Resistance,” JSOT 43 [1989]: 99). 123. Note the matching motifs: temple articles, priestly audience, length of exile, and so on.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

75

these remaining vessels are deported does the text conclude with a promise that Yahweh will restore the vessels. This dynamic implies that restoration is only possible once the temple is completely uprooted. Although 27:16–22 says nothing explicitly about hope for Jehoiachin or his line, the temple and the monarchy are interrelated institutions (see 2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 8:19; Ps 132). Hence, for Jeremiah to prophesy the return of the vessels hints at hope for Jehoiachin’s line as well. 124 Jeremiah 24 and 29 These two passages, which the text dates to Zedekiah’s reign, contain closely related words of hope for those exiled with Jehoiachin. Against the background of 22:24–30, the positive word for Jehoiachin in 24:4–7 comes as a surprise, leading many scholars to attribute this text to a pro-gôlâ Deuteronomistic redaction. 125 It is, however, deeply woven into the book’s theology and functions as an important turning point in Jeremiah’s message. The text falls naturally into two parts that are common for vision reports: the vision itself (vv. 1–3), and its interpretation (vv. 4–10). 126 The interpretation has two sections: the import of the good figs (vv. 4–7) and of the bad figs (vv. 8–10). As a vision report, this text closely mirrors the inaugural vision in 1:11–19 (cf. the dialogue between Jeremiah and God, particularly the question ‫ַּתה רֹאֶה י ְִר ְמיָהּו‬ ָ ‫)מָה־א‬. However, a difference between these texts marks ch. 24 as an important transition in the book: whereas the twofold inaugural vision began with the general promise that God was watching over his word (1:11–12) and concluded with the threat of the enemy from the north (1:13–19), the vision in ch. 24 includes words of both judgment and blessing. 127 As such, it shows that the book of Jeremiah, which to this point has been almost exclusively occupied with uprooting and tearing down, has now begun to declare words of building and planting (see especially v. 6: ‫ִיתים ְולֹא ֶאהֱרֹס ּו ְנט ְַע ִּתים ְולֹא אֶּתֹוׁש‬ ִ ‫)ּובנ‬. ְ What is the rationale for this transition to hopeful speech? While the vision may initially give the impression that God is simply distinguishing 124. On the repeated connections between Jehoiachin and the temple vessels, see 2 Kgs 24:12–16; 2 Chr 36:10; and Isaac Kalimi and James D. Purvis, “King Jehoiachin and the Vessels of the Lord’s House in Biblical Literature,” CBQ 56 (1994): 449–57. 125. According to Carolyn J. Sharp, “There is no question that chs. 24 and 42 explicitly privilege the status of the 597 exiles in Babylon over the status of those remaining in Palestine and those who flee to Egypt after the fall of Jerusalem” (“The Call of Jeremiah and Diaspora Politics,” JBL 119 [2000]: 424). On the gôlâ redaction, see E. W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Schocken, 1970); Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch; Seitz, Theology in Conflict; Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology. For a sustained response, see Leuchter, Polemics of Exile. 126. Cf. Berridge, Word of Yahweh, 64–65; and Burke O. Long, “Reports of Visions among the Prophets,” JBL 95 (1976): 353–65. 127. McConville, Judgment and Promise, 59; cf. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 223.

76

Chapter 4

betwee­n those who are intrinsically good (‫ )טֹוב‬and those who are intrinsically bad (‫)רַ ע‬, Brueggemann draws attention to the word ‫ א ִַּכיר‬in v. 5. 128 He argues that this word, which usually has the sense “to recognize” or “to acknowledge,” here has the force of ‫ חׁשב‬in Gen 15:6. To Brueggemann, whereas those left in the land simply are bad (‫ נכר‬is not used in v. 8), God is freely choosing “to reckon” as good those who have been exiled to Babylon. 129 This interpretation agrees with other texts that clearly portray those exiled in 597 as far from innocent (e.g., 13:15–27). In this message, Brueggemann recognizes a counter-rhetoric to those who smugly thought they had been spared when Nebuchadnezzar left them in Judea (e.g., Jer 28:2–4; cf. Ezek 11:14–21). 130 The opposite is the case: as 21:1–10 has already shown, 131 life is no longer found in the land but in surrender to the Babylonians. However, the parallel with God reckoning Abraham as righteous breaks down in one important respect: God reckoning those exiled with Jehoiachin for ‫ טֹובָה‬is not attributing moral qualities to them but is instead marking them as recipients of ‫טֹובָה‬, which is explicated in terms of promises to return to the land (v. 6), to have renewed hearts, and to enjoy restored covenant fellowship (v. 7). 132 These promises occupy a central position in the main body of restoration oracles found in chs. 30–31, 133 implying that they are heirs to the whole gamut of restoration blessing. The following verses (vv. 8–10) emphasize that the opposite fate hangs over those who remain in the land. God’s setting his eyes on those exiled with Jehoiachin for good (‫;לטֹובָה‬ ְ v. 6) matches his giving over those left with Zedekiah to evil (‫)ל ָרעָה‬. ְ  134 Whereas God sent away (‫ )ׁשלח‬the exiles to Babylon for a good purpose (v. 5), he will send (‫ )ׁשלח‬sword, famine, and pestilence on those who remain for their destruction (v. 10). Thus, to be a good fig is to be graciously considered an heir to restoration promises, while to be a bad fig is to expect only judgment. Can any further explanation be given for this bifurcation than the freedom of the divine will? 135 On the one hand, the consistent description of those exiled with 128. Brueggemann, “Second Reading,” 159. 129. Ibid., 161. 130. Ibid. 131. Jeremiah 24 exhibits several linguistic links to 21:1–10: e.g., 21:10: “I have set my face against this city for harm [‫]ל ָרעָה‬ ְ and not for good [‫”]לטֹובָה‬ ְ (ESV), and “sword, famine and pestilence” in 24:10 and 21:9 (ESV). See Hill, Friend or Foe, 73–74. 132. Thomas M. Raitt, A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 114. 133. McConville, Judgment and Promise, 90–91. McConville also notes how the language here echoes the restoration promises of Deut 30. 134. BHS proposes moving this phrase to the end of v. 8, which would more closely parallel the syntax of v. 5. However, no manuscript evidence supports this move. The phrase does not occur at all in LXX (neither in v. 8 nor in v. 9). 135. R. J. R. Plant provides a helpful discussion of this issue, summarizing previous scholarship and concluding that Jeremiah’s judicial differentiation has a diversity of po-

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

77

Jehoiachin as “exiles” (vv. 1, 5) suggests that their exilic status distinguishes them from those in Jerusalem. However, two considerations speak against this. First, included among the bad figs are “those who dwell in the land of Egypt” (v. 8, ESV), which apparently refers proleptically to the self-imposed exile of the apostate remnant described in Jer 43–44. 136 The second consideration against a simple identification of the good figs with those who are exiled is found in v. 9, where one of the judgments threatened against Zedekiah and his people is exile, which in this case is a place of horror and not of hope. 137 Thus, on the surface Jeremiah’s vision of the figs makes a simple division between those exiled with Jehoiachin to Babylon and everyone else. But the rationale for this all-important distinction remains elusive within ch. 24, with its complex theology of exile as a state that could lead either to life or to death. For further clarification on the distinction between good and bad figs, we turn to Jer 29, a chapter that exhibits several important intertextual links to ch. 24. 138 There Jeremiah confirms that it is not one’s geographical location that is decisive, as though being in Babylon ensured one’s reception of the restoration promises. Jeremiah 29:15–29 shows that the Babylonian exiles are not an undifferentiated mass of good figs: among the Babylonian exiles, Ahab ben Kolaiah and Zedekiah ben Maaseiah become a curse (‫;ק ָללָה‬ ְ v. 22; cf. 24:9); and Shemaiah will not see the good (‫ )טֹוב‬that Yahweh is about to do (v. 32). 139 This judgment language situates these individuals among the bad figs of ch. 24, and the accusations directed toward them explains why. Against Ahab and Zedekiah, Jeremiah insists that the rest of Jerusalem will larities (between communities, between individuals and groups, and so on) and a diversity of rationales (for salvation, he discerns principles of divine grace and human conduct as simultaneously at work; Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah, LHBOTS 483 [New York: T&T Clark, 2008]). However, our analysis proceeds in a different direction, emphasizing the transitions that obtain between different periods of Jeremiah’s ministry. 136. While some mention has been made of those who go to Egypt to enlist military aid (2:18, 36), the word “dwell” (‫ )יׁשב‬makes Jehoahaz and others exiled by Pharaoh Neco in 609 (2 Kgs 23:34) the most likely referents in Zedekiah’s day. But this group is of no importance to Jeremiah ( Jehoahaz appears only briefly in 22:10–12, and Egypt is not even mentioned by name there) and the exact phrase ‫ׁש ִבים ְּב ֶארֶץ ִמ ְצ ָריִם‬ ְ ֹ ‫ הַּי‬appears three times in ch. 44 (vv. 1, 15, 26) for those who obstinately fled to Egypt after the slaying of Gedaliah. We therefore suggest that this phrase proleptically refers to this group, which is decisively said to be without hope (44:24–30). See p. 53 n. 10 for a “past fulfillment perspective” in Jeremiah. 137. Zedekiah is not considered a good fig even when he is exiled. 138. E.g., the reference to “split-open (‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ )הַּׁשֹע‬figs that cannot be eaten due to rottenness” in 29:17 (the only other instance of figs in Jeremiah); the use of ‫ טֹוב‬in 29:10, 32 and ‫ ָרעָה‬in 29:11; the language of God sending (‫ )ׁשלח‬the exiles away in 29:20; and the language of “with all your heart” in 29:13. 139. Vice versa, those left in Judea and those who go to Egypt cannot all be considered bad figs (e.g., Jeremiah, Baruch, Gedaliah).

78

Chapter 4

indeed go into exile (vv. 16–19), 140 which implies that their message was to the contrary. 141 Shemaiah rebukes Jeremiah for saying that the exile will be long and that the exiles should put down roots in Babylon (v. 28). These false prophets reject God’s judgment, and are thus considered “bad figs,” notwithstanding their presence in Babylon with Jehoiachin. A closer consideration of Jeremiah’s message to the exiles (29:1–14) helps identify the corresponding virtue that marks the “good figs.” If bad figs reject God’s judgment, good figs accept it. The many connections with ch. 24 identify 29:1–14 as an instance of “resumptive exposition.” 142 In particular, both texts use Jehoiachin’s exile as a key narrative reference point, and both also recall the core language of 1:10. The use of “build” and “plant” in 29:5 is unusual: instead of referring to restoration as they do elsewhere (1:10; 12:16; 24:6; 31:28), here they refer to the resumption of daily life in Babylon. 143 Using the charged language of 1:10 for these otherwise mundane activities intimates that the act of settling in Babylon is coordinate with accepting Jeremiah’s message as a whole. The foil of the false prophets’ message clarifies how this is so: by building houses, planting gardens, and arranging marriages, 144 the exiles are accepting Jeremiah’s word that the exile will indeed be long. In so doing they also (implicitly) accept the rationale for this long exile: that God has appointed 70 years for Babylon to act as his instrument of vengeance (v. 10) and that only when a complete destruction has been effected can there be an opportunity for new building and planting. 145 Acceptance of this judgment actually makes Babylon take on qualities of the land of promise. As Hill notes, in 29:4–9 Babylon “is represented as a place whose topography is the same as that of Judah.” 146 It is a place where ‫ׁשלֹום‬ ָ can be found under Nebuchadnezzar, the new David-like servant. 147 And yet this identity between the promised land and Babylon 140. Note that when 29:17 alludes to ch. 24 and mentions “figs that are so rotten that [they] cannot be eaten” (ESV), it intensifies this phrase by the rare word ‫“( ׁשֹעָר‬vile” or “split-open”). 141. This point is also suggested by Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal against these prophets, who were considered seditious for preaching against Babylon’s supremacy or that its yoke would soon be broken (cf. 28:2–4). Their adultery is another expression of their refusal to accept God’s judgment (v. 23; cf. 23:14). 142. See Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 24–25. 143. The allusion to 1:10 is still unmistakable: see Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 77. 144. These are activities that Smith (drawing on Bach’s work) says are one-time activities in a man’s life (“Nonviolent Resistance,” 100). Smith persuasively concludes that “Jeremiah is not simply advising a settled existence, but using the Deuteronomic exemptions from warfare to declare an ‘armistice’ on the exilic community” in contrast to Hananiah, who is advocating war (ibid., 102). 145. Note that after returning to the land, the returnees have come to agree with the prophets’ understanding of exile (Ezra 5:12; cf. Neh 9:28–30). 146. Hill, Friend or Foe, 152. 147. Yates, “Jehoiakim Frame,” 265.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

79

is only a temporary metaphor, for vv. 10–14 return to the assumption that Babylon is indeed banishment and prophesies a better future beyond it. 148 These dynamics in ch. 29 qualify the earlier figs passage. Whereas Jer 24 could be read as a blanket endorsement of all Babylonian exiles, ch. 29 emphasizes that these exiles must accept their exilic condition and cautions them against the threat of falsehood (vv. 8 –9). What is distinctive about the Babylonian exiles is that their surrender in 597 marked them as a group who collectively accepted Babylonian hegemony (cf. Jeremiah’s encouragement to Zedekiah to take a similar action in 587: 21:8–10). In this respect, Jehoiachin’s one recorded act as king (that he quickly surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar; 2 Kgs 24:12) has a very positive hue. But simply being part of this group is not sufficient: the crucial issue continues to be individual acceptance of the true prophetic word and rejection of falsehood. 149 The theme of hope for those who accept the prophetic word (and who therefore also accept divine punishment) plays an increasingly important role as time progresses. As subsequent deportations took place (586, 582), what claim did these new exiles have on Jeremiah’s restoration promises? And was there any hope for those who remained in the land after it has been ravaged? In both cases, the underlying question is: is there hope for those who were previously called “bad figs” in 24:8–10? Jeremiah 29:14 provides a clue to the answer. Hill notes that the language of God gathering people from all the places where they have been scattered removes the separation between 597 and other deportations: “A promise to exiles in Babylon becomes a promise to those scattered in diaspora. In v. 14 the two become one entity.” 150 Similarly, Leuchter argues that a central issue in Jer 26–45 is the relationship between those who were not exiled in 597 and Jeremiah’s promises of restoration. 151 This section ( Jer 26–45) blurs the lines between the original 597 captives and later ones, 152 a move that is reflected in 52:28–30 148. Hill, Friend or Foe, 157. This tension between the possibility of blessing in a place of banishment recalls the category of “ameliorated exile” discussed in chapter 3. 149. See Jer 31:29–30. In this light, Unterman’s assessment that divine mercy is so essential in Jeremiah that repentance is “almost as an after-thought” is doubtful (Unterman, From Repentance to Redemption, 66). Here we must clarify the relationship between “acceptance of the prophetic word” and “repentance.” Acceptance of the prophetic word is more vague than repentance and simply involves a resignation to the plight of exile (which may imply accepting the reason the prophets give for this plight, namely, the sin of the people). Repentance of the kind mentioned in 24:7 and 29:13 (returning to Yahweh with all their heart) is a step beyond acceptance of exile, involving full obedience to Yahweh (cf. Deut 6:5; 30:6), and is situated in the eschatological future. Hence, Jehoiachin in 52:31–34 can be understood to accept exile, while not necessarily repenting in this fuller sense. 150. Hill, Friend or Foe, 156. 151. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 49, 154. Laato notes several instances in Jer 30–33 where the same promises in Jer 24 are now directed to the 586 gôlâ (Josiah and David Redivivus, 99). 152. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 116.

80

Chapter 4

(missing in 2 Kings), which lists together the captives of three separate deportations to Babylon, thereby suggesting that these deportations are three distinct episodes in one larger event. 153 In view of this transition to include other Judeans in promises that were originally only for the 597 exiles, Gary Yates and Terence E. Fretheim argue persuasively that the offers of ‫ׁשלֹום‬ ָ to those who remain in the land are genuine (e.g., 40:9; 42:10–12). In principle, none of these later groups are excluded from being considered “good figs.” 154 Precisely because they have all undergone judgment, they have moved beyond the phase where future judgment is irrevocable to a new phase where a future is offered. 155 But as we have observed above, all depends on acceptance of the prophetic word, and it is on this basis that those who go to Egypt are eventually excluded. 156 This proposal for understanding the good figs directly opposes ideological readings that interpret Jer 24 and other passages as products of a Babylonian gôlâ trying to further their political interests. According to the full witness of Jeremiah, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about those deported in 597, except that in Zedekiah’s day they were the only ones who had experienced judgment, and therefore were the only candidates at that point for receiving a positive oracle from the prophet ( Jer 24). 157 The central issue remains their acceptance of the prophetic word, which at this period calls for submission to Babylon. Thus, we should not be perplexed to find some characters who do not end up in Babylon (for example, Gedaliah, Jeremiah, Baruch) portrayed positively or to find Zedekiah or Pashhur in Babylon but still not among the good figs. 158 The implications of this dy153. Ibid., 99. 154. Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2002), 568–69; Yates, “Jehoiakim Frame,” 271. 155. Note the “mini-restoration” theme that accompanies Gedaliah’s accession in 40:10–12, with keywords such as ‫ׁשאִֵרית‬ ְ and ‫ׁשוב‬. Cf. Yates, “Ishmael’s Assassination of Gedaliah,” 107. 156. Yates demonstrates that the anti-Exodus narrative of chs. 40–44 is “a mirror image to help the exiles see for themselves the ultimate consequences of failure to follow the prophetic counsel to settle down and submit to Babylon” (“New Exodus,” 20). 157. As Leuchter says (drawing on Raitt and Unterman), “those who already have received their punishment are addressed with sympathy in Jeremiah” (Polemics of Exile, 99). 158. For opposing perspectives concerning Zedekiah, see O’Connor, “Terror All Around,” 73. Concerning Jeremiah going to Egypt, see ibid., 73–74; Peter R. Ackroyd, “Aspects of the Jeremiah Tradition,” IJT 20 (1971): 6; Else K. Holt, “Narrative Normativity in Diasporic Jeremiah—and Today,” in Jeremiah (Dis)placed: New Directions in Writing/ Reading Jeremiah, ed. A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman, LHBOTS 529 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 132–33. Concerning Pashhur, see Carroll, Jeremiah, 487. For a further argument against these perspectives, see Yates’s demonstration that salvation for individuals is possible even amid judgment for the nation as a whole (“Jehoiakim Frame,” 276), which is more nuanced than Moshe Weinfeld’s claim that Jeremiah demands “the complete abolition of collective responsibility” (“Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel,” ZAW 88 [1976]: 39).

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

81

namic for Jehoiachin in Babylon become clearer when we turn to the one picture we have of him there, 52:31–34. Jeremiah 52:31–34 Having already treated 2 Kgs 25:27–30, 159 we can proceed more briefly here, though we must not consider the two texts to be identical. For one, they exhibit several textual differences, at least one of which is quite significant. 160 But more importantly, falling as it does at the end of the book of Jeremiah, the literary context of Jer 52:31–34 is entirely different from 2 Kgs 25:27–30. This change of context causes the same sequence of words to resonate in new and striking ways. Of course, in some cases the passages read similarly: their positions at the end of major textual units signal their importance, and they both reflect an intriguing confluence of positive and negative trajectories, which calls for interpretive subtlety. Positive trajectories that arise when the text is read at the conclusion of Jeremiah include the following. First, the emphasis on Jehoiachin’s exalted seat suggests a reversal (albeit in miniature) of the negative oracles in 13:18 and 22:30, both of which involve his throne. The one who was told to take a lowly seat (13:18) and who is denied the throne of David (22:30) is here lifted to the highest seat in the Babylonian court. Of course, the qualifications mentioned in 2 Kings apply here as well: this seat is not the throne of David, it is clearly lower than Evil-Merodach’s throne, and the language of Evil-Merodach setting Jehoiachin’s throne (‫ )נתן ִּכּסֵא‬recalls the only other instance of this phrase in 1:15, where the Babylonians set their thrones in the gates of Jerusalem. 161 As opposed to the paradigm of Yahweh establishing a throne for David, here the king of Babylon establishes the throne for Jehoiachin. Second, a positive linguistic connection emerges in the use of ‫ טֹבֹות‬in Jer 52:32, where Evil-Merodach speaks “good things” to Jehoiachin. The word ‫טֹוב‬/‫ טֹובָה‬connects to its own distinctive themes in the DH, 162 but it has powerful resonances in Jeremiah. In Jeremiah, this word encompasses the entirety of God’s restoration blessings, and has particular prominence 159. See pp. 24–28. Thomas Römer helpfully summarizes the diachronic debate regarding the relationship between Jer 52 and 2 Kgs 25 (“The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah as a Supplement to the So-Called Deuteronomistic History,” in The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud, ed. Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi, BibleWorld [London: Equinox, 2009], 171). The canonical issue about how Jeremiah is to be read in relationship to 2 Kings is treated in chapter 9. 160. The most significant is the addition of ‫עַד־יֹום מֹותֹו‬, “until the day of his death” in v. 34. Note also that LXXB has και εκειρεν αυτον, “and they shaved him,” in v. 31 (Carroll, Jeremiah, 870). 161. Hill, Friend or Foe, 30. 162. Brueggemann, “Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian.” See my discussion of the covenantal overtones of ‫ דבר טֹבֹות‬on p. 26.

82

Chapter 4

in the passages we have examined above (for example, the “good” figs; see pp. 75–81). While Evil-Merodach’s ‫ טֹבֹות‬cannot be equated with the ‫טֹבֹות‬ God speaks to his people, the word triggers echoes of these latter promises, again suggesting the idea of restoration in miniature. Third, Jehoiachin’s posture of deference to the Babylonian king recalls Jeremiah’s instructions to the exiles in 29:4–9. Although the internal attitude of Jehoiachin himself is not apparent, he is portrayed here as submitting to Babylon, a key point in Jeremiah’s program. While Jer 24 groups Jehoiachin among the good figs, this passage comes the closest to identifying him individually as such because of his acceptance of Babylonian hegemony. Fourth, Jehoiachin’s positive relationship to Jeremiah’s word is strengthened by a series of parallels between Jehoiachin and the prophet himself. Jehoiachin is said to be brought out of prison (‫יצא‬hiph), just as Jeremiah is twice brought out (20:3; 39:14). They are both put in the ‫( ּבֵית ה ְַּכלּוא‬32:2–3; 37:15), with one of the passages pertaining to Jeremiah reflecting the same kethiv/qere issue found in 52:31 (kethiv: ‫ ;ה ְַּכ ִליא‬qere: ‫)ה ְַּכלּוא‬. In both cases, the text emphasizes them receiving an allowance from the king (cf. ‫ ֶלחֶם‬and ‫ נתן‬in 37:21), although Jeremiah receives his food while he is in prison and it eventually runs out, whereas Jehoiachin receives it in court for the rest of his days. After the siege of Jerusalem, Nebuzaradan offers Jeremiah an ‫ארֻחָה‬ ֲ , a rare word translated “allowance” in 52:34. 163 Although it is difficult to evaluate its import, these parallels suggest a narrative analogy: Jehoiachin may be portrayed as a righteous sufferer like Jeremiah. 164 At the least, Jehoiachin recalls Jeremiah’s imprisonment, release, and subsequent provision, events that were themselves a sign of God’s faithfulness to his faithful prophet (cf. 1:8, 18–19). 165 Fifth, an important anti-analogy (a sustained contrast; see p. 33) with Zedekiah emerges here (as in 2 Kings), but with some unique features not found in 2 Kings. Jeremiah 52:11 contains an additional line about Zedekiah: ‫ֻּדֹת עַד־יֹום מֹותֹו‬ ‫ִּתנֵהּו בֵית־ה ְַּפק‬ ְ ‫( ַוּי‬qere). The phrase ‫ עַד־יֹום מֹותֹו‬matches exactly the addition about Jehoiachin’s fate in Jer 52:34, which indicates the importance of both kings dying in Babylon. However, this common phrase seems to be aimed primarily at underlining the differences between the two former kings: Jehoiachin is brought out of prison and given (‫ )נתן‬a seat of honor, while Zedekiah is set (‫ )נתן‬in prison to live out his days. Also, the text refers to the place of their imprisonment differently. Whereas Jehoiachin and Jeremiah spend time in the ‫ּבֵית ה ְַּכלּוא‬, Zedekiah is put in a ‫ּבֵית־ה ְַּפֻקּדֹת‬, or “house of visitations.” This hapax not only differentiates Zedekiah from Jehoiachin, but also brings the long chain of prophecies concerning Zedeki163. See p. 28 n. 38. 164. Cf. my discussion of Isa 53 on pp. 191–192. 165. Leuchter links Jeremiah and Jehoiachin receiving rations and suggests that the analogy goes the other way: Jeremiah is being portrayed as a symbol of the deportees’ own experience (Polemics of Exile, 145).

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

83

ah’s fate to a decisive and negative conclusion. We cannot enter fully into the complex discussion regarding Jeremiah’s view of Zedekiah’s future, but several scholars have noted the variety of fates Jeremiah prophesies for Zedekiah. 166 One of the most positive is found in 32:5, in which Yahweh says that the king of Babylon “shall take Zedekiah to Babylon, and there he shall remain until I visit him” (‫ָק ִדי אֹתֹו‬ ְ ‫ִהיֶה עַד־ּפ‬ ְ ‫ׁשם י‬ ָ ‫)ו‬. ְ Read in light of 27:22, which 32:5 seems to echo, this phrase seems to bode well for Zedekiah, although the term ‫ פקד‬is quite versatile. 167 However, 52:11 echoes 32:5 and disambiguates the term. By calling Zedekiah’s prison the “house of visitations” (‫ּבֵית־‬ ‫)ה ְַּפֻקּדֹת‬, 32:5 is ultimately interpreted as the visitation of divine wrath, for Zedekiah remains in prison until his death. The contrast between Jehoiachin’s and Zedekiah’s fates must be qualified by the way Jehoiachin shares the fate of the other last kings of Judah. Jehoahaz (Shallum) appears only to be mourned and dismissed, as he is lost forever in Egypt (22:10–12). Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, however, are complex characters. While some interpret Zedekiah’s vague sympathy for Jeremiah to mean that Jeremiah supported Zedekiah over Jehoiachin, 168 Yates is surely correct to recognize that “the narrator in Jeremiah 26–45 juxtaposes the hostile rejection of Jehoiakim to the passive inaction of Zedekiah (cf. chaps. 37–39) as if to show the two sides of unbelief.” 169 Several structural parallels and narrative analogies tightly link the indecisive Zedekiah with the unequivocally evil Jehoiakim. 170 Given this negative perspective on 166. See John Applegate, “The Fate of Zedekiah (Part 1)”; idem, “The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah (Part 2),” VT 48 (1998): 301–8; Stipp, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah.” However, neither of these scholars detects when a positive text is fraught with sarcasm or conditioned upon Zedekiah’s obedience (e.g., Jer 34:4–5). Cf. Leuchter, Polemics of Exile, 7, 84. 167. Possible meanings include: to inspect; to instruct; to appoint or muster; or to avenge or afflict. For negative uses of ‫ פקד‬in Jeremiah, see 5:9, 29; 6:15; 9:9, 25[24]; 11:22; 14:10; etc. See also Christopher T. Begg, “Yahweh’s ‘Visitation’ of Zedekiah ( Jer 32,5),” ETL 63 (1987): 113–17. 168. See Stipp, “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah” although in Stipp’s view, Zedekiah is vilified by later redactors. For a positive synchronic treatment of Zedekiah, see Mark Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem, LHBOTS 423 (London: T&T Clark, 2005). However, Roncace’s treatment has serious problems (see Marvin A. Sweeney, review of Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem, by Mark Roncace, CBQ 69 [2007]: 131–32). For example, Roncace argues for a narrative analogy between Zedekiah and Saul, but then concludes that Zedekiah’s death should be seen as “heroic” (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 157). 169. Yates, “Jehoiakim Frame,” 277. Cf. Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform, 109–17; Elmer A. Martens, “Narrative Parallelism and Message in Jeremiah 34–38,” in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee, ed. C. Evans and W. F. Stinespring, SPHS 10 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1987), 39–43. 170. A. R. Pete Diamond, “Portraying Prophecy: Of Doublets, Variants and Analogies in the Narrative Representation of Jeremiah’s Oracles—Reconstructing the Hermeneutics of Prophecy,” JSOT 57 (1993): 114–15; Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 94.

84

Chapter 4

the other three last kings, one can sympathize with Reimer’s contention that Jeremiah is “committed to the line of David without any obvious (or even obscure) path to fulfillment [of the Davidic promises].” 171 Having shut down the possibilities (even after exile) of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah, all that remains is Jehoiachin, but Jeremiah has shut down his hopes as well, especially in Jer 22:24–30. The reference to Jehoiachin’s death in 52:34 adds to this sense of grim closure. As mentioned above, this notice associates Jehoiachin with Zedekiah (cf. 52:11), but it also connects him with Jehoahaz (22:12) and Jehoiakim (36:30–31). It also vindicates Jeremiah’s word, since Jehoiachin did indeed die in exile (22:26; cf. 28:4). 172 Jehoiachin’s death is thus portrayed as the final blow of judgment to the Davidic monarchy: all Jerusalem’s former kings are dead. But Christopher R. Seitz notices that even in this note of judgment there is anticipation. In the death of Jehoiachin, the old generation has passed away, and now God can bring the new generation into the land. 173 The analogy with the wilderness generation is especially fitting given the date of the passage (v. 31), which is on the cusp of the 38th year of Jehoiachin’s exile (cf. Deut 2:14). 174 This observation accords well with the uprooting and planting motif we have been tracing. In Stulman’s words, Jehoiachin’s death at the end of Jeremiah is actually an “embryonic beginning.” 175 By the end of the book, exile continues, 176 but Jehoiachin’s death comes as one of the last judgments on Judah to be fulfilled, thus opening the door to the future. 177 Thus, even while Jeremiah compares Jehoiachin with the other kings in their common fate of death, he hints that Jehoiachin’s death may actually lead to new life for David’s line. Restoration Hope for David The foregoing passages present the most explicit indication of a hope for Jehoiachin in Jeremiah. Before concluding, it is important to consider briefly how Jehoiachin’s future relates to Jeremiah’s broader proclamation of hope for the Davidic monarchy. 171. Reimer, “Political Prophets,” 131–32. 172. Note the linguistic link between ‫ ּכֹל ְימֵי ַחּיָיו‬in 52:34 and ‫ ְּביָמָיו‬in 22:30. Another vindication can be seen in the presence of the other kings at Evil-Merodach’s table (cf. 25:18–26). 173. Christopher R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 27. 174. Ibid. Note the allusion to Num 14 in 22:24–30 discussed on pp. 62–63. 175. Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 69. 176. John Hill, “‘Your Exile Will Be Long’: The Book of Jeremiah and the Unended Exile,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, ed. Martin Kessler (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 158. 177. Arguably, the only remaining judgment is the full 70 years.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

85

Davidic hope is not easily extracted from Jeremiah’s overall message of restoration. Not only is hope for the monarchy reiterated (17:24–27; 23:1–8; 30:8–9, 21; 33:14–26) but, as Gosse notes, the language of this hope is closely tied with the central new covenant promise in 31:31–34. 178 For example, 23:6 says that in the days of the ‫ ֶצמַח‬Judah and Israel will be saved, and this text is followed by the promise of a new and better exodus (vv. 7–8). The language of the exodus and the theme of God surpassing his previous redemption also play a central role in 31:31–34. Connections such as these suggest that the new David is an indispensable part of God’s plan to build and to plant. The texts in Jeremiah that foster Davidic hope raise many complex issues, 179 but our attention will focus on the simple theme that God is raising up a new king for David. What relationship does this new David have to the old Davidic line? This issue affects our understanding of Jehoiachin directly, for we must not only ask if the new David will come from Jehoiachin but we also must interact with those who see Jehoiachin’s line being ended with such finality in 22:24–30 that 23:5–6 (and other passages) must be the work of other hands. 180 For the sake of brevity, we will focus on Jer 23:1–8 and 33:14–26. Jeremiah 23:1–8 Our discussion of Zedekiah above concluded that, in terms of the key criterion of submission to the prophetic word, Zedekiah was no better than Jehoiakim. This polemic is carried out consistently in 23:5–6. While some have suggested that the name ‫ יהוה ִצ ְדקֵנּו‬alludes positively to Zedekiah, 181 the burden of evidence is with those who understand this to be a very negative reference to him. 182 The strongest argument is that the description of this ideal Davidide matches much more closely the description of Josiah (cf. 178. Bernard Gosse, “La nouvelle alliance et les promesses d’avenir se référant à David dans les livres de Jérémie, Ezéchiel et Isaie,” VT 41 (1991): 419–20. However, Gosse places all these passages in the postexilic period. See also Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 102, who points out connections between 23:5–8 and 30:8–11. 179. E.g., the relationship of the new David to Jeremiah’s restoration program, the question of messianism, and the issue of how Jeremiah is developing previous texts that have a Davidic hope. See Marvin A. Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Royal Isaian Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context,” in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, ed. John Goldingay, LHBOTS 459 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 308–21. 180. So Clements, “The Prophet and His Editors,” 227. See p. 58 n. 42. 181. Carroll, Jeremiah, 446–47; Hans-Jürgen Hermisson, “Die ‘Königsspruch’-­ Sammlung im Jeremiabuch: Von der Anfangs- zur Endgestalt,” in Studien zu Prophetie und Weisheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze, ed. Jörg Barthel, Hannelore Jauss, and Klaus Koenen, FAT 23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 44; Reimer, “Political Prophets,” 131. Reimer and Sweeney (“Jeremiah’s Reflection,” 312–13) have helpful summaries of the scholarly opinions on this point. 182. As Jack R. Lundbom writes, “Zedekiah is now the antitype of the messiah” (Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, 2nd ed. [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997], 47). See also Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 329; Ralph W. Klein, Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation, OBT 6 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 55.

86

Chapter 4

“doing­justice and righteousness” in 22:15 and 23:5) than that of Zedekiah. 183 One could even say that in his chronological treatment of the last Davidic kings (22:10–30), Jeremiah saves his harshest critique for Zedekiah. Jeremiah does not even acknowledge him with an oracle as he does with the other kings (although cf. 21:7). Instead, Zedekiah is only obliquely recognized here by the wordplay on the ideal David’s name. In reversing Zedekiah’s name, 23:6 implies that the new David will be the exact opposite of Zedekiah. 184 A side effect of this omission of Zedekiah is that Jehoiachin’s judgment oracle is juxtaposed with the deliverance oracle in Jer 23. Jeremiah 22:24–30 and 23:5–6 exhibit some thematic and linguistic reversals: Jehoiachin and his seed will not reign (‫)מׁשל‬, but the ‫ ֶצמַח‬will (‫)מלך‬. 185 Jehoiachin’s seed will not sit on the throne of David, but the ‫ ֶצמַח‬will be raised up for David. Jehoiachin will be delivered into Nebuchadnezzar’s hands, but all will dwell securely in the days of the ‫ ֶצמַח‬. The phrase ‫ ְּביָמָיו‬is used to describe how Jehoiachin will not succeed in his days, whereas the ‫ ֶצמַח‬will arise in days that are coming (v. 5), and “in his days” (‫)ּביָמָיו‬ ְ Judah will be saved. God swears an oath (‫ )חַי־ ָאנִי‬that Jehoiachin must be removed from the land and die in exile (22:24–27), but a new oath will be introduced in the days of the ‫ ֶצמַח‬, where all will swear by the life of Yahweh (‫)חַי־יהוה‬, who delivers the people out of exile (23:7–8). Some of these reversals could be interpreted as continuing the polemic against Jehoiachin (for example, his seed will not reign, but the ‫ ֶצמַח‬will). But this suggestion is questionable, not only on the basis of the larger context of the book (where we have already seen some evidence of hope for Jehoiachin’s line), but also on two other grounds. First, the language of restoration for Israel often reverses the language of judgment. 186 In this respect, Jeremiah’s reversing the language of 22:24–30 is in keeping with broader trends concerning the people as a whole. The second consideration concerns the nature of judgment prophecy: simply because Jehoiachin’s seed are forbidden to reign on the throne of David does not mean that they are completely without hope, because these judgments can be reversed. I will return to this point below. Jeremiah 33:14–26 Jeremiah 33:14–26 expands and develops the core promise of 23:5–6. 187 This text contains several new features, including the juxtaposition of 183. Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 102. 184. Cf. Lundbom who points out that 21:1–10 might be part of this reversal pattern: placing Zedekiah first structurally when he is actually the last king would then serve the same literary purpose as reversing his name (Hebrew Rhetoric, 47). 185. On the translation of ‫ ֶצמַח‬, see p. 145 n. 94. 186. E.g., the “incurable wound” of 14:17 is healed in 30:12–17; the “yoke” of Nebuchadnezzar in 28:14 is broken in 30:8; the God who scatters in judgment (cf. 9:16; 13:24; 18:17) will one day gather them (31:10). 187. Rosalie Kuyvenhoven, “Jeremiah 23:1–8: Shepherds in Diachronic Perspective,” in Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. August Den Hol-

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

87

David and the Levitical priests, the insistence that David will not lack a man on the throne (vv. 17, 21, 26), the analogy between God’s covenant with David and God’s covenant with day and the night (vv. 20–21, 25–26), and the promise to multiply the seed of David (v. 22). 188 Several of these features are especially relevant for our discussion of Jehoiachin. We have already considered the multiplication of the Davidic offspring, which is an allusion to the Abrahamic promise (see p.  68). The analogy between childless Jehoiachin and childless Abraham in 22:30 is complemented in 33:22 by the multiplication of the Davidic offspring on an Abrahamic magnitude. This double parallel lacks force if Jehoiachin is not considered the future (one might even say the new father) of the Davidic line. But if he is, then this parallel reminds us that just as it took a miracle to bring forth Isaac, Jehoiachin’s future is entirely dependent on divine intervention. Several linguistic links between 22:24–30 and 33:14–26 buttress this connection between Jehoiachin and the future Davidic hope. Jeremiah 33:14–26 repeatedly uses the language of seed (‫ )זֶרַ ע‬and throne (‫)ּכּסֵא‬ ִ which are so central to the curse in 22:30 (note also the connection to 2 Sam 7, p. 64). Whereas Jehoiachin’s seed will not possess the throne, God affirms that David will never lack a man on the throne, and that he will certainly take a ruler from David’s seed for the seed of Abraham. 189 This reinstitution of David’s line is accompanied by the restoration of the title “my servant” to David (vv. 21, 22, 26), the only place in Jeremiah where this title is used for him. In so doing, Jeremiah strips Nebuchadnezzar of this temporary honor (see 25:9; 27:6; 43:10) and anticipates the end of Babylonian supremacy. 190 Perhaps most insightful for understanding this reversal is the twicerepeated link between God’s covenant with David and his covenant with the day and night (vv. 20–21, 25–26). A similar connection is made between­ lander, Ulrich Schmid, and Willem Smelik, JCPS 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 24–25; Sweeney, “Jeremiah’s Reflection,” 309. Jeremiah 33:14–26 is absent from LXX and therefore is often considered a late addition. Our attempt to read MT as it stands makes this issue irrelevant for our present purpose, but we do assess Jeremiah LXX in ch. 7 (pp. 152–153). For discussion of the textual history, see Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: les origines littéraires de la forme Massorétique du livre de Jérémie, OBO 118 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1992), 9–37. 188. Verse 16 also names Jerusalem ‫יהוה ִצ ְדקֵנּו‬, the name that Jer 23:6 gives to the shoot. This suggests the democratization of the Davidic promises (cf. Isa 55:3). However, this democratization is not inconsistent with an ongoing hope for a Davidic individual, as the rest of Jer 33:14–26 demonstrates (e.g., ‫ ִאיׁש‬in v. 17). Cf. William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 113–18, 135–36. 189. This language recalls 2 Sam 7:8. 190. The title “my servant” applies to others besides Nebuchadnezzar and David (e.g., Moses in Num 12:7; Jacob in Jer 30:10; 46:27–28). However, Jeremiah portrays Nebuchadnezzar in Davidic roles (especially ruling over all), and hence the two kingships are coordinated, with the rise of one implying the demise of the other.

88

Chapter 4

creation­and the covenant with Israel as a whole in 31:35–37, thereby grounding­the new covenant promises. 191 Both 31:35–37 and 32:20–26 invoke the unchangeable character of God’s creational covenants (or in the language of 31:35–36, his ‫)חֻּק ֹת‬. 192 This intersection between covenants and God’s immutable commitment to them recalls how covenants are often synonymous with the oaths that comprise the central act of covenant-making. 193 God’s covenant with David is considered an oath (e.g., Ps 89:3; 132:11), 194 an assumption that lies in the background of 33:14–26 and that is essential for understanding the reversal of fates for Jehoiachin’s line. As I argue above, Jeremiah’s curse of Jehoiachin’s line (22:30) is not sealed with an oath, and therefore the possibility remains that this word of judgment may be reversed. In contrast to the mutability of 22:30, Jer 33:14–26 emphasizes that Yahweh’s ancient promise to David is of such an unchangeable character that David’s line cannot remain dethroned forever. Far from being forever barred from the throne, the linguistic and thematic links charted above hint that Jehoiachin’s line may in fact be the future of the Davidic dynasty.

Conclusion Jeremiah’s theme of uprooting and planting provides the basic paradigm for organizing the material about Jehoiachin (1:10). This verse links the judgment and restoration depicted in Jeremiah as the work of the same God, Yahweh. Using this paradigm we have argued that Jeremiah’s apparently inconsistent witness about Jehoiachin’s deposition and rehabilitation need not reflect the work of politically antagonistic schools of thought. Indeed, the thematic and linguistic links between the uprooting and planting passages point in the other direction. Since the way to planting leads through uprooting, the primary significance of 22:24–30 is to emphasize Jehoiachin’s participation in the divine wrath which was besetting all of Judah. With a divine oath sealing his death in exile, Jehoiachin surprisingly became the candidate for a future beyond exile. Hope for Jehoiachin is found in his association with the temple articles (27:16–22), his being grouped among the “good figs” (24:4–7; 29:1–14), the contrast between him and other kings (52:31–34), the reversals of his condemnation in the articulation of Davidic hope (23:5–6; 33:14–26), and the narrative analogies between Jehoiachin and Abraham and between Jehoiachin and the wilderness generation. Nevertheless, the promised future 191. Note also the references in Weinfeld, “Covenant Terminology,” 198. 192. Cf. Bob Becking, “Divine Reliability and the Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Consolation ( Jeremiah 30–31),” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, ed. Martin Kessler (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 178. 193. See Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi, VTSup 52 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 182. 194. For more on the Davidic covenant, see pp. 42–45.

Jehoiachin in Jeremiah

89

would not happen soon, nor would it involve a simple return to the reality that existed before the deportation. As with Abraham and also with the wilderness generation, Jehoiachin is the heir of promises whose fruition he will not see. Given this liminal state, the simple paradigm of judgment and restoration may not be sufficient to encompass the full witness of the texts before us. Prior to Jehoiachin’s deportation, the prophet confronts him (13:18–19; 22:24–30). After the deportation, Jeremiah groups him among the good figs (24:4–7) and says he has a hope that is still future (29:4–14). But as the concluding passage (52:31–34) underscores, the restoration has not yet arrived, and thus Jehoiachin occupies a period between uprooting and planting that has qualities of both. 195 This liminal stage is crucial for the transition to the future. Regarding Isaiah, Gerhard F. Hasel writes, “The remnant serves as the link between the ideal Urzeit and the future Heilszeit; it is an eschatological entity from which the new community of the future springs forth.” 196 However, my point is slightly different: for the book of Jeremiah, Jehoiachin in exile is the Davidic remnant that links the old, less-than-ideal, preexilic monarchy (hardly an “ideal Urzeit”) to the future Davidic hope. This link between old and new is crucial, for as we have seen, the idea that Yahweh would somehow abandon the house of David and start again “from scratch” was never in view because of Yahweh’s oath to David. And yet, the process whereby the Davidic house was condemned, dissolved, exiled, and promised a new beginning shows an essential facet of this “unconditional” oath to David: it cannot be understood in a narrowly unilateral fashion, as though the Davidides could do whatever they wished without any consequences. On the contrary, Yahweh’s oath to David was for a specific purpose, namely, that the son of David would build a house for the name of Yahweh (2 Sam 7:13), that he would embody covenant righteousness (Deut 17:14–20), and that he would rule justly on Yahweh’s behalf ( Jer 21:12; 22:3). When the sons of David showed themselves to be intractable failures in satisfying this divine purpose (especially with regard to justice and righteousness), their status as a provisional fulfillment of the Davidic covenant became clear, as did the need for an eschatological David. Therefore, in full consistency with his oath to David, Yahweh dismantled the old preexilic institution in preparation for the eschatological fulfillment. The judgment against Jehoiachin must not be minimized. Only insofar as he was a partaker of the complete dismantling of the old economy could he become the seed of a new beginning. 195. Similarly, Stulman understands the communities surviving in exile to be living in an already-not-yet situation where suffering and hope are intertwined (Order Amid Chaos, 172, 174). 196. Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea From Genesis to Isaiah, AUMSR 5 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1980), 257.

Chapter 5

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel Jehoiachin appears in the second verse of Ezekiel, hinting at the significant role he will play in the rest of the book. Many scholars see Ezekiel as neutral toward Jehoiachin. For instance, André Caquot grants that the future lies with Jehoiachin (based on 17:22–24), but he then minimizes the point by saying Ezekiel chose Jehoiachin simply because he was the last Davidide alive. 1 Similarly, Thomas Renz finds little concern for Jehoiachin’s fate in the book. He sees Ezekiel as turning interest away from Jehoiachin toward a new David, and even this new David is of minimal importance for the restoration. 2 Bernhard Lang takes a stronger stance: he examines every text in which people have found Ezekiel supporting Jehoiachin and concludes that there is actually no warrant for this idea. 3 For Lang, Ezekiel is silent about Jehoiachin because he initially supported Zedekiah. When Zedekiah became anti-Babylonian, Ezekiel attacked him bitterly but had little to say about Jehoiachin. 4 Other interpreters find a positive portrayal of Jehoiachin in Ezekiel. Laato finds no critique of Jehoiachin in the book (in his view, ch. 19 is exclusively about Jehoahaz and Zedekiah), and he regards ch. 18 as an apology for Jehoiachin, where the three generations correspond to Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin, with Jehoiachin as the repentant third generation. 5 Daniel I. Block also finds a positive characterization of Jehoiachin in Ezekiel. He interprets Jehoiachin’s removal to Babylon as God sovereignly preserving a remnant of the Davidic monarchy in accordance with 2 Sam 7. 6 This promise will find its fulfillment in the revivification of the “dry tree,” which is Jehoiachin’s line (17:24). 7 Against those who find little significance for Jehoiachin in Ezekiel, we will argue that he plays a unique and important role: for Ezekiel, Jehoiachin provides a link from the present humiliation of exile to the future hope of 1. André Caquot, “Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” Sem 149 (1964): 22. 2. Thomas Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 76 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 224–25. 3. Bernhard Lang, Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978), 147–49. 4. Ibid., 149. 5. Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 173. 6. Daniel I. Block, “The Tender Cedar Sprig: Ezekiel on Jehoiachin,” HBAI 1 (2012): 173–202. 7. Ibid., 195–202.

90

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

91

restoration. We will organize our treatment of Jehoiachin in Ezekiel around the aphorism of 21:26[31]: ‫ַׁש ִּפיל‬ ְ ‫ּש ָפלָה ה ְַגּב ֵַה ְו ַהּגָב ֹ ַה ה‬ ָׁ ‫“( ַה‬Exalt the low and bring low the exalted”). This saying appears not only in the context of Zedekiah’s dethronement (here in ch. 21) but also in the prophecy concerning the exaltation of Jehoiachin’s line (17:24). While the aphorism is applicable in many contexts, one primary context for Ezekiel is the kings of Judah. For Ezekiel, the lowly one who is to be exalted corresponds to Jehoiachin in exile, while the exalted one to be brought low is Zedekiah. Ezekiel contrasts these two kings throughout his book and hence they must be understood together, especially because their fates have significance for the communities they represent. Using 21:26 as a rubric, I will first investigate the exalted one who is made low, surveying the texts related to Zedekiah and his punishment. Then, I will consider Jehoiachin as the lowly king in exile and conclude by discussing his exaltation. However, the terms “low” and “exalted” need clarification. Although the same roots ‫ ׁשפל‬and ‫ גבה‬appear in both halves of our theme verse, the meaning of ‫ ׁשפל‬is consistent in each case, while the meaning of ‫ גבה‬shifts. The “making low” of the exalted one refers to Zedekiah’s being put to shame, just as the “lowliness” of Jehoiachin is a function of his objective state of shame in exile. To use Jacqueline Lapsley’s categories, the lowliness of both kings is the external status of “disgrace-shame,” not the internal selfloathing of being ashamed, which Ezekiel identifies as a restoration benefit (e.g., 36:31). 8 But when Ezekiel speaks of “the exalted one being made low,” “exaltation” is not an objective status but the internal hubris of Zedekiah vis-à-vis Yahweh. 9 This empty pride contrasts with the future exaltation of Jehoiachin (or rather, his line), which will be a genuine, objective state of honor recognized by all. Zedekiah’s exaltedness is mere vainglory, while the exaltation promised to Jehoiachin is genuine glory. 10 These claims will be substantiated and amplified in the following analysis. 11 8. Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSymS 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 145–54. As Block notes, the varieties of shame in Ezekiel can also be viewed on a spectrum from public to private (“The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet,” in By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel [Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013], 64–65). 9. On hubris in the OT and the corresponding judgment of humiliation, see Donald E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament, PTMS 6 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975), esp. pp. 114–16. 10. These very different concepts of “highness” are well-attested in Ezekiel for the root ‫הבג‬: positive instances include 1:18; 17:22; 40:2; negative instances include 16:50; 28:2, 5, 17; 31:10, 14. 11. High and low are a common duality in the OT, often accompanied by the identification of Yahweh as the one who reverses people’s fortunes; cf. 1 Sam 2:4–10; Isa 2:9–

92

Chapter 5

Making Low the Exalted: The False David Deposed Four texts speak at length concerning Zedekiah’s sin and punishment, 12:1–16; 17:5–21; 19:10–14; 21:25–27[30–32]. With the exception of 21:25–27, each text employs coded language of some kind. In 12:1–16, Ezekiel executes a sign-act, bringing his baggage out and digging a hole. 12 The other two texts (17:7–21; 19:10–14) are extended metaphors or parables. Although our interest is primarily Jehoiachin, we first treat Ezekiel’s perspective on Zedekiah at length because Zedekiah is an important foil against whom Jehoiachin appears more clearly. Ezekiel 17:5–21 Chapter 17 is crucial for its treatment of both Zedekiah and Jehoiachin. 13 We will introduce the chapter here and examine its perspective on Zedekiah. As will be shown, chs. 17 and 19 have both Zedekiah and Jehoiachin in view. The detailed textual analysis undertaken here for understanding Ezekiel’s view of Zedekiah will thus provide the groundwork for my later comments concerning Jehoiachin in these texts. Ezekiel introduces the vine in v. 5 only after setting the stage with the cedar sprig in vv. 3–4, a text to which we will return below. Several features of Ezekiel’s description of the vine coincide to form an unequivocally negative portrayal of Zedekiah. 14 First, the text emphasizes Zedekiah’s faithlessness. The eagle plants the vine in ideal circumstances: its planting is in ‫( ְׂשדֵ ה־זֶרַ ע‬v. 5), a unique expression that probably means “a field specifically for planting” 15 (a fertile field; cf. ‫ׂשדֶה ּטֹוב‬ ָ in v. 8). The vine has ready access to abundant water (‫; ַמיִם רַ ִּבים‬ vv. 5, 8), a phrase that Ezekiel uses several times as a precursor to astonishing growth (19:10; 31:5, 7). 16 As the review of the eagle’s beneficence in 22; 10:33; Ps 18:27 [MT 28]; 75:7 [MT 8]. For a brief treatment of this theme in Ezekiel, see Lawrence Boadt, “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37,” HAR (1990): 18. 12. I do not treat ch. 12 and 21:25–27 for reasons of space and also because their perspectives on Zedekiah are largely repeated in the other texts I treat. 13. For discussion of the genre of Ezek 17, see appendix 3. 14. Virtually all commentators agree that the cedar sprig corresponds to Jehoiachin and the vine to Zedekiah. The correspondence is made clear by Ezekiel’s decoding of the imagery in vv.  11–21, which recalls 2  Kgs 24–25 both in content and language. See p.  95 n. 31. On the traditional image of the vine, see Lang’s excellent survey of the iconography (Kein Aufstand, 41–46), as well as Block’s summary of horticultural images for the Davidic line (Ezekiel 1–24, 550). 15. Assuming a genitive of species (IBHS §9.5.3g), where the absolute noun specifies what kind of field this is, as opposed to other kinds (cf. ‫;מקֹום זֶרַ ע‬ ְ Num 20:5). 16. Regarding the hapax ‫צ ְַפ ָצפָה‬, Louise Smith suggests “flowing stream,” based on the parallel with “abundant waters” and the hypothetical root ‫“( צוף‬The Eagle(s) of Ezekiel 17,” JBL 58 [1939]: 47–48; cf. Raymond S. Foster, “Note on Ezekiel 17:1–10 and 22–24,” VT 8 [1958]: 375; Lang, Kein Aufstand, 31). But the syntax of the line, ‫ׂשמֹו‬ ָ ‫צ ְַפ ָצפָה‬, indicates

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

93

v. 8 indicates, abundant fruitfulness and splendor were indeed the eagle’s objectives. After its planting, the vine begins in accordance with the eagle’s­ wishes (v. 6): it sprouts (‫)צמח‬, becomes a spreading vine, and puts forth shoots and branches. 17 Notwithstanding its growth, the vine remains properly humble­: it is low of height (‫)ׁש ְפלַת קֹומָה‬, ִ its roots are under the eagle, 18 and its branches extend toward it in a gesture of dependence. But the vine reverses this posture in v. 7 with the appearance of the second eagle. Although the second eagle is markedly inferior to the first and does nothing to benefit the vine as the first eagle did, 19 and although the vine has no lack of water where it is currently planted, the vine surprisingly turns toward the second eagle for water.  20 Verse 8 accents the impropriety of the vine’s actions by reiterating the abundance of its original provision. This comment prepares the reader for the challenging questions of vv. 9–10: will such a faithless vine thrive? 21 On the contrary, will it not be utterly judged, pulled up by its roots (v. 9) and left for the hot east wind to strike and wither (v. 10)? 22 The twofold use of ‫( צלח‬see also 15:4; 17:15), along with the imagery of water and plants, ironically recalls Ps 1:3: ‫ֲׂשה י ְַצ ִלי ַח‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר־יַע‬ ֶ ‫וכֹל א‬.ְ  23 Perhaps inspired that ‫ צ ְַפ ָצפָה‬is better understood as something to which the vine is being compared (G. Vanoni, “‫ׂשים‬,” ִ TDOT 14:100). The word ‫ צ ְַפ ָצפָה‬is attested in later Hebrew as a “willow tree,” which would often be found by abundant waters (Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 528; cf. Walther Zimmerli’s more general “shore growth”; Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24, trans. R. E. Clements, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 355), and thus I translate “he set it as a willow tree.” 17. Moshe Greenberg reads jussives here: “that it might sprout and become” (Ezekiel 1–20, AB 22 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983], 311). In this case, the vine does not even make a good beginning. 18. The third-person masculine suffix with ‫ ּתַ חַת‬most likely refers to the eagle since it is a commonplace to say that the roots are under the vine itself. 19. See the comparison in Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 531. 20. The sense of surprise is marked by the focus particle ‫ ְ;ו ִהּנֵה‬see BHRG §44.3.4. 21. On the text critical decision to read the interrogative hê in v. 9, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 529. 22. The clause ‫ָׁשי ָה‬ ֶ ‫אֹותּה ִמּשָׁר‬ ָ ‫ַׂשאֹות‬ ְ ‫ּובעַם־רָב ְלמ‬ ְ ‫א־בזְר ֹ ַע ּגְדֹולָה‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ְול‬in v. 9 is cryptic, but a case could be made for the paraphrase, “And neither [a people of] great strength nor a mighty people will be present when it is lifted from its roots” (understanding the preposition ‫ ב‬as “among,” not instrumentally, and ‫ַׂשאֹות‬ ְ ‫ מ‬nominally, which has more support than an Aramaizing infinitive). The clause predicts that Pharaoh’s great army will not be present when the Babylonians sack Jerusalem as Zedekiah had hoped (cf. the explanation in v. 17, with the similar language: ‫ּוב ָקהָל רָב‬ ְ ‫)ב ַחיִל ּגָדֹול‬. ְ The second eagle was not worthy of the vine’s trust. This proposal also eliminates the accusation that v. 17 is an attempt to cover up the historical inaccuracy of v. 9, which many read as saying that the Babylonians will not need to exert much strength to uproot the vine (Ellen F. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy, JSOTSup 78 [Sheffield: Almond, 1989], 100–101; Moshe Greenberg, “Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II,” JBL 76 [1957]: 304–9; contrast Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 545–46). 23. Psalm 1 is also a wisdom Psalm that shows the outcome of two different “ways” in a manner similar to how Ezek 17 contrasts the fate of the vine and the fate of the

94

Chapter 5

by Jeremiah’s own expansion on this psalm ( Jer 17:5–8), 24 Ezekiel identifies the wicked vine in his fable as the direct opposite of the thriving tree in Ps 1. According to the logic of Ps 1, how could the vine in its wickedness possibly prosper? Ezekiel’s fable allows the force of this logic to command his listeners’ assent before he springs the trap and unfolds how the story relates to their situation. In vv. 13–21, he connects the dots and exposes the true character of Zedekiah’s faithlessness. Ezekiel focuses on three dimensions of Zedekiah’s sin. First, Zedekiah has broken his vassal covenant with Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 15–16, 18–19). As Mein has noted, it is striking that Ezekiel would condemn Zedekiah for this rebellion when at other times the prophets have honored rebellion as an act of faith (e.g., 2 Kgs 19:20–34). 25 Lang explains Ezekiel’s condemnation on the basis of his pragmatic political agenda of submission to the Babylonians. 26 But this is reductionistic, especially given the theologically charged language of vv. 18–19. These verses indicate that when Zedekiah despised his vassal treaty with Nebuchadnezzar, he ultimately broke a commitment to Yahweh. Ezekiel 17 develops this point by subtly shifting the language from “his” (Nebuchadnezzar’s) covenant (vv. 14, 16) to “the covenant” (vv. 15, 18) to the emphatic “my [Yahweh’s] oath,” “my covenant” (v. 19). Thus, when Zedekiah rebels against Nebuchadnezzar, he is not simply showing ingratitude to the one who put him on the throne (vv. 13, 16), but is actually defying Yahweh, who is the guarantor of the treaty (cf. ‫ַל־ּבי‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ָמע‬ ֶ ‫ ; ַמעֲלֹו א‬v. 20). 27 This emphasis on Yahweh in vv. 11–21 presents a new dimension beyond the logic of the fable, which focuses on the ingratitude of the vine to the first eagle. Ezekiel grounds Zedekiah’s offense against Yahweh not only with the assumption that Zedekiah made the cedar­(note also how both end with a proverbial “moral”). Zimmerli also notes the wisdom motifs in Ezekiel 17 and touches briefly on the connection to Psalm 1 and Jeremiah 17 (Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 362). Michael A. Lyons notes that Ezekiel often uses as few as two to three key words to signal an allusion (From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code, LHBOTS 507 [New York: T&T Clark, 2009], 77). 24. In addition to the imagery of plants and water, Jer 17:5–8 also incorporates the destructive power of heat (v. 8) and the emptiness of trusting in human aid (v. 5). By analogy, the wicked vine is the “bush” who trusts in man and will wither. 25. Mein, Ethics of Exile, 87. Mein cites Gottwald, who finds Ezekiel’s severity against Zedekiah’s oath-breaking to be “unparalleled.” 26. This is also Lang’s overall thesis for Zedekiah’s significance in the book of Ezekiel. See Kein Aufstand, 181–86. 27. Davis and Greenberg distinguish between political and theological (and also eschatological) levels for interpreting this parable. For example, Ezekiel construes the vine’s demise both politically (Nebuchadnezzar’s revenge) and theologically (Yahweh’s judgment; Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 104; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 320). This distinction is useful but should not be overemphasized,because Ezekiel tends to conflate the two levels: the political and theological dimensions form one seamless interpretation of the parable.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

95

treaty in Yahweh’s name 28 but also with the legitimacy of Nebuchadnezzar as Yahweh’s vassal (see esp. 21:25–27[30–32]). Zedekiah pledged his obedience to Yahweh’s legitimate vassal in Yahweh’s name and then despised that oath. 29 Second, Ezekiel condemns Zedekiah for his empty hope in Egypt. Just as the vine “sent” (‫ ;ׁשלח‬v. 7) tendrils toward the second eagle, Zedekiah “sends” (‫ )ׁשלח‬envoys to Egypt requesting horses and troops (v. 15). This intensifies Zedekiah’s rebellion to the level of political adultery, a point Ezekiel vividly makes in 23:11–21. 30 The third element of Ezekiel’s condemnation of Zedekiah is less explicit, but the most foundational. Verse 13 says that Nebuchadnezzar took away the mighty of the land and imposed a vassal covenant on Zedekiah 31 so that Judah might be a lowly kingdom (‫ׁש ָפלָה‬ ְ ‫)מ ְַמ ָלכָה‬, not exalting itself 28. Matitiahu Tsevat gave the seminal articulation of this view (“Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel,” JBL 78 [1959]: 199–204), but Greenberg rejected it, claiming that there is no evidence that the neo-Babylonians had their vassals swear by the vassal’s gods (Ezekiel 1–20, 321–22). Against Greenberg’s critique, Laato adduces five more contemporary treaties where the vassal invokes his own gods (Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 160–61). Most modern interpreters follow Tsevat and Laato (e.g., Hans-Winfried Jüngling, “Eid und Bund in Ez 16–17,” in Der neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente, ed. Erich Zenger, QD 146 [Freiburg: Herder, 1993], 121–22; Mein, Ethics of Exile, 88; Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, VTSup 87 [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 61–62). Indeed, 2 Chr 36:13 demands it. However, this issue is really less important than the voluminous discussion might indicate, because Hezekiah probably also took a vassal oath in the name of Yahweh, and yet he is not condemned for his rebellion. As I discuss in my chapters on 2 Kings and Jeremiah, the more decisive issue is Nebuchadnezzar’s legitimacy as Yahweh’s vassal (see pp.  36–37, 73, 79), a point reinforced in Ezek 17 by the close identity between Nebuchadnezzar and Yahweh. 29. That Zedekiah’s sin was essentially covenant breaking finds support in the variety of covenant expressions here: ‫ ְּבִרית‬+ ‫( כרת‬v. 13); ‫( ַוּיָבֵא אֹתֹו ְּב ָאלָה‬v. 13); ‫ֶת־ּבִריתֹו‬ ְ ‫ׁשמֹר א‬ ְ ‫ִל‬ ְ ‫( ַהּמ ְַמ ִל‬v. 16); ‫ ָאלָה‬+ ‫( בזה‬v. 16, 18, 19); ‫ָמ ָדּה‬ ְ ‫( ְלע‬v. 14); ‫( מרד‬v. 15); ‫ּברית‬ ִ + ‫( פרר‬v. 15, 16, 18, 19); ‫יך‬ ‫( נָתַ ן יָדֹו‬v. 18); ‫( מעל‬v. 20). Cf. the indictment of all Israel’s covenant breaking using the same language in 16:59 (Umberto Cassuto, “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel,” in Bible, trans. Israel Abrahams, vol. 1 of Biblical and Oriental Studies [ Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973], 234). 30. Caquot suggests that Zedekiah’s alliance with Egypt recalls Deut 17:16, especially the prohibition on horses (“Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 16). 31. Some understand the phrase ‫ָקח‬ ָ ‫ ְואֶת־אֵילֵי ָה ָארֶץ ל‬in v. 13 to mean that Nebuchadnezzar also bound the nobles in covenant (Mein, Ethics of Exile, 89). But Wong and Jüngling convincingly argue that this phrase actually refers to the deportation of the nobles ( Jüngling, “Eid und Bund,” 121; Wong, Retribution, 59). To their arguments we add that Ezekiel bases his narrative in vv. 11–21 on 2 Kgs 24–25, and in 2 Kgs 24:15 the “taking of the ‘rams’ of the land” clearly refers to their exile. The following textual links support ְ ‫( בָא ֶמל‬Ezek 17:12; 2 Kgs 24:11); the idea that Ezek 17:11–21 is based on 2 Kgs 24–25: ‫ֶך־ ָּבבֶל‬ ְ ‫( ַהּמ ְַמ ִל‬Ezek 17:16; ‫( ַוּיִּקַ ח‬Ezek 17:13; 2 Kgs 24:12); ‫ ַוּיָבֵא‬. . . ‫( ָּב ֶבלָה‬Ezek 17:12; 2 Kgs 24:16); ‫֣יך‬ 2 Kgs 24:17); ‫ִמרָד־ּבֹו‬ ְ ‫( ַוּי‬Ezek 17:15; 2 Kgs 24:20).

96

Chapter 5

(‫;ל ִב ְל ִּתי ִה ְתנַּשֵׂא‬ ְ v. 14). 32 As the fable indicates, Zedekiah began as a properly humble vassal (v. 6). But when Zedekiah rebelled, this previous depiction of vassalage as lowliness prepares the reader to interpret rebellion as an act of pride. His faithlessness to Nebuchadnezzar and his alliance with Egypt were symptoms of his fatal haughtiness, a point we will develop later (I discuss 19:10–14 below). Thus, in the language of our theme verse (21:26[31]), Zedekiah is the high tree that will be made low. By his rebellion, he has shown himself deserving of judgment, and so Ezekiel ceases to ask whether Zedekiah will prosper (‫ ;צלח‬vv. 9, 10, 15) and begins to ask how he could possibly escape (‫ ;מלט‬v. 15). Because Yahweh will not countenance such arrogant defiance, Zedekiah faces a series of just consequences (vv. 16–21): his hopes for Egyptian assistance will fail (v. 17), foreign troops will blast him like hot wind (vv. 10, 21), 33 his suzerain will become his judge, and he will wither in Babylon (v. 16). Indeed, Zedekiah’s rebellion was ultimately against Yahweh, and so Yahweh was ultimately responsible for his exile. Thus, Ezekiel concludes by retelling Zedekiah’s judgment as the act of Yahweh the hunter, who ensnares him, judges him, and scatters all his helpers to the wind (vv. 19–21). Ezekiel 19:10–14 The allegorical lament in Ezek 19 reinforces and develops the perspectives on Zedekiah uncovered in ch. 17. To defend this claim, we must identify what parts of this text refer to Zedekiah. Before doing so, we will touch briefly on the question of the chapter’s genre. 34 Although the text calls itself a ‫( ִקינָה‬vv. 1, 14) and begins with a 3–2 lament rhythm, the text parodies a genuine lament in several ways. 35 The once-now scheme in laments usually contrasts the glories of the past with the humiliation of the present, but here the once-now pattern undermines the past, showing that the princes used their strength in shameful ways. The 32. The hithpael of ‫ נׂשא‬can have connotations of pride: see Num 16:3; 1 Kgs 1:5; Prov 30:32; Ezek 29:15. 33. This judgment is talionic: just as Zedekiah was faithless to his covenant, so also Egypt proves faithless to him. On the link between foreign troops and hot wind, see Lang, Kein Aufstand, 33. 34. See also the closely related discussion of Ezek 17’s genre in appendix 3. 35. For other connections to the lament genre, see Panc C. Beentjes, “What a Lioness Was Your Mother: Reflections on Ezekiel 19,” in On Reading Prophetic Texts: GenderSpecific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, ed. Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra, BibInt 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 22; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 591–93. For ways the text parodies lament, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 593–95. For other parodies of the lament genre, see Gale A. Yee, “The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14,” CBQ 50 (1988): 569–82. For an excellent discussion of parodies in the OT, see Will J. Kynes, “Beat Your Parodies into Swords, and Your Parodied Books into Spears: A New Paradigm for Parody in the Hebrew Bible,” BibInt 19 (2011): 276–310.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

97

occasion of the lament is also ironic: rather than lamenting the passing of a dead king as incongruous with his celebrated life, this lament lampoons living kings, treating their ignoble death as a certain reality that is justly due to them. 36 Finally, Ezekiel surprises the reader by incorporating the didactic (and perhaps entertaining?) genres of fable and riddle 37 in the midst of what promised to be a somber lament! Thus, Block concludes that Ezekiel “has taken the form of a qînâ and infused it with alien content.” 38 This transformation highlights that the function of this text is quite different from that of a typical lament. Ezekiel expresses grief over the bitter outcome of the Davidic monarchy, but the other genres indicate that Ezekiel is trying to subvert the audience’s view of the ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיאֵי י‬ ִ ‫נ‬. As will emerge below, Ezekiel is particularly concerned to undermine a distorted Zionism that claims inviolability for the Davidic king notwithstanding their sinful conduct. 39 Decoding the Symbols of Ezekiel 19 Scholarship on Ezek 19 has not reached a consensus on the basic interpretive issue of the identity of the lioness and her lions, the vine and its branches. True to its subgenre as a riddle, Ezekiel has stumped ages of listeners with his enigmatic language. The two main positions are as follows: 40 some interpreters see the first lion as Jehoahaz, the second lion as Zedekiah, and the strong vine branch also as Zedekiah. 41 This view often goes handin-hand with seeing the mother lioness/vine as Hamutal, the wife of Josiah 36. Leslie C. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, WBC 28 (Waco, TX: Word, 1994), 288; Beentjes, “Lioness,” 22. Corrine Carvalho makes a similar point about the city (“Putting the Mother Back in the Center: Metaphor and Multivalence in Ezekiel 19,” in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson, ed. John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook, LHBOTS 502 [New York: T&T Clark, 2009], 221). 37. Ezekiel signals the fable genre by using lions and vines as his main characters. See p. 208. The fable genre suggests that, as with ch. 17, this text is a political satire that demands the decoding of story elements into historical people and events. The intrusion of “Babylon” and “Egypt” (vv. 4, 9) reinforces this suggestion. ְ ‫ א‬as is typical for laments (cf. Lam 1:1), Ezekiel Rather than beginning with ‫אֵיכָה‬/‫ֵיך‬ begins with a question: ָ‫( מָה ִא ְּמך‬Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 594; on the translation “what is your mother?” as opposed to “what a lioness was your mother!” See ibid., 595–96). However, the riddle is not “what is your mother?” since Ezekiel answers that question immediately: she is a lionness. What is riddling about this text is the obscurity of his symbols’ referents. See my discussion of ‫ ִחידֹות‬on pp. 206–207. 38. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 595–96. 39. So also ibid, 595. On Ezekiel’s view of Zionism, see also p. 108; for a full treatment, see Thomas Renz, “The Use of the Zion Tradition in the Book of Ezekiel,” in Zion, City of Our God, ed. Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 77–103. 40. See the more thorough survey in Christopher T. Begg, “The Identity of the Princes in Ezekiel 19: Some Reflections,” ETL 65 (1989): 358–69. 41. So, e.g., Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 287; Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 254; Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 167–71; Lang,

98

Chapter 5

who bore both Jehoahaz and Zedekiah. 42 The second view understands the first lion to be Jehoahaz, the second lion to be either Jehoiachin or Jehoiakim, and the branch as Zedekiah. 43 On this view, the mother cannot be Hamutal, but instead is understood as either the Davidic dynasty, Jerusalem, or Judah. 44 In addition to these two main views (and their variations), several minority views are also defended. 45 This indeterminacy derives from several features of the text. First, the poetry is quite obscure at points and hence it is sometimes difficult to discern how many entities are in view and what is being predicated of each. For example, is the second lion raping the first lion’s widows (‫נֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ ) ַוּיֵדַ ע א ְַל ְמ‬or ravaging fortresses (several emendations possible) in v. 7? Or: to what does each of the pronouns refer throughout vv. 10–14? 46 A second factor contributing to indeterminacy is that when one attempts to align the description of each character with what is known of the final kings of Judah, some qualities match, but not all. The second lion is particularly challenging in this respect. Several genre considerations may help to move beyond this impasse. First, we must jettison the assumption that all the passage’s details must neatly interlock with some external referent. As I show in appendix 3, Ezekiel’s extended metaphors have a complexity and integrity of their own; hence, some story elements serve simply for the coherence of the parable itself and need not be ascribed to some external referent. Indeed, the riddle genre depends on a certain measure of misdirection, where extra information is present and the listener must discern which features to discard and which to regard as salient. Second, characters in parables can have complex Kein Aufstand, 102–3; 174; G. T. M. Prinsloo, “Lions and Vines: The Imagery of Ezekiel 19 in the Light of Ancient Near-Eastern Descriptions and Depictions,” OTE 12 (1999): 353. 42. See Eichrodt, Ezekiel, 254; Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 145. 43. So, e.g., Iain M. Duguid, Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel, VTSup 56 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 35; Erling Hammershaimb, “Ezekiel’s View of the Monarchy,” in Some Aspects of Old Testament Prophecy from Isaiah to Malachi (København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1966), 54, 58; Ralph W. Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 119; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 394. 44. See p. 104. 45. Begg and Block see Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim as the lions and both Jehoiachin and Zedekiah as represented in different ways in vv. 10–14 (Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 366–69; Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 598–611). Marjo C. A. Korpel offers the far-fetched proposal that the text is actually a reworked atbash cryptogram that was originally about Ahaziah and Jehoram (with Jezebel as the mother) (“Kryptogramme in Ezechiel 19 und im ‘IzbetSarta-Ostrakon,” ZAW 121 [2009]: 70–86). And a number of interpreters deny that the “riddle” is answerable at all, arguing instead that it is intentionally indeterminate (Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 159; Ramón Alfredo Dus, Las parábolas del reino de Judá: Lingüística textual y communicación (Ez 17; 19; 21) [Paraná, Argentina: Pontificia Univ Católica Argentina, 2003], 318; Rudolf Mosis, Das Buch Ezechiel: Teil 1, Kap. 1,1–20,44 [Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1978], 228; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 356–57). 46. I discuss both these issues below.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

99

referents. For example, the traveler in Nathan’s parable (2 Sam 12:4) seems to be a red herring and refers to no one in particular. 47 Or in the case of Jehoash’s parable (2 Kgs 14:9), the wild beast seems to point to the same entity ( Jehoash and his army) as the cedar in that story (note also the apparently superfluous detail about marriage). 48 These observations prepare the way for our conclusion that the first lion corresponds to Jehoahaz, the second lion to Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin (viewed as one offshoot of Josiah’s family tree), and the strong branch (vv. 11– 12, 14) to Zedekiah. The mother lioness/vine probably refers to the people of Jerusalem (or perhaps the people of Judah more broadly). I will argue these conclusions by first surveying what the text says about each character and then aligning those traits with our historical knowledge of each king. That the first lion corresponds to Jehoahaz is largely undisputed, mainly because he is the only Davidic king to be exiled to Egypt. 49 However, there is still an element of misdirection: the first lion’s only action is to tear prey and devour men (v. 3), but it is unclear what kind of “cannibalistic” oppression could be in view. 50 Apart from Jehoahaz doing “evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that his fathers had done” (2 Kgs 23:32), we have no knowledge that he oppressed the people in his brief three-month reign. ( Jer 22:10–12 mentions no moral failings.) Notwithstanding this hesitation (which may be due simply to our lack of data), the first lion is still readily identifiable as Jehoahaz on the basis of his exile to Egypt. We therefore agree with Begg that, because the first lion is readily identifiable, the reader is encouraged to seek a similar, concrete identification for the other characters in the story. 51 Identifying the second lion is the main interpretive dilemma in this chapter­. Verse 5 indicates that his rise to power is linked to the disappointment of the mother lion’s hope that the first lion will return. 52 The second lion is thus temporally after the first. The language of the lioness “setting him as a young lion” (‫ָתהּו‬ ְ ‫ׂשמ‬ ָ ‫)ּכ ִפיר‬ ְ is vague. If the lioness is to be understood 47. See Jeremy Schipper’s fascinating treatment in Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 48–51. 48. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 238–39. 49. Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 358–59. 50. Greenberg voices a common objection that it seems unlikely that Jehoahaz could have “won a reputation of being a maneater in three months” (Ezekiel 1–20, 356; cf. Davis, Swallowing the Scroll, 159; Mosis, Ezechiel, 226). 51. Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 367. 52. Several emendations have been proposed for the form ‫חלָה‬ ֲ ‫( נֹו‬e.g., Julius A. Bewer, “Textual and Exegetical Notes on the Book of Ezekiel,” JBL 72 [1953]: 158–59). We could translate “proved foolish” if we accept BHS’s emendation from ‫ יחל‬to ‫( יאל‬see Eich­ rodt, Ezekiel, 249). However, Allen points out (Ezekiel 1–19, 249) that the lioness just repeats her previous action, making this emendation problematic. Block rightly observes that the “MT yields a tolerable sense if the verb is understood as a passive, ‘she was made to wait,’ i.e., her wait was frustrated” (Ezekiel 1–24, 596).

100

Chapter 5

as the people, it is doubtful that this detail refers to the people enthroning a man as king (as we see for Jehoahaz in 2 Kgs 23:30). Instead, this detail brings narrative coherence to the fable on the basis of the parallel between v. 3 and v. 5. If it does have historical significance, it may refer simply to the young lion emerging from among the people. While some of the language in vv. 6 –9 echoes the description of the first lion, 53 the second lion clearly surpasses the first lion in arrogance and aggression. He not only devours men (v. 6) but rapes widows 54 and lays cities waste (v. 7), suggesting an intense oppression of the people. He evidences his pride not only in walking about among other lions (which suggests international diplomacy with other kings), but also in his roaring, 55 which generates disgust in the land and the surrounding nations. This wantonness leads the nations (ironically!) to deliver the land from the lion, and they do so with greater force than previously: he is captured, caged, 56 and brought to the king of Babylon and thence to Babylon itself. To whom can all this refer? Table 3 shows the challenge of assigning all these attributes to any of the final kings. The difficulty in finding a simple match motivates us to seek a different solution. Before we can defend our solution, we must examine vv. 10–14. Verse 10 introduces a new image, that of the vine. Like the lioness in vv. 2–9, the vine corresponds to the “mother” of the princes of Judah. 57 And 53. Verse 6b–d matches v. 3b–d exactly. 54. Against the proposed emendations, see Christopher T. Begg’s defense of the MT, where he argues that Jehoiakim took over his brother Jehoahaz’s harem after the latter’s deportation (“The Reading in Ezekiel 19:7a: A Proposal,” ETL 65 [1989]: 378–79). “Rape” is a strong translation of ‫ידע‬, but “knew” seems too vague and weak in this aggressive context (cf. P. J. Botha, “The Socio-Cultural Background of Ezekiel 19,” OTE 12 [1999]: 250). Although Ezekiel is probably breaking frame here to speak directly about human activities, the image of raping widows even makes sense in a leonine context. Block points out that “Unlike most other felines, lions are sociable animals, living in prides, with a dominant male as king. . . . With a change in leadership in a pride of lions, the new king of the pride claims all the females of the deposed, deceased, or departed lord, and becomes the sire of all the young” (Ezekiel 1–24, 602). 55. Walking among other lions: Beentjes, “Lioness,” 28; Caquot, “Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 8. Roaring: Botha points out that “the roaring of a lion was often used as a symbol of greedy arrogance and destruction in the Old Testament, and similarly the silencing of a lion’s roar was used as a symbol of the shaming and dishonouring of arrogant powers” (“Socio-Cultural Background,” 257). Botha offers an excellent exposition of pride and shame in Ezek 19. 56. Delivering the land: Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 605. Greater force: Note ‫ָביב‬ ִ ‫ִּתנּו ָעלָיו ּגֹויִם ס‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ in v. 8, which suggests a siege, along with the use of ‫ֶׁשת‬ ֶ ‫ ר‬and ‫ ְמצֹדֹות‬in vv. 8–9, all of which is not present in v. 4. Caged: Block traces the hapax ‫ סּוגַר‬to the Akk. sigaru (“neck-stock”; Ezekiel 1–24, 597). 57. Why does Ezekiel switch images? Perhaps he does so because the vine recalls Ezekiel’s previous uses of this image, both of which are negative: ch. 15 indicts vine wood as worthless and ch. 17 indicts the vine for fickleness. Karin Schöpflin suggests that

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

101

Table 3.  Applicability of the Second Lion’s Predicates to the Final Kings of Judah King

Predicates That Fit

Jehoiakim

Reigned immediately after Jehoahaz Reputation for oppressing the people Extensive foreign relations City was besieged under his rule

Predicates That Do Not Fit Was not exiled to Babylona

Jehoiachin City was besieged under his rule Was exiled to Babylon

Did not reign immediately after Jehoahaz No reputation for oppressing the people No extensive foreign relations

Zedekiah

Did not reign immediately after Jehoahaz

Reputation for oppressing the people Extensive foreign relations City was besieged under his rule Was brought to the king of Babylon Was exiled to Babylon

a. For the question of Jehoiakim’s death, see p. 12 n. 7.

just as the lioness raised cubs, the vine has its strong branches. The distinction between the vine and her branches has not always been preserved in discussions of this text, but this distinction is essential for a proper interpretation. Ezekiel preserves this distinction by deliberate use of masculine and feminine grammatical genders. 58 Although Hebrew poetry often switches between genders for stylistic reasons, 59 in this context gender is forefronted: the mother is clearly feminine; her sons are clearly masculine. Ezekiel also maintains a consistent gender distinction in the grammar of vv. 2–9. In vv. 10–14, if we understand the masculine gender to refer to the branches and the feminine gender to refer to the vine, the following outline can be proposed: chs. 17 and 19 were originally companion pieces on the basis of their fable-like qualities (“The Composition of Metaphorical Oracles Within the Book of Ezekiel,” VT 55 [2005]: 117–18), although there are important differences in Ezekiel’s use of the imagery, as I will show. 58. So also William Hugh Brownlee, “Two Elegies on the Fall of Judah (Ezekiel 19),” in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 99. 59. Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, JSOTSup 26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 123–28.

102

Chapter 5

v. 10:  Setting: your mother is like a vine, on abundant waters, bearing fruit and making boughs (all fem. grammatical forms). 60 v. 11a–b: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence begins: she had strong branches fit for ruler’s scepters (mother: fem.; ‫ מַּטֹות‬and ‫ׁש ִלים‬ ְ ֹ ‫ׁש ְבטֵי מ‬: ִ masc.). v. 11c: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence continues: his height (= the height of one of the branches) is in the midst the clouds (suffix of ‫קֹומָתֹו‬: masc.). v. 11d: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence continues: he (= the tall strong one of v. 11c): was seen in his arrogance on account of the abundance of his foliage (masc. verb form). v. 12: (wayyiqtol ) Temporal sequence continues, a progressive series of actions (qatal verbs governed by the wayyiqtol  61 ):   v. 12a:  the mother-vine is uprooted (fem. verb form).   v. 12b:  she is cast down (fem. verb form).   v. 12c:  the east wind dries up her fruit (possessive suffix: fem.).   v. 12d:  the strong branch is cast down and withered (masc. forms).   v. 12e:  fire consumes him (masc. suffix). v. 13: (‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬+ participle) shift in time frame to the present, showing results of v. 12: the vine is planted in the desert, in a dry and thirsty land (fem. ptc.). v. 14a–b: (wayyiqtol) pluperfect, reflecting back on v. 12: 62 fire had gone out from the branch into the vine’s other boughs (‫ַּטה‬ ֶ ‫ מ‬is masc.; the suffix on ‫ בֶַּדי ָה‬is fem.), 63 fire had eaten her fruit (the suffix on ‫ ִּפ ְריָּה‬is fem.). v. 14c–d: (‫ ְ)ולֹא־ ָהיָה‬conclusion (back to the present): no strong branch (‫ַּטה‬ ֶ ‫ ;מ‬masc.) is left in the vine (‫ ;בָּה‬suffix is fem.), no scepter for ruling (‫ׁשבֶט‬ ֵ ; masc.).

60. Bewer argues for an emendation from ‫ כגפן בדמך‬to ‫“ כגפן בדים כי‬like a vine full of shoots, because planted by water” (“Textual and Exegetical Notes,” 159), an argument confirmed independently by Mitchell Joseph Dahood, who argues for the rare relative ‫“( כי‬which”) (“Ezekiel 19,10 and Relative Kî,” Bib 56 [1975]: 97–98). I tentatively adopt Bewer’s translation for lack of a better suggestion. 61. BHRG §21.3.1. 62. A wayyiqtol can convey a pluperfect sense (IBHS §33.2.3), but here this translation must overcome the shift to the present time frame signaled by ‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬in v. 13. Parallel constructions (where ‫ ְוע ַָּתה‬introduces a clause, followed by a wayyiqtol that is likely pluperfect in meaning) appear in 2 Sam 7:28 and 1 Kgs 1:18–19 (and perhaps 1 Kgs 22:23), indicating that this shift is possible. That this is probable here emerges from how v. 14 describes a fiery destruction leading to withering, echoing v. 12. Unless two destructions are in view, v. 14 is almost certainly pluperfect. Begg and Block do detect separate destructions, arguing that Jehoiachin is the branch in vv. 10–12, while Zedekiah is a separate branch in v. 14 (Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 367; Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 610; idem, “Transformation of Royal Ideology in Ezekiel,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PrinTMS 127 [Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010], 223–24). While possible, there is little in the text to signal that a new branch has come into view. Rather, the vine’s being removed to the desert in v. 13 (note the feminine participle ‫)ׁשתּולָה‬ ְ demands that we interpret v. 14 as retrospective, dwelling further on the same destruction described in v. 12. As Klein observes, this repeated attention to the vine’s destruction is a kind of “overkill,” emphasizing the finality of its destruction (Ezekiel, 120). Also, the capture of Jehoiachin in 597 was not a destruction; Jerusalem was only destroyed in 586. 63. The other branches probably refer to other possible heirs to the throne.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

103

This outline demonstrates that there are basically three entities in this narrative: (1) the vine, with her accompanying fruit, branches, and boughs; (2)  one strong branch, whose arrogance brings about the downfall of the whole vine (v. 11c–d); 64 and (3) the destructive agents of the east wind and the fire. Within this context, Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin together are the best fit for the second lion, and Zedekiah is the strong branch of vv. 10–14. 65 At first glance, table 3 indicates that Zedekiah is a very strong candidate for the second lion. Indeed, we could add further that in v. 8 the language of being caught in a net and a snare (‫ִתּפָׂש‬ ְ ‫ׁש ָּתם ְּבׁשַ ְח ָּתם נ‬ ְ ‫ִפ ְרׂשּו ָעלָיו ִר‬ ְ ‫ ) ַוּי‬and being ְ ‫ְבאֻהּו אֶל־ ֶמל‬ brought to the king of Babylon (‫ֶך ָּבבֶל‬ ִ ‫ ) ַוי‬strongly recalls Zedekiah’s fate in 17:20 (cf. 12:13). 66 However, this identification is dubious for the following reasons. First, the chapter’s epithet indicates that this lamentation is for the ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיאֵי י‬ ִ ‫נ‬. Because Ezekiel often uses ‫ָׂשיא‬ ִ ‫ נ‬to designate the kings of Judah, the title could indicate that all the kings of Judah will come under fire here. The closing lines of the poem strengthen this possibility: “there remains in it [the vine] no strong stem, no scepter for ruling” (vv. 14c–d ESV). While not conclusive, Ezekiel would more effectively accomplish this purpose if he considered each line from Josiah in turn, showing their moral bankruptcy and then their unequivocal judgment. 67 If only Jehoahaz and Zedekiah were in view, then the conclusion in v. 14 makes little sense. Second, understanding Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin as the second lion preserves a simple historical order in the imagery. 68 Because Jehoahaz is the first lion, Jehoiakim would be the audience’s first guess as the second lion, a guess that need not be discouraged by the Babylonians’ capture of this lion, because Nebuchadnezzar indeed made an end of Jehoiakim’s dynasty. 64. Arrogance is suggested not only by the height of the scepters (‫ּגֹבַּה‬, ‫ ;קֹומָה‬v. 11), but perhaps even by the idea that vine wood could possibly be fit for scepters when Ezekiel has already ridiculed vine wood as useless even for a peg (15:3)! On the unfitness of height for vines, see Brownlee’s intriguing observation that in modern Middle Eastern viticulture, vines are left to grow on the ground to protect them against the scorching syrocco (“Two Elegies on the Fall of Judah [Ezekiel 19],” 1:100–101). 65. Caquot is one of the few to suggest this opinion: “La faute est le fait du père, le châtiment frappe le fils” (“Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 10). However, he does not argue his point except to say that it is in line with the thrust of Jer 22:24–30, where Jehoiachin bears the condemnation of his father. For the few others who support a “montage” reading of the second lion, see Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 364–65. 66. So Mein, Ethics of Exile, 93. 67. In this way, though different in genre, Ezek 19 and Jer 22 have very similar purposes; cf. Begg, who says Ezekiel models his words on Jer 22:10–23:8 (“Identity of the Princes,” 367–68). 68. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 605. As Begg notes, Ezekiel has been successive in both chs. 17 and 18 (“Identity of the Princes,” 366).

104

Chapter 5

One needs only to extend the referent of the second lion to include Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin. 69 Also, seeing vv. 10–14 as historically consecutive to vv. 2–9 helps resolve a loose end: v. 9 ends with no word about the lioness. Could she not raise up another cub? This closure only appears in vv. 12–14, where the vine (which replaces the lioness image) is cast into a desert land where she can produce no further offspring that would suit as kings. Third, as the reuse of the vine image in this chapter demonstrates, Ezekiel does not slavishly reuse the same language and imagery in the way he used it previously. 70 Hence, we should not put too much weight on the reuse of language between 19:9 and 17:20, as though the capture by net in both instances must refer to the same thing. Nevertheless, the common language and imagery should be noted and assessed for its rhetorical force, and here it seems that Ezekiel uses common language in 19:9 and 17:20 to show that Jehoiachin suffered the same demise as Zedekiah. 71 As my discussion of genre shows (appendix 3), the relationship of symbols to reality can be complex. My suggestion that the second lion refers simultaneously to Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin is not far-fetched, especially because these two could be viewed as one dynastic offshoot from Josiah. This proposal capitalizes on the strengths of both the arguments for identifying the lion as Jehoiachin and the arguments for identifying him as Jehoiakim, 72 while avoiding their weaknesses. Finally, what does the “mother” symbolize? We can set aside the proposal that she is Hamutal, the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah 73 by our argu69. This extension is more natural than other proposals from those who understand Jehoiakim to be the second lion. Block suggests that the oft-forgotten exile of 604–603 BC is in view (see Dan 1:1; Ezekiel 1–24, 606), but this could not constitute the silencing of Jehoiakim’s roaring since he continues his rebellious policies for several years thereafter. Begg offers a vague note that Jehoiakim going to Babylon and being gathered to his fathers need not contradict each other (“Identity of the Princes,” 369), but this contradicts the normal usage of “being gathered to his fathers,” which implies burial in the land (Lipschits, “‘Jehoiakim Slept With His Fathers,’” 9–10). The Talmud constructs the following harmonization: “Nebuchadnezzar returned and shackled Yehoyakim with the intention of taking him captive to Babylon. However, before this could be done, Yehoyakim died within Eretz Yisrael ” (Moshe Eisemann, Yechezkel: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources, ATS [Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1988], 278). But there is no evidence for this reconstruction. For further details on this point, see p. 12 n. 7. 70. As Brevard S. Childs remarks, “the same images continue to be used throughout the book often with a different meaning, but nevertheless calling up echoes of the other passages. . . . The imagery of the vine is played upon in chs. 15, 17, and 19, each time with a different set of nuances” (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 364). 71. Schöpflin, “Metaphorical Oracles,” 116. 72. Lion as Jehioachin: e.g., Klein, Ezekiel, 119. Lion as Jehoiakim: e.g., Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 605–6. 73. See p. 98 n. 42.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

105

ment that Jehoiakim is present, whom she did not bear. Given how little we know of her, it is also unlikely that she would garner such attention from the prophet. 74 The other proposals for the identity of the mother are that she represents the people (either Jerusalem or Judah 75) or that she stands for the Davidic dynasty as a whole. 76 It is difficult to negotiate between the two, since both options meet the most basic criterion of being the origin of the Davidic kings. However, several considerations point in favor of seeing the mother as the people, specifically the people of Jerusalem. First, the Davidic dynasty is a more abstract entity, and it is difficult to conceive of it “being made to wait” (v. 5) or setting up kings to rule. Second, female characters often stand for peoples or cities in Ezekiel (e.g., chs. 16, 23), and the image of major cities as mothers is a well-known trope in the OT (e.g., 2 Sam 20:19; Isa 49:14–18) and the ancient Near East. 77 Finally, the motif of the people suffering for the sin of their leaders is a noticeable theme in Ezekiel (e.g., 11:1–13), and the people of Jerusalem being destroyed on account of Zedekiah’s folly makes good sense as an interpretation of vv. 12 and 14. Identifying the mother as the people of Jerusalem heightens Ezekiel’s lament, for the rulers brought punishment not only on themselves, but all whom they represented. Zedekiah in Ezekiel 19 Having determined that the strong branch in vv. 10–14 corresponds to Zedekiah, how do these verses add to Ezekiel’s overall depiction of this king? To answer this question adequately, we must recognize two allusions. First, many observe that Ezekiel enhances his mock lament with a parody of Jacob’s blessing of Judah in Gen 49:8–12. 78 We will return to the lion imagery in our discussion of 19:5–9 (pp.  114–116), but here note how 19:10–14 continues the allusion to Gen 49 by juxtaposing lions with scepters 74. Caquot, “Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 7. 75. Jerusalem: Block, “Royal Ideology,” 215. Judah: Beentjes, “Lioness,” 25–29; G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (New York: Scribners­, 1937), 205; Hammershaimb, “Ezekiel’s View of the Monarchy,” 57. 76. Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 287; Martin Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Dwight R. Daniels, Uwe Gleßmer, and Martin Rösel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991), 221; Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 394. 77. Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Ezekiel,” in NIB (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 1221–25; Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1992), 20–23; John J. Schmitt, “The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother,” RB 92 (1985): 568. 78. For a listing of the linguistic parallels, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 603–4, 608. Others who recognize the connection include Begg, “Identity of the Princes,” 366; Botha, “Socio-­cultural Background,” 256; W. L. Moran, “Gen 49:10 and Its Use in Ezek 21:32,” Bib 39 (1958): 423; Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 138, 140.

106

Chapter 5

and vines. In Gen 49, the scepter symbolizes Judah’s supremacy and the vine symbolizes his consequent prosperity (vv.  10–12), 79 but Ezekiel subverts both by burning the staffs and the promised fruit (v. 14). In a particularly striking move, Ezekiel says that the fire has come out from the branch. 80 As 2 Kgs 25 and Jer 38:21–23 make clear, Zedekiah’s stubborn refusal to capitulate stoked the flames of Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath, which led to the razing of Jerusalem and the mass deportation of Judah. The kings have become a source of shame instead of glory for the people of Judah. Complementary themes emerge from the second allusion involving Ps 80. 81 That text compares Israel to a vine removed from Egypt and planted in the land (vv. 8 –9). There it grows to huge dimensions, covering mountains and reaching from the (Mediterranean) sea to the river Euphrates (vv. 10– 11). But for no apparent reason, 82 Yahweh breaks down the hedges around this vine and subjects it to the destructive whims of passers-by and beasts of the field (vv. 12–13). Hence, the people voice their complaint against Yahweh (vv. 4–6) and plead with him for restoration (vv. 7, 14–19). The linguistic and thematic links that signal this allusion also show Ezekiel to be engaged in another parody. 83 Psalm 80 portrays the vine as a Weltenbaum (“world-tree”), but in a positive manner, for Yahweh himself 79. The use of ‫ מַּטֹות עֹז‬in v. 11 reinforces the Davidic reversals by hinting at Ps 110:2. 80. On Ezekiel using this image (which recalls Jotham’s fable [ Judg 9:15] and also the hair sign act [Ezek 5:4]) to indict Zedekiah, see Allen, Ezekiel 1–19, 290; Charles R. Biggs, The Book of Ezekiel, EC (London: Epworth, 1996), 58. 81. The following links suggest this allusion: both vines (‫ ) ֶּגפֶן‬are described using the rare word ‫( ָענֵף‬Ps 80:10[11]; Ezek 19:10); both have a common narrative of astonishing growth followed by burning with fire (‫ ;)אֵׁש‬and both employ the Weltenbaum motif extensively. However, few interpreters notice the link. An exception is Moshe Greenberg, who notes it in passing (“Notes on the Influence of Tradition on Ezekiel,” JANES 22 [1993]: 32–33). Thomas Hieke thinks that Ezek 19:10–14 has hints of P 80 and notes that the two texts use the Weltenbaum image in the opposite manner (“Der Exodus in Psalm 80: Geschichtstopik in den Psalmen,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, ed. M. Vervenne, BETL 126 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996], 553). 82. The focus in Ps 80 is on Yahweh’s turning, not the people’s sin (Howard N. Wallace, “Harvesting the Vineyard: The Development of Vineyard Imagery in the Hebrew Bible,” in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis, ed. Mark A O’Brien and Howard N. Wallace, JSNTSup 415 [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 124). 83. Parody requires that Ps 80 precede Ezek 19 (for the issue of direction, see the important methodological remarks in Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, JSOTSup 180 [Sheffield: Sheffield, 1999], 55–59, 112, 230; for an excellent discussion of parody, see Yee, “Parody,” 565–69). Bernard Gosse notes connections between Ps 80 and Ezek 17, but believes that Ps 80 is inspired by Ezekiel (“Le Psaume 80 dans le cadre du Psautier et Ezechiel 17,” SJOT 19 [2005]: 57–60). However, Hieke’s point that Ps 80 seems to have no knowledge of Ezek 19 (or other developments; “Der Exodus in Psalm 80,” 553) is more convincing, especially given Ezekiel’s propensity to satirical uses of previous traditions.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

107

planted the vine and its growth stretched over the borders promised to the fathers (Exod 23:31; Deut 11:24). 84 The Weltenbaum trope involves the tree being composite, incorporating excellent qualities (especially height) from many different plants. 85 Therefore, the height of the vine in Ps 80 does not indicate presumption or distortion, but rather honor. 86 Ezekiel 19 also employs Weltenbaum imagery, 87 but in Ezek 19, the height of the vine is the single clear reason for its indictment (v. 11). The magnitude of the vine’s height is what makes it offensive, for its height stretches to (or above?) the clouds (‫)ו ִַּת ְגּבַּה קֹומָתֹו עַל־ּבֵין עֲב ִֹתים‬. 88 But the clouds (‫ )עָב‬are the traditional abode of Yahweh, 89 and hence Zedekiah is usurping divine prerogatives. Thus, no further justification is needed for his judgment. Taken together, Ezek 19 and Ps 80 qualify each other: honor is proper for a king (Ps 80), but only within limits (Ezek 19). 90 As I will show below, the book of Ezekiel is On Ezekiel’s use of previous traditions, see Greenberg, “Tradition in Ezekiel”; Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah, JSOTSup 358 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 111; Schöpflin, “Metaphorical Oracles,” 113; William A. Tooman, “Transformation of Israel’s Hope: The Reuse of Scripture in the Gog Oracles,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed.  William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PrinTMS 127 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 50–110. 84. As John Goldingay notes (Psalms 2: Psalms 42–89, BCOTWP [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 539), the tree has a Davidic hue, since these borders were realized in the height of Solomon’s power (1 Kgs 4:21 [MT 5:1]). 85. Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 200, 217. 86. This is the most common use of this ancient topos: the king is portrayed as “Perfect Man” (Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy,” JNES 52 [1993]: 168); the source of life (Geo Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion, UUA 4 [Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1951], 42–58); and as generally incomparable (Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 209). 87. Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 222. See Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 187–89 for a survey of tree imagery in the ancient Near East and its application in Ezekiel. Block concludes that the differences are more important than the similarities: Ezekiel’s use of this theme is primarily political, not mythological, and his monotheism permits no allusions to the gods. 88. The composite preposition ‫ עַל־ּבֵין‬is only found here (however, see 31:10). The word ‫ עָבֹות‬could refer to dense foliage (Lev 23:40; Ezek 6:13; Ezek 20:28; Neh 8:15), but as Lawrence Boadt argues, it is incoherent that the tip of the tree would be among branches. See his full argument in Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32, BibOr 37 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980), 103–5. 89. Exod 19:9; Job 22:14; 36:29. In other texts, the clouds are Yahweh’s chariot: Ps 18:11 (MT 12); 104:3; Isa 19:1. On the motif of going up into clouds as pride, see Job 20:6; Isa 14:14; Ezek 31:3, 10, 14. 90. See Nicolas Wyatt, “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements in West Semitic Royal Ideology,” UF 18 (1986): 427–29. In contrast with Ezek 19, nothing in Ps 80 suggests that the tree has this illegitimate, over-reaching grandeur.

108

Chapter 5

replete with kings who are not content with their human dignity but aspire to divine glory. 91 While the pride of Jehoiakim is more clear (vv. 5–9), the content of Zedekiah’s pride is unspecified in 19:10–14. However, earlier texts in Ezekiel suggest two possibilities: (1) that worthless vine wood (ch. 15) would aspire to be a kingly scepter and (2) that Zedekiah would rebel against his suzerain, Yahweh (ch. 17). 92 Whereas Ps 80 recalls the glorious expanse of Israel’s realm, Ezek 19 shows that it was the Davidides who brought on the ruin of the great Weltenbaum. These ironic allusions heighten the power of Ezekiel’s pseudo-lament. In defiance of Zionist misreadings of Gen 49:8–12 (and other pro-Davidic texts), Ezekiel insists that the Davidic dynasty is entirely vulnerable to God’s wrath and has already begun to suffer it. Ezekiel also isolates the basis for God’s anger: the sons of David have proven to be oppressors of God’s people instead of their defenders, a distortion that has its roots ultimately in pride. We first encounter this pride in Jehoiakim’s brazen roaring, but then in the strong branch, whose posturing as a semi-divine Weltenbaum led to death instead of life for Judah. For all his satire, in the end Ezekiel’s use of the lament genre proves quite suitable: the monarchy, which was intended to be a blessing for Israel, became by the pride of the kings a source of utter cursing. Other Exalted Ones Made Low This extensive treatment of Zedekiah is necessary because he is a foil to Jehoiachin (seen particularly in their juxtaposition in Ezek 17). However, while Zedekiah is the most important foil, he is not the only one in Ezekiel. Ezekiel also attacks the Judean monarchy and ruling class as a whole for 91. As Lawrence Boadt demonstrates, the portrayal of Zedekiah in Ezek 19:10–14 is especially close to that of Pharaoh in Ezek 31 (“Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment,” in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation, ed. J. Lust, BETL 74 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986], 193–94). The use of the same fallen Weltenbaum imagery suggests that Zedekiah is no better than the pagan Pharaoh: “both are guilty of divine hubris” (ibid., 194). 92. Another hint is afforded by the contrastive introduction to Ezek 19: ‫ַּתה‬ ָ ‫“ ְוא‬But as for you.” While the possibility of reclamation may be held out in Ezekiel 18, no such repentance is possible among the ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיאֵי י‬ ִ ‫נ‬: they have shown their innate worthlessness time and again, and nothing is left but to judge them. This contrast is one reason we disagree with Laato’s view that the generations in Ezek 18 correspond to Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin (see Josiah and David Redivivus, 173; A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations, USFISFCJ 5 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], 157). Another reason is that Laato’s argument rests entirely on the parataxis of oracles concerning the kings (chs. 17, 19) and ch. 18. But this alternation between oracles concerning leadership and oracles concerning the people is a pattern that extends at least from ch. 12 through ch. 21. This pattern is another expression of the solidarity between king and people.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

109

its destructive pride (7:27; 22:6, 25; 34:1–10; 43:7–9; 45:8–9; 46:18). 93 But for Ezekiel, three instances of hubris (besides Zedekiah) are particularly monstrous: the nāgîd of Tyre, the Pharaoh of Egypt, and Gog of Magog. Ezekiel does not directly contrast Jehoiachin with these three figures, but they manifest the pattern of God making low the high in poignant ways and thus deserve brief treatment. The same narrative of pride followed by humiliation that we have seen for Zedekiah obtains for the nāgîd of Tyre. 94 The heart of the nāgîd is lifted up (ָ‫ ;ָּגבַּה ִל ְּבך‬28:2), he styles himself as God (28:2), and he boasts of his wisdom and riches (vv. 3–5). Yet precisely because of his pride he will be made very low, sunk to the bottom of the seas (vv. 7–10). Verses 11–19 tell of the nāgîd ’s fall, styling him in Adamic categories in order to subvert his boasting. 95 Ezekiel artfully exposes Pharaoh’s pride in ch. 31. 96 The first half of the text (vv. 2–9) reads as genuine praise for Assyria (to which Pharaoh is compared), 97 with little to derail this interpretation until v. 10, where Ezekiel­shows the height (‫ )ּגֹבַּה‬of the tree for what it really is: haughtiness. Ezekiel accomplishes this subversion by first describing Assyria (and by implication, Pharaoh; cf. v. 18) as a Weltenbaum of incomparable grandeur (vv. 2–9). Indeed, its magnificence surpasses the cedars of the garden of God (v. 9). 98 But as with the vine in ch. 19, the tip of the cedar reaches to the clouds (‫ֲבֹותים‬ ִ ‫)אֶל־ּבֵין ע‬, and its heart is lifted up (‫ָבהֹו‬ ְ ‫)ורָם ְלבָבֹו ְּבג‬. ְ Yahweh 93. Klein argues text critically that Ezek 22:25 is about the ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ְׂש‬ ִ ‫נ‬, not the ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ְב‬ ִ‫נ‬ (Ezekiel, 120–21). See Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 73. A core concern that surfaces repeatedly in these texts is oppression of the weak, where rulers exalt themselves (sometimes violently) at the expense of others. As Timothy S. Laniak writes, “The perennial problem with kingship was the tendency to forget whose the people were” (Shepherds after My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible, NSBT 20 [Leicester: Apollos, 2006], 152). See Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 33–43. 94. Note the repeated fate of being “cast to the ground” (‫ ׁשלך‬+ ‫ ; ֶארֶץ‬19:12; 28:17) and consumed by fire that comes from within (19:12, 14; 28:18). See Tova Ganzel, “The Descriptions of the Restoration of Israel in Ezekiel,” VT 60 (2010): 209–10, who notes that the fall of the leaders of Jerusalem and Tyre is part of a larger parallel between the two cities. 95. Callender, “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God,” 179; Carol A. Newsom, “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre,” Int 38 (1984): 160. For an alternative reading, that the nāgîd actually refers to a cherub that has fallen from his high place of honor, see James E. Miller, “The Mælæk of Tyre (Ezekiel 28,11–19),” ZAW 105 (1994): 497–501. 96. For the many connections between the Weltenbäume in chs. 19 and 31, see Boadt, “Oracles of Judgment,” 193–94; Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 222. 97. Contemporary scholarship has largely dismissed the proposal that ‫“( ְּת ַאּשּׁור‬cypress”) should be read instead of ‫ ַאּשּׁור‬in v. 3 (Boadt, Oracles against Egypt, 97; Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 184). 98. On the prevalence of Edenic traditions in the ch. 31, see Ernst Haag, “Ez 31 und die alttestamentliche Paradiesvorstellung,” in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler, ed. Josef Schreiner, FB 2 (Würzburg: Echter, 1972), 177.

110

Chapter 5

therefore reverses Pharaoh’s exaltation: the tree is chopped down (vv. 10– 17), and it falls all the way to Sheol (vv. 16–17). 99 The culmination of kingly pride is found in the Gog narrative (chs. 38– 39). Gog’s power is extraordinarily vast, and Ezekiel’s descriptions abound in hyperbole. His host comprises nations from all the earth (38:2–6), 100 all of them splendidly equipped (38:4), and immense in number (38:9). Gog has an ego to match the size of his army, but as Block observes, one of the great ironies of the Gog narrative is the juxtaposition of Gog’s grandiose plans with the sober reality that all he does ends up fitting into Yahweh’s plan for Gog’s destruction (38:17–23). 101 As with the nāgîd and Pharaoh, Gog’s fall is absolute: his great army becomes great heaps of corpses (39:11–16), and their splendid equipment becomes fuel for seven years’ worth of fires (39:9–10). These ironic recollections of his past glory emphasize the talionic nature of his humiliation: the very high has become very low. These other examples show that pride is a characteristically royal sin. Unlike Zedekiah—to whom Ezekiel never attributes any glory—the nāgîd of Tyre, Pharaoh, and Gog all exhibit genuine splendor. But this strength becomes the seed of their demise as they boast of their greatness and attempt to usurp Yahweh’s exclusive divinity. Because all four share this common pride, all four share a common inversion of their greatness. And as go the rulers, so go the people they represent, who also perish. This solidarity in fate suggests that the pride that is so evident in the royalty may also pervade their respective peoples. 102 In particular, boasts of the Jerusalem remnant (such as 11:3, 15) indicate that Zedekiah is not alone in his pride, and therefore the narrative of the high made low applies to them as well. 103 Conclusion The simple narrative of the high being made low is basic to Ezekiel’s message of judgment. The logic of this judgment narrative depends on the 99. On the “fall of trees” as an established motif in Weltenbaum traditions, see Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 217. 100. Daniel I. Block, “Gog and Magog in Ezekiel’s Eschatological Vision,” in Eschatology in Bible and Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, ed. Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 99. 101. Ibid., 103. Gog may even style himself as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s “foe from the north” when ironically he himself is about to be judged (Daniel I. Block, “Gog in Prophetic Tradition: A New Look at Ezekiel XXXVIII:17,” VT 42 [1992]: 170–72). 102. Human pride is ubiquitous in the OAN as a reason for judgment (Paul R. Raabe, “Transforming the International Status Quo: Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations,” in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel, ed. William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons, PrinTMS 127 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010), 200–1). 103. Many have noticed the tight interweaving of oracles against kings and oracles against the people in Ezek 12–24: e.g., Umberto Cassuto, “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies 1: Bible, trans. Israel Abrahams ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 232–35; Jüngling, “Eid und Bund,” 114–19.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

111

height being exposed as not simply majesty, but hubris. In the case of the nāgîd of Tyre and Pharaoh, the evil of this hubris was their attempt to usurp God’s unique dignity. Gog boasted in his military power and styled himself as the judge of Yahweh’s people. Zedekiah’s pride took the form of willful rebellion against his ultimate suzerain, Yahweh. Because Yahweh will tolerate neither rivals nor rebels, he justly makes low the high. Whether it is sinking the nāgîd, felling Pharaoh, slaying Gog, or withering Zedekiah, this humiliation is always total and ironic. In Zedekiah’s case, Ezekiel adds a further layer of irony through his satirical reversal of Gen 49:8–12, Ps 1, and Ps 80. But these sustained attacks on royal pride should not be interpreted as a condemnation of the institution of the monarchy per se. 104 Instead, Ezekiel wants to see the monarchy in its proper place, a place that he discloses through the lowly king, Jehoiachin. The Lowly One: Jehoiachin in Exile To expound more clearly how Yahweh will “make high the low,” we will proceed in two sections, examining first how Jehoiachin is “the lowly one,” and then showing how this lowly one is exalted. Dates in Ezekiel Our first encounter with Jehoiachin in Ezekiel sets the tone not only for Jehoiachin, but for the book as a whole. Ezekiel 1:1–3 establishes Jehoiachin’s exile as the temporal reference point for the entire book, which suggests that his exile also serves as a basic thematic reference point. 105 Several considerations reinforce this suggestion. Jehoiachin’s exile was one of several possible reference points Ezekiel could have utilized for dating. Both 2 Kings and Jeremiah alternate between Zedekiah’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years for the period in view. In my discussion of 2 Kings, I noted the theological significance of the shift to dating by Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. 106 A complementary theological perspective obtains in this context. By dating his oracles from Jehoiachin’s exile instead of Zedekiah’s reign, Ezekiel slights Zedekiah and identifies Jehoiachin as the true future of the Davidic line. 107 This point is confirmed by the sustained contrast between these two kings in ch. 17. Amid these positive considerations, we should not miss that Ezekiel also coordinates 104. Caquot, “Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 21; Hammershaimb, “Ezekiel’s View of the Monarchy,” 59. 105. See Paul Joyce, “King and Messiah In Ezekiel,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 323. Contra Noth, “Catastrophe,” 271. 106. See pp. 23, 36–37. 107. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 6.

112

Chapter 5

ְ ‫;לגָלּות ַה ֶּמל‬ Jehoiachin’s kingship with his exile (‫ָכין‬ ִ ‫ֶך יֹוי‬ ְ 1:2). Although this exile is merely noted here, it will emerge as a central aspect of the identity of Jehoiachin and of the people as a whole. For Ezekiel, the first exile of 597 is the watershed that organizes his book. 108 To understand better Ezekiel’s dating by Jehoiachin’s exile, we will compare Jehoiachin to two other individuals in the immediate context. 109 The first is Ezekiel, who is also introduced here. If Jehoiachin is the prototypical king in exile, Ezekiel is the prototypical priest (‫ ;ּכֹהֵן‬v. 3). As these offices suggest, both will function in the book as representatives of exilic Israel. 110 The coordination between Jehoiachin and Ezekiel is also accomplished through the two dates in 1:1–3. The common month in the two dates (the fifth month) indicates that the two dates are interchangeable. Although the terminus a quo of the 30 years in 1:1 has long vexed scholarship, 111 the most convincing arguments support the 30 years as Ezekiel’s age and thus draw connections between his commissioning as a prophet and his induction as a priest. 112 If Ezekiel’s prophethood is a new beginning in exile, will Jehoiachin’s kingship function in a similar way? The glorious vision of 1:4–28 quickly overshadows the brief notice in 1:1– 3, but this preface should not be forgotten, for in 1:4–28 we discover another analog to Jehoiachin. If Jehoiachin is a king in exile, Yahweh is the King in exile. In solidarity with the deportees of 597, Yahweh appears to Ezekiel in a glorious theophany near the river Chebar. 113 Just as his departure from Jerusalem in chs. 8–11 showed his abandonment of that city to judgment, so his arrival in Babylon demonstrates his presence among his judged people 108. For a parallel conclusion in Jeremiah, see Hill, Friend or Foe, 26–28. 109. The shift from first person (v. 1) to third person (vv. 2–3) suggests an editorial hand. In keeping with our final form approach, we will consider how these verses function together as a literary whole, an approach that is endorsed by the synthetic language of 33:21 and 40:1, which unite the first-person voice of 1:1 with the keyword ‫ ּגָלּות‬from 1:2–3. 110. The representative function of Jehoiachin may explain Ezekiel’s shift from “Jehoiachin’s exile” in 1:2 to “our exile” (‫ )גָלּותֵ נּו‬in 33:21 and 40:1. 111. Davis argues that the 30th year is “deliberately elliptical,” endearing the “incrowd” who knew the reference point and excluding those who did not (Swallowing the Scroll, 78–79; emphasis hers). For the proposals for the 30th year, see Lawrence Boadt, “Ezekiel, Book of,” ABD 2:713. 112. James E. Miller points out that priests are commissioned in the 30th year of life (Num 4:3), a commissioning that is followed by seven days incubation (Lev 8:33). Similarly, Ezekiel is commissioned at age 30 and spends 7 days sitting among the exiles (Ezek 3:15; “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1:1,” RB 99 [1992]: 500–1). Priests end their priestly duties at age 50 (Num 4:3), the same year that Ezekiel receives his last great vision (Ezek 40:1; ibid., 501). The one exception, which Miller notes, is the late oracle regarding Tyre (29:17–20), which is an aberration in several respects. 113. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, 140. See Greenberg, who argues that Yahweh is expressing his solidarity only with Ezekiel in this vision (Ezekiel 1–20, 79–81).

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

113

as a “sanctuary in small measure” (‫)מ ְקָּדׁש ְמעַט‬. ִ  114 Jehoiachin’s presence in Babylon has an analogous function. In neither case does Ezekiel downplay the reality of judgment: because of the people’s sin, Yahweh’s theophany is only for Ezekiel’s eyes, and his sanctuary is ‫;מעַט‬ ְ thus, Jehoiachin also stands under judgment. But the presence of both Yahweh and—to a much lesser degree—Jehoiachin among the exiles constitutes immense promise: Yahweh has left his exiled people with tangible assurances of their future. In narrowing his focus to Jehoiachin in the date notices, Ezekiel loses no time in orienting the reader to the core themes of his book. Dating by the king’s exile immediately forefronts the theme of judgment, which is in keeping with the earliest dated oracles (chs. 8; 20; etc.). But the king lives on, the hand of Yahweh is upon Ezekiel to ordain him as priest and to disclose visions, and Yahweh himself has come on his heavenly throne. All these indicate that a future awaits the exiled people of God. Ezekiel 17:3–4, 12 While Ezekiel devotes the most space in ch. 17 to Zedekiah (see my discussion on pp.  92–96), it would be a mistake to downplay Jehoiachin’s role in this text, both in his exile (covered here) and the restoration of his line. Ezekiel begins his fable by introducing the eagle with all its splendor. The eagle’s first action is viewed from two angles: in v. 3, the eagle arrives in Lebanon and removes the top of a particular cedar. 115 Verse 4 complements this perspective by describing both the removal of the cedar sprig and its planting in the land of merchants. Humiliation is in view: the sprig that was once at the top of a cedar in the most renowned forest of the ancient Near East is taken from its height and planted in another land. The exact nature of the sprig’s new planting ground is difficult to discern. The phrase ‫ ֶארֶץ ְּכנַעַן‬, which everywhere else designates the land of promise (“the land of Canaan”; e.g., Gen 13:12; Exod 6:4), is used negatively in Ezek 16:29 in parallel with Chaldea (‫ַׂש ִּדימָה‬ ְ ‫ ;ּכ‬locative hê). There is ample support for the alternative translation “land of merchants,” 116 which fits the context well in 16:29 and here (note the parallel, “city of traders”; ‫ִעיר‬ ‫)ר ְֹכ ִלים‬. But these phrases in 17:4 seem to cut two ways. On the one hand, ‫ ֶארֶץ ְּכנַעַן‬evokes the positive connotations of the land of promise, as well as the general notion of a merchant city as a place of prosperity and splendor. 114. On this translation, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 350. 115. The article preceding ‫ ֶארֶז‬in v. 3 is an instance of incomplete determination (“a particular cedar”), just as it is for “the eagle” here (see GKC §126q–t; Darr, “Ezekiel,” 6:1245). On the connotations of the rare term ‫( ַצ ֶּמרֶת‬found only here and in Ezek 31), see Block, “Royal Ideology,” 221. 116. On ‫ ְכנַעֲנִי‬as a trader, see Isa 23:8; Job 40:30; 41:6; Prov 31:24; Moshe Elat, “The Monarchy and the Development of Trade in Ancient Israel,” in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East, ed. Edward Lipiński (Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1979), 529.

114

Chapter 5

But the recollection of Jerusalem’s harlotry toward Chaldea in 16:29 and the repeated use of ‫ רֹוכֵל‬in ch. 27 (10×) to describe Tyre as the city of traders 117 override these positive notions and suggest that the sprig has been planted not in a “land of opportunity” but rather in the paragon of both opulence and impiety. 118 Even if the sprig has been banished from the cedar groves to the center of impiety, several elements in this text prevent an exclusively negative evaluation of this event. First, no rationale is given for the eagle’s action. Yahweh will judge the vine for its ingratitude, infidelity, and hubris, but the cedar sprig is simply taken away. Second, the cedar tree ranks much higher in the symbolic world of Ezekiel than the vine. 119 A cedar of Lebanon comprises the mast for Tyre’s extravagant ship (27:5); it is the tree chosen to represent the grandeur of Assyria (31:3); and it populates the garden of God itself (31:8). By contrast, the vine (although elsewhere in the OT often a positive image 120) is the object of a scathing satire in ch. 15, which underscores its uselessness. These considerations prime the reader to consider the cedar sprig as of “good stock” if nothing else. 121 Verse 12 interprets vv.  3–4, but adds little more to this picture, except to connect the symbols to their historical referents. Nebuchadnezzar the eagle takes Jehoiachin the cedar sprig 122 from Jerusalem the forest to Babylon the city of traders. And yet Ezekiel’s persistent refusal to comment on the reasons for this action is confusing to the reader: if the point of this text is to deprecate Zedekiah, why include this snippet about the cedar? As Block has noted, the text is incomplete without its coda (vv. 22–24), where this loose thread finds closure. 123 Ezekiel 19:5–9 I have already laid the groundwork for my treatment of this text in the context of Ezekiel’s view of Zedekiah (see pp.  96–108). Here, I return briefly to this chapter to consider what it shows us of Jehoiachin. In my discussion above, I argued that the second lion represents Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin together. This lion vividly portrays pride and destruction: he roars 117. See the extrabiblical evidence in Edward Lipiński, “Products and Brokers of Tyre According to Ezekiel 27,” in Phoenicia and Its Neighbours, StPh 3 (Leuven: Peeters, 1985), 213–20. 118. “Land of opportunity”: So Block, “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet,” 61. Cf. the portrayal of Susa in the book of Esther. 119. These associations hold even if Ezekiel does not use these symbols in a univocal manner. See p. 104 n. 70. 120. See my treatment of Ps 80 above; Wallace, “Vineyard Imagery,” 127. 121. Given that “Lebanon” is an established cipher for the royal palace in Zion (see Jer 22:6; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, 310), perhaps something more is meant: Jehoiachin as a true Davidide. 122. According to v. 12, he takes other leaders (‫)ׂשִרים‬ ָ as well. 123. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 549–50; idem, “Cedar Sprig,” 184–85.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

115

on the mountains and devours people. 124 But the lion imagery is tinted with irony, for the lion was initially a positive image for the supremacy of Judah over the nations (see Gen 49:9–10). 125 The Davidides have distorted this power by their oppression, and in response Ezekiel invokes another aspect of the lion metaphor, the lion hunt. In Ezek 19, the proud lion is trapped and subdued. 126 This integration of positive and negative connotations obtains for the vine as well, as Botha observes: The two images . . . are used in this poem in Ezekiel 19 because they have the potential to convey the idea of honour, but also the same tragic idea of falling from grace: the proud, royal animal held in shameful captivity; the prosperous, beautiful and fruitful vine withered by the desert wind. 127

Whereas, according to Jacob’s blessing, Judah is said to be a lion of unquestioned dominion (Gen 49:9–10) whose reign will yield great abundance (vv. 11–12), Ezekiel portrays the Davidic kings as ravaging lions who destroy their own people and are fit only to be caged by the very nations that should have offered them fealty. 128 To be clear, not all that Ezekiel predicates of the second lion must be attributed to both kings. Ezekiel may have both Jehoiachin and Jehoiakim in view when he speaks of the lion ravaging. 129 But it is also possible that the lion’s arrogance applies particularly to Jehoiakim, especially because Jehoiakim’s bloody affront is better attested ( Jer 22:13–17; 26:23; 36:22–26). Ezekiel does not dwell on Jehoiachin’s sin, but this text at least makes him complicit with his father’s guilt, a point also made by 2 Kgs 24:9 and Jer 36:31 (see pp. 22, 72). The dismal colophon reminds us of the basic thrust of this text: “This is a lamentation and has become a lamentation” (19:14 ESV). This sort of 124. Seitz notes how the lion has become “a symbol of wanton ferocity” in Nahum 2:10–12 (regarding Assyria) and Zeph 3:3–5 (regarding the leaders of Judah), texts that may lie in the background here (Theology in Conflict, 140). On the roaring of a lion as “a symbol of greedy arrogance and destruction in the Old Testament,” see Botha, “SocioCultural Background,” 257. On the complexity of lion imagery, see Brent A. Strawn, What Is Stronger­Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, OBO 212 (Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic, 2005). 125. To emphasize the bitterness of the reversal, Ezek 19:7 alludes to the covenant curse in Lev 26:33, suggesting that the Davidides were the means by which this curse came to pass (Lyons, From Law to Prophecy, 108). 126. On the Ezekiel’s use of “lurking connotations” in his metaphors (for example, describing Tyre as a magnificent ship and then sinking it), see Newsom, “Maker of Metaphors,” 157. 127. Botha, “Socio-cultural Background,” 256. 128. On the lion hunt as enhancing royal status, see ibid., 257; Prinsloo, “Lions and Vines,” 340–42. The implication of Ezekiel’s imagery is that the nations (especially Nebuchadnezzar) gain kingly status while the Davidides lose it, a theme that resonates with 21:25–27[30–32]. 129. Note the tight connection between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin’s ethical evaluation by the language of “his father” in 2 Kgs 24:9.

116

Chapter 5

decisive end has been made of the Davidic monarchy that there is nothing left to do but weep bitter tears. Every branch worthy of being a scepter has been burned or torn off, and as long as the vine remains planted in the dry desert (a clear reference to exile), 130 one can have no hope of a new branch growing that is worthy to be a king’s scepter. Even so, we see a glimmer of hope. The vine is scorched, but it is not incinerated. The Leitwort ‫ לתׁש‬in v. 13 is suggestive: elsewhere in Ezekiel, this word is a harbinger of growth (see 17:8, 19:10). As with the cedar sprig in 17:4, the vine will not achieve royal majesty in the near future, but it remains the stump out of which new growth may one day spring. Conclusion Although the texts covered in this section contain hints of a positive future for Jehoiachin, we treat them here to show the ways in which Ezekiel manifests Jehoiachin’s “lowliness.” We might have expected Ezekiel to portray Jehoiachin as a paradigm of humility in contrast to the intense pride that characterized Zedekiah and the other foils above. But this moral aspect is absent from Jehoiachin’s portrayal in this book. Instead, he is a passive recipient of judgment (cf. the sprig being removed to the city of traders­) and not much more. 131 Nevertheless, he is no less significant for this passivity, for our treatment of Ezekiel’s dates showed that Jehoiachin still functions in a representative way. Jehoiachin’s kingly office as well as his close, repeated association with exile warrants his being termed the “prototypical exiled Israelite.” Jehoiachin’s lowliness consists in his standing at the head, not of a great nation but of a “rebellious house,” a people whose chronic sin has warranted the wrath of their God.

Making High the Low: The True David Exalted The line of David was pronounced dead by Ezekiel, but Yahweh is a God who raises the dead. In fact, the utter death of all Israel is the necessary precursor for the restoration life to follow. As Seitz puts it, “Restoration begins with those who have met the judgment of Yahweh . . . there is no hint in the Book of Ezekiel of a restoration apart from the fate of exile . . . This is as true for the king as for the people.” 132 Thus, when Ezekiel is confronted with the tragic news of his wife, he disregards his mourning garments and dresses for marriage. 133 For Zedekiah to remove his turban is warrant for 130. See Deut 29:28, to which Ezekiel is probably alluding here (as evidenced by the repeated language of uprooting [‫ ]נתׁש‬in fury [‫]ּב ֵחמָה‬ ְ and casting [‫ ]ׁשלך‬into another land [‫] ֶארֶץ‬, all in the context of exile). 131. We discovered a similar picture in 2 Kings; see p. 28. 132. Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 159. 133. Margaret S. Odell, “Genre and Persona in Ezekiel 24:15–24,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSymS 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 205–8.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

117

Ezekiel to put his turban on, 134 since the fall of the old Jerusalem makes way for the establishment of the new. Just as Ezekiel proclaims a future resurrection for all exilic Israel (37:1– 14), a special resurrection is in store for their exiled representative, Jehoiachin. The low will be made high, higher than the Davidides have ever attained. This interpretation may seem far-fetched, since a broad consensus insists that Ezekiel has a dim view of the restoration of the monarchy. This trend stems partly from those who distinguish between Ezekiel’s own low expectations for the monarchy and the supposed messianic tendencies of later redactors. 135 Others make a synchronic case for a constrained monarchy in the restoration. This case rests on several points: (1) Ezekiel has excoriated the kings for their role in bringing about God’s judgment, and therefore they must be held in check; 136 (2) Ezekiel rarely calls the Davidides “kings” (‫ָכים‬ ִ ‫)מל‬, ְ preferring the epithet “rulers” (‫יאים‬ ִ ‫ְׂש‬ ִ ‫)נ‬, 137 a diminutive convention that he does not abandon in restoration texts (e.g., Ezek 34:24; 45:7); (3) Ezekiel emphasizes Yahweh as the true king who vanquishes Israel’s enemies, effects the return, and shepherds his sheep, while the Davidides fade to figurehead status; 138 (4) chs. 40–48 carefully places limits for the nāśîʾ in both the cult and the allotment of land, emphasizing his chastened position. 139 Although many of these observations appear valid, in what follows, we seek to establish two points. First, we provide a corrective to the minimizing approach above by observing the lofty language that Ezekiel does predicate of the eschatological David. Second, we offer a different slant on the seemingly negative trends listed above. Instead of seeing these restrictions as diminutive, they are to be understood positively. For Ezekiel, what makes the future Davidide so highly exalted is—paradoxically—his profound humility before Yahweh. With this humility, the eschatological David has a closer unity with Yahweh than any other character in the restoration. 134. The word for turban differs, however: ‫ ִמ ְצנֶפֶת‬in 21:26[MT 31]; ‫ ְּפאֵר‬in 24:17. 135. See Frank Lothar Hossfeld, Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches, FB 20 (Würzburg: Echter, 1977), 73, 88–89; Noth, “Catastrophe,” 277; Pohlmann, Studien zum Jeremiabuch, 40–43. 136. Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 32–33, 57. This point is part of Duguid’s larger argument that Ezekiel envisions a complete reordering of society in the restoration, where the position of a particular office after the restoration is directly related to their conduct prior to exile. 137. “Prince” is the standard translation, but “ruler” better retains the ambiguity inherent in the word. See p. 125. 138. William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 190; Mein, Ethics of Exile, 250; Odell, “Genre and Persona,” 215. 139. Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 10 (Cambridge, MA: Scholars Press, 1976), 67.

118

Chapter 5

Because the future of David lies with Jehoiachin, a broader treatment of the eschatological David in Ezekiel is necessary. The result will be a fullorbed exposition of what Ezekiel means when he speaks of Jehoiachin as the lowly one who will be made high. Ezekiel 17:22–24 Ezekiel most clearly identifies Jehoiachin as the future of the Davidic line in 17:22–24. In the framework of the parable, time has passed, for the small cedar sprig that was planted in the city of traders has grown into a tall cedar. From this cedar Yahweh himself plucks a tender sprig and plants it on a high and lofty mountain. The text repeats that this is the topmost sprig (‫ְקֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ ;מֵרֹאׁש יֹנ‬v. 22; cf. v. 3), which, together with its tenderness (‫)רַ ְך‬, suggest both its fitness for the honor it will receive and its promise for a new beginning. 140 The text also emphasizes that the exaltation is Yahweh’s activity (note the first-person verbs and the twofold use of ‫) ָאנִי‬. 141 As Nebuchadnezzar had intentions for his vine, so now Yahweh has purposes for his cedar (note the repeated use of ‫ ל‬+ ‫ היה‬in vv. 6, 23). However, their purposes differ somewhat. Nebuchadnezzar wanted a vine that would be subject to him; its “splendor” (‫ )אֶַּדרֶת‬was primarily to be found in its fruit-bearing capacity for him (v. 8). Yahweh certainly expects subjection, but he also intends his cedar to become a genuine Weltenbaum, supreme over all. After the eagles’ supremacy in vv. 3–10, the reappearance of “birds” (‫)צּפֹור‬ ִ in v. 23 is significant, even if Ezekiel uses the more general term ‫ ִצּפֹור‬instead of the specific ‫ֶׁשר‬ ֶ ‫נ‬. The birds that were previously over the plants in vv. 3–10 are here under the great cedar (v. 23). 142 The new cedar has unrivalled prominence over all the inhabitants of this fable-world. Nevertheless, as the recognition formula acknowledges, the result of the cedar’s elevation is actually the renown of Yahweh! 143 He is the one whom the trees recognize as the “humiliator” of the proud and the “exalter” of the lowly. 144 140. On ‫ יֹונֶקֶת‬as connected to a new beginning, see Job 14:7. Other texts focus on growth more generally: Isa 53:2; Hos 14:6; Ps 80:11; Job 8:16. Along these lines, Hossfeld suggests that Isa 11:1–10 is an important background for Ezek 17:22–24 (Ezechielbuches, 87). Although the Isaiah text does not have the word ‫ יֹונֶקֶת‬or its variants (‫ יֹונֵק‬in v. 8 refers to a child), it still includes themes of new growth, David, fruitfulness, and so on. 141. Hossfeld observes similar stylistic qualities in 16:60, 62, emphasizing that Yahweh alone effects the new beginning (ibid., 72–73, 86). 142. As the more detailed picture in Ezek 31 makes clear, for creatures to be under a Weltenbaum conveys not only supremacy but also beneficence, refuge, and fertility (31:6). Gowan finds similar uses of this imagery in neo-Babylonian inscriptions (When Man Becomes God, 110). 143. Walther Zimmerli demonstrates how the recognition formula is closely tied to its original context while simultaneously invoking all “the unassailable mystery of [Yahweh’s] singularity and uniqueness” (“Knowledge of God According to the Book of Ezekiel,” in I Am Yahweh, trans. Douglas W. Stott [Atlanta: John Knox, 1982], 83). 144. Block argues that the divine speech referred to by “I have spoken” is not the present text but is the ancient promise to David (“The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet,”

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

119

Ezekiel does not interpret the fable’s coda as he did with vv. 3–10. 145 But he has told us enough in vv. 11–21 that his purpose is clear. The sprig of vv. 3–4 has itself become a cedar from which another sprig is taken. Thus, the text does not point to the restoration of Jehoiachin himself, but it points to one from his line. 146 The timeframe is therefore the distant future. The sprig’s placement on a high and lofty mountain (‫)עַל הַר־ּגָב ֹ ַה ְו ָתלּול‬ connects the cedar closely with the eschatological vision in chapters 40–48 (cf. 40:2: ‫)אֶל־הַר ּגָב ֹ ַּה ְמאֹד‬. 147 This text therefore gives a picture of the eschatological David. The presence of both birds and other trees has led some to distinguish their referents. 148 But as I suggest in my discussion on genre (see appendix 3), story elements need not correspond in a simple one-to-one fashion with historical entities. Just as one element (e.g., the second lion in ch. 19) can represent two kings, so here two story elements (the birds and the other trees) represent one group, the nations. A similar dynamic occurs in Jehoash’s parable in 2 Kgs 14:9: two story elements (the cedar and the wild beast) together represent Jehoash. In our text, the birds and the trees have a similar position (under the tree or inferior to it), although their function differs: the birds are beneficiaries, 149 while the trees stand apart, humbled to a knowledge of Yahweh by the cedar’s exaltation. The identification of both symbols as the nations also finds support in Ezek 31, where the nations are represented as both birds (v. 6) and trees (vv. 5, 18). Whether the nations are beneficiaries of the new David’s exaltation or not, the new David will be exalted over all. 70). Hence, Yahweh’s exaltation of the lowly is an expression of his faithfulness toward David. 145. Indeed, the genre has shifted from a “judicial parable” designed to elicit a confession to a promissory vision designed to encourage hope. 146. Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 44; Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 162. 147. Ezekiel’s integration of the future Davidide and the eschatological mountain can hardly be termed a polemic against Davidic Zion theology, even if the name “Zion” is absent (contra Boadt, “Oracles of Judgment,” 191; Renz, Rhetorical Function, 127). Instead, Ezekiel reaffirms David’s proper place on Zion, in keeping not only with older Zion traditions (Ben C. Ollenburger, Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult, JSOTSup 41 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987], 59–66) but also with his other restoration prophecies (e.g., chs. 34, 37), which conjoin the future David and the mountains (Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 163; note how 36:8 even has the mountains putting forth branches and bearing fruit). Ezekiel’s purpose is to refute distorted forms of Zion theology (see above, pp. 97, 108), not Zion theology per se. For others who see a positive place for Zion theology in Ezekiel, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 551–52; Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 217–18. 148. For Greenberg, the trees represent the nations while the birds are actual birds (Ezekiel 1–20, 316–17). For Block, the birds do not represent the nations (since the trees already serve this purpose). Instead, “their presence in such vast numbers merely illustrates the tree’s expansiveness” (Ezekiel 1–24, 551). 149. See p. 118 n. 142.

120

Chapter 5

The cedar’s fruit-bearing (v. 23) reflects ancient Near Eastern convention, which often depicts the Weltenbaum as a composite tree. 150 In the context of Ezek 17, we see the cedar simultaneously fulfilling the fruit-bearing capacity of the vine while surpassing the vine through its height as a cedar. Thus, the cedar is truly the ultimate tree, evincing both life-giving provision and awe-inspiring grandeur. If the vines of chs. 17 and 19 are antitheses of Ps 80’s Weltenbaum, the cedar is the fulfillment of that Psalm’s vision. 151 What distinguishes the vine and the cedar is their relationship to the renown of Yahweh: whereas the vine’s hubris was an affront to Yahweh’s glory, the cedar’s splendor furthers it. 152 In this respect, the cedar’s passivity—a quality going back to vv. 3–4 as well—is actually its greatest strength. Other trees usurp prestige; here Yahweh awards it. 153 Counterfeit Weltenbäume may prevail for a time (cf. Ezek 31), but only the one whose majesty furthers the majesty of Yahweh will last. Ezekiel 34:23–24 Ezekiel 34 enriches themes that appear embryonically in 17:22–24. Although hints of restoration occur prior to Ezek 34, 154 this chapter constitutes the first extended restoration oracle. Also for the first time in Ezekiel, the name David appears (34:23–24), suggesting his importance for the restoration. How does David fit within the larger canvas Ezekiel paints? Although this text and the following two that we will treat do not refer to Jehoiachin, they are essential for understanding the future of Jehoiachin’s line. In 34:23–24 Ezekiel declares that Yahweh will raise up David to be the people’s shepherd. The identification of David as the people’s one shepherd (‫ )רֹעֶה ֶאחָד‬recalls Yahweh’s self-identification as the shepherd of Israel in the parallel section (vv. 11–16). Conferring the title “shepherd” on David is surprising given the demotion of the other leaders to “sheep” status and Yahweh’s insistence that he will be shepherd in lieu of the failed human shepherds (vv. 11–19). What is the relationship between Yahweh the shepherd and David the shepherd? Most scholars correctly see no contradiction between both Yahweh and David being called “shepherd,” especially since they have traditionally shared the title melek. 155 By analogy with this preexilic arrangement, most 150. Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 217. See p. 106 above. 151. On the linguistic connections between Ezek 17 and Ps 80, see Gosse, “Le Psaume 80,” who nevertheless sees Ezek 17 as prior to Ps 80. See p. 106 n. 83. 152. As v. 21 shows, ultimately the vine’s affront leads to the honor of Yahweh, but only through its demise (cf. Yahweh as the one who makes low in v. 24). 153. Hossfeld, Ezechielbuches, 88; Metzger, “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum,” 217. 154. Ezekiel 6:8–10; 11:14–21; 16:60–63; 17:22–24; 20:40–44; 28:25–26; 29:21 (derived in part from Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 77). 155. See Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 181–82.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

121

understand the Davidic shepherd to be a vassal or under-shepherd of the divine shepherd. 156 Many factors confirm this assessment, including the language of Yahweh “setting” David as shepherd (‫ ;קום‬v. 23; cf. 2 Sam 7:12) and David being Yahweh’s “servant” and “ruler” (‫ ֶעבֶד‬, ‫ָׂשיא‬ ִ ‫ ;נ‬v. 24). For many scholars, the portrayal of David stops here: he is essentially a passive fixture who is included despite Ezekiel’s radical movement away from David as king to Yahweh as king. 157 Or, as Levenson argues, David’s pastoral office has been “subsumed within Yahweh’s;” he is a “‘substitute king,’ without power of his own.” 158 Moreover, many argue that David is installed after Yahweh has effected the restoration and has a minimal role in either the regathering or the eschatological kingdom that follows. 159 There is much to support these conclusions. Yahweh is the chief actor throughout chs. 34–39 and is the true king of the restoration. 160 What is more, Yahweh carries out several roles that are traditionally ascribed to the Davidic kings, including shepherding the people (ch. 34) 161 and conquering their enemies (chs. 38–39). 162 David, on the other hand, only appears twice in chs. 34–39, for a total of four verses. Nevertheless, the trend to downplay David’s significance in the restoration does not accord with the full picture that emerges in chs. 34, 37, and 43– 48. 163 The portrayal of David in these chapters coheres with and expands the picture of David’s glory and humility found in 17:22–24. We must first clear the way for this position by observing that a high view of Yahweh’s kingship does not necessarily entail a low view of David’s kingship. Joyce avers that “As one decreases, the other increases, and vice versa,” 164 an axiom that pervades the secondary literature. But Ezekiel 17:22–24 coordinates honors for David with a high view of Yahweh’s kingship. As I note above, many other biblical traditions see no conflict between a high view of both David and Yahweh. 156. E.g., Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 185–86. 157. So Hammershaimb, “Ezekiel’s View of the Monarchy,” 62. 158. Levenson, Program of Restoration, 81. 159. For Mein, the Davidic ruler passively receives salvation; he does not enact it (Ethics of Exile, 249). See also Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 55. 160. Joyce, “King and Messiah,” 333–36. 161. That Yahweh is taking over human responsibilities is reinforced by the sustained allusion to Jer 23 in Ezek 34. For this allusion, see the summary in Laato, A Star Is Rising, 162–63. 162. According to Tooman, “Gog” is a reference to Num 24:7, where some witnesses have “Agag” (“Gog Oracles,” 64). But where Balaam’s oracle has the (human) king from Jacob triumphing over Gog, Ezekiel has Yahweh as the victor. For the text-critical issues involved here, see p. 123 n. 169. 163. Another text that contains a brief reference to Davidic restoration is 29:21, which uses the language of a horn sprouting (‫ צמח‬+ ‫ ; ֶקרֶן‬the only other text to use this language is Ps 132:17). The exaltation of the monarchy will take place amid Yahweh’s subduing the nations. 164. Joyce, “King and Messiah,” 335.

122

Chapter 5

The minimal view of Ezekiel’s David may be offset by noticing first that he is more than a passive vassal. The text states that David will shepherd (‫ )רעה‬the people: ‫ֶתהֶן‬ ְ ‫ ְו ָרעָה א‬. . . ‫( הּוא י ְִרעֶה א ָֹתם‬v. 23). What kinds of activities does Ezekiel refer to in saying that David will “shepherd” his people? The repeated use of this verb in vv. 13–16 (4×) to circumscribe Yahweh’s activity, along with the structural parallel between the restoration vision of vv. 23–31 and vv. 11–16 both suggest that David’s shepherding is the vehicle for Yahweh’s own shepherding. 165 Ezekiel underscores the solidarity between Yahweh and David in vv. 23– 24. In a turn of phrase that recalls the covenant formula, 166 Yahweh says in v. 23b–24a: ‫ִהיֶה ָלהֶן ְלרֹעֶה‬ ְ ‫ְוהּוא־י‬ ‫ֶהיֶה ָלהֶם לֵאל ִֹהים‬ ְ ‫אנִי יְהוָה א‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬

While the covenant formula usually mentions one party in each line, this rendition gives two parallel perspectives on the suzerain’s half of the relationship: David’s office as shepherd is coordinated with Yahweh’s role as God to the people. All these considerations suggest that Ezekiel exalts David in a unique way and identifies him as the prime manifestation of Yahweh’s own shepherdhood. How far this unity extends is unclear, but Ezekiel indicates that the new David’s shepherding will not infringe on Yahweh’s honor as the past shepherds did. This submissive dimension complements the glory accorded to David here. For all his distinction, he will remain Yahweh’s faithful vassal. Thus, everything for which the previous shepherds/fat sheep are judged (earlier in ch. 34) cannot be predicated of him: he will neither neglect nor afflict Yahweh’s sheep. 167 Ezekiel 37:21–28 Ezekiel returns to the restoration of the monarchy at the end of ch. 37. How does this section fill out the picture we have developed to this point? Again, Ezekiel coordinates the exaltation and submission of David, but he does so in some new ways. The section in view comes after the dramatic resurrection of Israel depicted in 37:1–14. Yahweh then commands Ezekiel to do a final sign-act, demonstrating with two sticks the future reunion of Israel and Judah (vv. 15–20). 165. So also Donna Lee Petter, The Book of Ezekiel and Mesopotamian City Laments, OBO 246 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2011), 135, although she does not argue the point. 166. As Rolf Rendtorff notes, the covenant formula is often bound with other theological language and thus “interprets them afresh, or creates new theological coherences through their association” (The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, trans. Margaret Kohl, OTS [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998], 92). 167. Laato also notes this contrast and suggests that David wields political power (Josiah and David Redivivus, 183).

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

123

Verses 21–28 constitute the explanation of this sign-act. 168 Yahweh completes the union of Israel and Judah by giving them one king (v. 21), a king whom he identifies as David (v. 24). Bestowing the title “king” on David is climactic, for Ezekiel has withheld this title from the Davidides throughout the book. 169 However, he has already implicitly recognized him in this office by terming him a “shepherd” in ch. 34, a title he reiterates here (v. 24). 170 In this context, the language of “one shepherd” parallels “one king” in v. 22, and signals the king’s function as a point of unity for the people of God. The gift of a king to the people crowns the gift of land and covenant, which together comprise all that Israel needs to be a nation. 171 David will exercise this kingly office ‫“( ְלעֹולָם‬perpetually”), 172 a word Ezekiel repeats five times in vv. 21–28. 173 By this repetition, Ezekiel places David as an indispensable and irrevocable part of the restoration alongside the land (v. 25), the covenant (v. 26), and the sanctuary (v. 26–27). 174 But is David simply one benefit in a larger network of eschatological benefits, or does Ezekiel say more about David’s relationship to other 168. Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 408. ְ ‫ ֶמל‬in v. 24, whereas LXX has ἄρχων, which sug169. This point depends on reading ‫ֶך‬ gests ‫ָׂשיא‬ ִ ‫ נ‬in its Vorlage (however, see Johan Lust, “Messianism in LXX-Ezekiel: Towards a Synthesis,” in The Septuagint and Messianism, ed. Michael A. Knibb, BETL 195 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006], 424, who notes that ἄρχων also translates nāgîd in Ezek ְ ‫ ֶמל‬in its Vor28:2). Ashley S. Crane summarizes the consensus that LXX probably had ‫ֶך‬ lage but that it was assimilated to ‫ָׂשיא‬ ִ ‫נ‬, which appears throughout the book and also in v. 25 (Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 ְ ‫“ ֶמל‬suggests more of a military leader [Leiden: Brill, 2008], 119–26). In Crane’s view, ‫ֶך‬ than a peaceful shepherd” (ibid., 121). He argues that the LXX used ἄρχων because it was a softer term more in keeping with Jewish leadership structures of Hellenistic/Roman times, and also because he detects a nonmilitaristic theology of kingship in the LXX (especially Papyrus 967; ibid., 124–26). For a response, see Block, “Royal Ideology,” 238–39; Ingrid E. Lilly, Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions, VTSup 150 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 308–9. We also add that Ezekiel employs a wide ְ ‫ ֶמל‬is not variety of terms for leaders, and that sometimes a king is still in view even when ‫ֶך‬ employed (e.g., the nāgîd of Tyre). 170. Based on the many connections between Ezek 34 and 37 (see Laato, A Star Is Rising, 168), ch. 37 seems to be a resumptive exposition of ch. 34. 171. Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 58; idem, “Divine Abandonment: Ezekiel’s Adaptation of an Ancient Near Eastern Motif,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSymS 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 40. 172. On ‫ עֹולָם‬having a default meaning of “for always,” “perpetually,” see H. D. Preuss, “‫עֹולָם‬,” TDOT 10:534–35. 173. The emphasis on ‫ עֹולָם‬indicates steadfastness: Yahweh will remedy the fickleness of the dynasty, where good kings often have bad sons (Daniel I. Block, “Bringing Back David: Ezekiel’s Messianic Hope,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham [Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995], 180; Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 49). 174. See Block’s coordination of these ideas in his survey of Ezekiel’s eschatology: “Gog and Magog,” 86–91.

124

Chapter 5

restoration­blessings? In this case, Ezekiel’s paratactic style makes it difficult to conclude more than that all these realities are coordinated as part of the same redemptive package. 175 Nevertheless, his close association with the people’s obedience in v. 24 reminds the reader that David the king will always submit perfectly to Yahweh. The Nāśîʾ in Ezekiel 40–48 A full treatment of the nāśîʾ in chs. 40–48 lies outside of the present scope. We will therefore rely on previous work to note briefly that the depiction of the nāśîʾ in chs. 40–48 supports rather than contradicts the findings above. In short, the nāśîʾ is honored precisely because of his perfect submission to Yahweh’s standards of cultic purity. Again, many find a negative portrayal of the nāśîʾ in 40–48. For example, Renz notes that the name of the city is ‫ׁשּמָה‬ ָ ‫( יְהוָה‬48:35), not “Zion,” or “the city of David,” and comments: “The vision carefully reconstructs aspects of the Zion tradition, but resists any attempt to have a Davidic component in it.” 176 Kenneth E. Pomykala summarizes the opinion of many by saying that the nāśîʾ in chs. 40–48 is a “colorless figure, possessing some privilege but little power.” 177 These comments are not openly wrong, but one-sided: there is both honor and restriction for the nāśîʾ in 40–48. Ezekiel portrays the nāśîʾ positively by contrasting him with previous rulers. Previous rulers defiled Yahweh’s holy name with their abominations (43:6–9), 178 they oppressed the people by their expropriations (45:8b–12), and displaced them from their inheritance (46:16–18). Even the royal palace was an affront by its proximity to the temple. 179 In contrast, the nāśîʾ has perfect regard for all the boundaries of the highly ordered world of chapters 40–48. Yahweh reserves the right to grant land, 180 and the nāśîʾ accepts the land apportioned to him (45:7–8; 46:17–18). He also accepts his limited role in the cult: while the priests officiate, he provides the offerings (45:17, 22) and worships at the threshold of the gate (46:2). 181 175. Some suggest that the close proximity between the king and the people’s obedience in 37:24 indicates the king somehow guarantees the obedience of the people, but this causal connection cannot be drawn from the mere proximity of these blessings (Renz, Rhetorical Function, 116; Wong, Retribution, 113). 176. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 127. 177. Kenneth E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995), 31. See also Albertz, Israel in Exile, 364; Levenson, Program of Restoration, 67, 113; Steven S. Tuell, The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, HSM 49 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1992), 105. 178. Duguid understands Ezekiel to be rebuking the kings for placing “memorial stelae­” in the temple in 43:7–9. For this translation of ‫ ֶּפגֶר‬, see Leaders of Israel, 41. 179. Levenson, Program of Restoration, 113, 119. 180. Renz, Rhetorical Function, 126. 181. Against those who see a subordination of the nāśîʾ to the priesthood (Susan Niditch, “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context,” CBQ 48 [1986]: 219), or those who see the nāśîʾ as having cultic privileges withdrawn from him (Albertz, Israel in Exile, 371; Moshe

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

125

Yahweh also honors the nāśîʾ with several distinctions, showing his unique position in Israel. These honors are intertwined with the restrictions just mentioned. The nāśîʾ may not take from the people’s inheritance (46:18) and his portion is not in the city itself, 182 but he has the portion that is closest to the sacred plot. 183 Similarly, the nāśîʾ does not offer the sacrifices, but he provides them, and 46:2 portrays him in worship as the closest to the sanctuary of all the nonpriestly people. These earn him the distinction of “the foremost layman, with unique responsibilities and privileges with respect to the cult.” 184 Finally, what do we make of the title nāśîʾ? Many see nāśîʾ as a diminutive term (over against melek), 185 but others see little difference between the two. 186 Ezekiel seems reticent to use melek for the Davidic kings but is quite willing to use the term for foreign kings of great power (e.g., Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh). 187 This pattern supports the conclusion that nāśîʾ is Ezekiel’s term for a lesser ruler, a vassal. 188 However, even this determination does not necessarily demean the future ruler, for nāśîʾ is the term Ezekiel uses in unequivocally positive restoration texts (34:24; 37:25), 189 and to be the vassal of Yahweh is actually a high honor. Thus, the term nāśîʾ connotes the parallel­dynamics of submission and honor we have been tracing. These considerations undermine the conclusion that the nāśîʾ is a kind of “denuded” puppet ruler stripped of political power. Instead, they reinforce an important point Greenberg made regarding these chapters: Greenberg notes many aspects of traditional legislation that Ezekiel omits in chs. 40–48 (e.g., purity issues, laws concerning idolatry). He concludes, “Since such omissions cannot imply annulment, we must suppose Ezekiel to be highly selective, treating only of those topics in which he sought to effect revisions.” 190 Perhaps more central than the motive to revise, Ezekiel­ Greenberg, “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration,” Int 38 [1984]: 206), Ezekiel is simply affirming a distinction between the offices that is rooted in tradition (e.g., Num 1:51), while also showing the uniqueness of the nāśîʾ. 182. Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 50–51, 130. 183. Ibid., 51. On the relative position of the portions as significant, see Levenson, Program of Restoration, 124–25. The special plot for the nāśîʾ is a new development since the days of Joshua (ibid., 113). 184. Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 51. 185. See Mein, Ethics of Exile, 92; Seitz, Theology in Conflict, 124. 186. See Caquot, “Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel,” 19; Duguid, Leaders of Israel, 57. 187. See the table in ibid., 18–20. 188. The contrast is well stated by Block: “Ezekiel avoids ‫ מלך‬because in his mind the expression carries overtones of independence and arrogance, while ‫ נׂשיא‬expresses, more appropriately, the king’s status as a vassal of Yhwh” (“Royal Ideology,” 212). 189. Some have questioned the assumption that the nāśîʾ in chs. 40–48 is the same as the new David in chs. 34 and 37 (e.g., Albertz, Israel in Exile, 364). See the summary in Levenson, Program of Restoration, 60, as well as his rebuttal in ibid., 67. 190. Greenberg, “Program of Restoration,” 203. Similarly, Duguid argues that the nāśîʾ only has cultic responsibilities in chs. 40–48 because the cult is the focus. The same

126

Chapter 5

maintains his priestly focus on worship. 191 The nāśîʾ is included for the roles he plays in matters of cultic concern; Ezekiel’s refusal to comment on his political roles does not imply an apolitical ruler. Thus, I conclude that chs. 40–48 expand the vision of 17:22–24 by showing how the cedar, for all its height, does not exalt itself unduly on Yahweh’s mountain. Instead, the nāśîʾ’s perfect submission to the cult reveals a humble acknowledgement of his place that surpasses all his kingly predecessors, and is genuinely worthy of honor. 192

Conclusion Ezekiel’s God is profoundly concerned for his own glory, as the oft-­ repeated recognition formula makes clear. However, for Ezekiel, Yahweh’s zeal for his name is not a defect, 193 but the direct outflow of his unique identity as the awesome, all-glorious, sovereign God of the universe. 194 But a human must never arrogate to himself the dignity, freedom, and honor that belong to Yahweh alone. This sin of pride is the special province of kings, as detailed above. In particular, Zedekiah stands as the paradigm of Davidic pride, a pride that was manifested preeminently by his rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar and ultimately against Yahweh. Zedekiah is thus the prototypical Israelite in rebellion against Yahweh (21:25[30]). Other kings show pride through the oppression of the innocent (19:5–7; 34:2–6, 17–21), the transgression of cultic boundaries (43:7–9), and overt boasting (especially the nāgîd of Tyre, the Pharaoh, and Gog). All these are an affront to Yahweh’s glory and call for justice. These “high” (that is, arrogant) ones must be made low. As the judgment texts make clear, the ultimate humiliation to which Yahweh sentences these kings is nothing other than Sheol, and it is a fall from which they will never recover. But Yahweh judges the Davidic kings not only out of justice but also that he might make a new beginning. 195 While his unmitigated justice is especially evident in the scattering of Zedekiah, the exile of Jehoiachin exhibits a decidedly gracious character. 196 Ezekiel does not ignore that Jehoiis true for the people in general: they are only mentioned with respect to the cult (Leaders of Israel, 53) 191. Both Greenberg and Levenson point to Ezek 20:40: the goal of the new exodus is the renewed temple service (Greenberg, “Program of Restoration,” 182; Levenson, Program of Restoration, 7). 192. On the kingly virtue of humility, see Deut 17:14–20, which forbids kingly selfaggrandizing and enjoins humble attention to Torah instead. 193. Contra Baruch J. Schwartz, “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration,” in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong, SBLSymS 9 (Atlanta: SBL, 2000), 51. 194. Cf. the orienting vision in ch. 1. 195. See Renz, Rhetorical Function, 108. 196. For the exile itself as an act of grace, see Block, “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet,” 58–62; idem, “Royal Ideology,” 231–34.

Jehoiachin in Ezekiel

127

achin also was humiliated (1:2; 17:3–4; 19:8–9). But while Zedekiah the vine withers­, Jehoiachin the cedar sprig is sent to Babylon, a “greenhouse” to preserve him during the cold winter of exile. However, Jehoiachin’s exile is a prologue to a more central story: from his line will come the “lowly one” whom Yahweh will exalt. Yahweh will not exalt Jehoiachin himself, perhaps because Jehoiachin’s lowliness is only associated with his status as an exiled person in Ezekiel; not until the eschatological David do we see genuine kingly humility. The eschatological David first appears as the cedar in 17:22–24, a Weltenbaum that emerges from Jehoiachin’s offspring. The height of this Weltenbaum, rather than depreciating Yahweh’s glory, actually enhances it. Other restoration passages (e.g., 34:23–24) show how this is possible. What some scholars call Ezekiel’s “low view” of the restored monarchy is actually the eschatological David’s greatest glory; unlike all previous kings, he occupies his place of honor while still in complete submission to Yahweh. By being “low” even in his exaltation, the eschatological David points the way for all Israel to be highly exalted before Yahweh and yet be assured that they will never be made low again.

Chapter 6

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures Having examined Jehoiachin’s significance in detail for 1–2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, this chapter moves to a new phase of redemptive history, the period after the fall of Babylon. While this period is often referred to as “postexilic,” I deliberately avoid this epithet in favor of “Persian period.” This move arises out of the conviction that, in spite of the return of many exiles from Babylon to Judea, the people of God were still in a sense “exiles,” and hence I cannot speak of this period as “after” the exile. 1 For our purposes, I define “exile” as the period commencing in 722 (for Israel) and 597 (for Judah), when God’s wrath was poured out on his people in the form of the covenant curses (Deut 28:15–68; Lev 26:14–39). Exile continues so long as these consequences are present (for example, subjugation by the nations, the futility curses) and the benefits of eschatological restoration are absent (as defined by the prophets, for example, Jeremiah’s Davidic “shoot,” Ezekiel’s glorious temple). 2 As we will see, this terminological issue has considerable import for our understanding of the Persian period and beyond. The previous chapters have coordinated Jehoiachin with important theological issues such as the future Davidic hope and the necessity of exile and submission to divinely designated foreign powers. In the Persian period, these themes take on new importance as well as new forms. We also encounter­the significant figure Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin’s grandson and heir. As tempting as it is to explore each of these matters in detail, this work requires a narrower scope. In this chapter, I continue to ask about Jehoiachin’s significance in particular. How do the Scriptures of this period assess this king? Do new perspectives emerge with greater hindsight? Chronicles 1. This point will be developed below for each corpus under discussion. 2. Some emphasize the fulfillment of restoration prophecy in the Persian period while acknowledging that it is a partial fulfillment: Roy E. Ciampa, “The History of Redemption,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 283–89; J. G. McCon­ville, “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfillment of Prophecy,” VT 36 (1986): 205–24. As I will argue below (at least with regard to Zerubbabel and the promise of a new David), I contend that nothing in the Persian period constitutes the eschatological (that is, ultimate) fulfillment of any restoration prophecy. Instead, the divine blessings we see in this period are pledges of the restoration that it still future. Or, as Ezra 9:8 says, God has provided “a little reviving in our slavery.” For additional literature on the continuation of exile, see p. 171.

128

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

129

demonstrates how dramatically kings can be reevaluated (for example, the classic example of Manasseh). Do similar transformations take place with respect to Jehoiachin? How do Haggai and Zechariah further the narrative trajectories specifically associated with Jehoiachin, especially Jeremiah’s curse? To answer these questions, I will examine two sets of Persian-period texts. 3 The first set consists of those biblical texts that explicitly mention Jehoiachin (1 Chr 3:16–17; 2 Chr 36:8–10). 4 The second set consists of those biblical texts that allude to Jehoiachin in a substantive way. Two texts fit this latter category: Hag 2:20–23 and Zech 6:9–15. 5 I will employ this twofold approach (explicit references to Jehoiachin, followed by allusions) not only for this period but also for the Second Temple and New Testament sources as well (in the following chapters).

Jehoiachin in Chronicles In contrast to the sustained treatment that Jehoiachin receives in Kings, Chronicles mentions him in only five verses. 6 Nevertheless, these cameo appearances are dense, exhibiting important connections to both larger themes in Chronicles and to trajectories we have identified in previous texts. 7 3. On the assignment of texts to certain time periods, see p. 52 n. 1. 4. We will not treat the passing reference to Jehoiachin in Esth 2:6, though the use of this king to set the historical context of the book of Esther is suggestive. Most commentators believe that the connection to Jehoiachin’s exile implies that Mordecai’s family was from the Judean nobility (understanding the ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬clause loosely; if it referred to Mordecai himself, he would be 114 years old; cf. Jon D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997], 57–58). In addition to being an historical reference point, the reference to Jehoiachin may also signal larger thematic parallels as well (for example, the possibility of promotion within exile; the tension between faithfulness to torah and compromise with the pagan authorities, and so on). For comparisons between Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation and the Esther Diasporanovelle, see the citations on p. 51 n. 140. 5. Some have suggested that the three shepherds in Zech 11:8 refer obliquely to Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. See the references in Anthony R. Petterson, “The Shape of the Davidic Hope Across the Book of the Twelve,” JSOT 35 (2010): 233; Stead, “The Three Shepherds,” 151. However, there is little in the text to encourage this specific identification. In my view, a more abstract reading such as Stead’s (who proposes that the three shepherds are three offices: prophet, priest, and king) is most probable. 6. Scholarly consensus rightly recognizes 1–2 Chronicles as a separate literary unit from Ezra–Nehemiah. See the nuanced discussion in Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, AB 12 (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 73–89. 7. Brevity need not imply unimportance. Ehud Ben Zvi argues, “the absence of references to a figure or event in the world of knowledge of a community does not necessarily mean denial or even a desire to downgrade such a figure or event” (“Shifting the Gaze: Historiographic Constraints in Chronicles and Their Implications,” in History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles, BibleWorld [London: Equinox, 2006], 89).

130

Chapter 6

1 Chronicles 3:16–17 Jehoiachin appears at a crossroads in the genealogy of David. 8 The linear genealogy extending from Solomon (v. 10) to Josiah (v. 14) becomes segmented in v. 15, and then traces the offspring of Josiah down to Elioenai’s seven sons (v. 24). 9 And yet, as some have noted, the latter section (vv. 15–24) continues to focus on one line. 10 For each generation, several possible heirs are mentioned, but only one is the progenitor of the next tier. 11 What part does Jehoiachin play in this discourse? The section beginning in v. 15 utilizes the formula ‫ּובנֵי‬ ְ + PN to mark new generations. After the sons of Josiah, Jehoiachin is identified in the second tier as the son of Jehoiakim (v. 16). However, what is Jehoiachin’s relationship to the Zedekiah that follows him? Some believe the Chronicler is portraying this Zedekiah and Jehoiachin as brothers (hence 2 Chr 36:10), but since the Chronicler has just used the formula PN + ‫ ְבנֹו‬to designate successive generations (vv. 10–14), this Zedekiah is probably to be understood as a son of Jehoiachin (distinct from his uncle Zedekiah in v. 15). 12 A new generation begins in v. 17, but with a difficult question: is ‫ א ִַּסר‬the name of one of Jehoiachin’s sons (Tg), a part of Jehoiachin’s name (LXX), a part of Shealtiel’s name (Talmud; Syr), 13 or a title (“the prisoner”)? The word ‫ א ִַּסר‬appears elsewhere as a proper noun (Exod 6:24; 1 Chr 6:7, 8, 22), but most scholars favor the fourth option, emending the text to introduce a definite article, which is assumed to have dropped out due to haplography. 14 In fa8. I will refer to Jechoniah as “Jehoiachin” in this section. 9. On the location of the transitions in the genealogy, see Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 92. For the place of 1 Chr 3 in the larger structure of the genealogy of Judah, see Mark J. Boda, 1–2 Chronicles, CornerBC 5a (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2010), 44–48. Regarding the different functions of linear and segmented genealogies, see Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, YNER 7 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 196–98. 10. Boda, 1–2 Chronicles, 54; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 335. 11. On the difficulties surrounding the number of generations in v. 21, see Knoppers (ibid., 322–23), who understands this verse to be a linear genealogy (hence, 12 generations total from Jehoiachin). 12. This view is weakened by the Chronicler’s reference to other sons of Jehoiachin in v. 17. Why differentiate Zedekiah from the rest of Jehoiachin’s sons? Furthermore, if Zedekiah was Jehoiachin’s son there are three Zedekiahs: (1) his uncle (who reigned after him according to 2 Kgs 24:17 MT; the LXX has υἱὸν αὐτοῦ); (2) his brother (2 Chr 36:10 [MT]); and (3) his son (2 Kgs 24:17 LXX; 1 Chr 3:16)! Given the likelihood of scribal harmonization, it is difficult to adjudicate the various textual options. For proposals, see Japhet, I and II Chronicles, 97–99; Ralph W. Klein, 1 Chronicles: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 118; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 319–20. In the end, this decision has little bearing on our present purposes. 13. See tt, “Exile Atones for Everything,” 484. 14. So Klein, 1 Chronicles, 110; Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 320; Manfred Oeming, Das wahre Israel: Die “genealogische Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1–9, BWANT 128 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990), 103.

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

131

vor of this consensus, the ‫ ְּבנֹו‬after Shealtiel seems to mark where the sons’ names begin. 15 Another possibility requires no emendation: the noun may have been originally indefinite, so we would translate, “The sons of Jechoniah, a prisoner.” The reading is awkward, but it draws attention to Jehoiachin’s status as one among several exiled kings (I discuss 2 Chr 36 below). The decision to treat ‫ א ִַּסר‬as a common noun (which we accept tentatively) provokes some interesting observations. First, it is one of only a few titles in all the Chronicler’s genealogies (see 1 Chr 2:10; 5:12; 9:17, 22), and it is the only title—indeed, the only annotation!—in the entire Davidic genealogy (vv. 10–24). This sort of departure in a genealogy that is otherwise extremely tight demands attention. 16 This reading explicitly links Jehoiachin to other references to exile in 1 Chr 1–9 (see 5:6, 18–22, 26; 6:15; 9:1). In so doing, the genealogy expresses a solidarity between the Davidic line and the rest of the gôlâ. This annotation also continues the theme we noted in previous chapters where Jehoiachin is repeatedly associated with exile (see pp. 73, 116). Finally, the reference to exile undermines Knoppers’ point about “leveling” in the genealogy. Knoppers argues that there is no distinction in the genealogy between reigning kings and exiled heirs, nor is there evidence of periodization such as we see in Matt 1:1–17. 17 However, the ‫א ִַּסר‬ annotation and the move from a linear to a segmented genealogy speak against this idea. For the Chronicler, a decisive shift has happened, a shift that he associates both with Josiah and with Jehoiachin. The move from a linear to a segmented genealogy marks a transition from reigning kings (one per generation) to a line of exiled Davidic heirs (several per generation in most cases). 18 15. Regarding the names of Jehoiachin’s sons, Johann Wilhelm Rothstein proposed an elaborate reconstruction of Jehoiachin’s life based on the etymology and order of his sons’ names (Die Genealogie des Königs Jojachin und seiner Nachkommen [1 Chron. 3, 17–24] in geschichtlicher Beleuchtung: Eine kritische Studie zur jüdischen Geschichte und Litteratur, Nebst einem Anhange, ein übersehenes Zeugnis für die messianische Auffassung des “Knechtes Jahwes” [Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1902]). Not only is his proposal highly speculative, but it is also unclear to what degree Israelites were aware of the religious significance of their personal names (so Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006], 55). On Pedaiah as Zerubbabel’s father, see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 328. See also the original solution in Pieter A. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 30. While several explanations are possible, none of them is conclusive. 16. See Knoppers’s discussion of the absence of digressions here in his I Chronicles 1–9, 333. 17. Ibid., 333–34. 18. One other point in favor of this shift is the tendency of the Chronicler in other genealogies to focus not only on the beginning and end but also the middle (see ibid., 257–58). The fact that some of the sons of Josiah actually reigned as legitimate kings does not undermine this shift. As we will see below, the Chronicler sees exile as beginning (to some degree) with the death of Josiah in 2 Chr 35.

132

Chapter 6

This transition plays an important role in the larger purposes of the Davidic genealogy. This text alone is too fragile a base on which to construct the Chronicler’s Davidic hopes, but it certainly speaks for the vitality of the Davidic line in the face of many obstacles. 19 In particular, the exile has not crushed the line of David. Far from it: both Jehoiachin and Elioenai have (at least) seven sons. 20 This affirmation accords well with the Chronicler’s Davidic hope. Although some deny messianism in Chronicles, 21 Hwang, Kelly, and Williamson have cogently argued that the Chronicler believes that God will one day restore the line of David. 22 Against this background, the genealogy not only reflects Jehoiachin’s captivity (2 Chr 36:10) but also looks beyond it to the Chronicler’s own day, in which particular individuals can be identified who embody his hopes for Davidic restoration. 23 2 Chronicles 36:8–10 Compared with the Chronicler’s sustained treatments of other kings, the brief reference to Jehoiachin in 2 Chr 36 suggests that his reign in itself 19. Ibid., 335–36. Contra William Riley, who says there is no more expectation for Davidic restoration here than in Saul’s genealogy (King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 50–51). The problems with this view will appear in our discussion of 2 Chr 36. 20. If Zedekiah is considered Jehoiachin’s son in v. 16, then Jehoiachin has eight sons. Zedekiah’s placement in v. 16 may be explained by the Chronicler’s desire to present Jehoiachin as having seven sons. This numbering forges a connection between the sons of Jehoiachin, the sons of Jesse, and the sons of Elioenai (Klein, 1 Chronicles, 119). On the importance of number patterns in 1 Chronicles, see Gary N. Knoppers, “‘Great among His Brothers,’ but Who Is He? Heterogeneity in the Composition of Judah,” JHebS 3 (2001): §6.2. 21. E.g., Roddy L. Braun, “Cyrus in Second and Third Isaiah, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein, ed. M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers, JSOTSup 371 (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 161–62; André Caquot, “Peut-on parler de messianisme dans l’oeuvre du chroniste?” RTP 16 (1966): 120; William J. Dumbrell, “The Purpose of the Books of Chronicles,” JETS 27 (1984): 260–63; Riley, King and Cultus, 169–71. 22. Sunwoo Hwang, “The Hope for the Restoration of the Davidic Kingdom in the Light of the Davidic Covenant in Chronicles” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2011); Brian Kelly, Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles, JSOTSup 211 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996); H. G. M. Williamson, “The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles,” in Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, ed. Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch ( Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983), 3:305–18. These scholars differ on the precise nature of the Chronicler’s Davidic hope. Kelly and Williamson reject the label “messianism” in favor of “royalism” in order to emphasize the continuity between the preexilic and postexilic arrangements (although see Kelly’s later comments in “Messianic Elements in the Chronicler’s Work,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts, ed. P. E Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham [Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995], 263–64). 23. For reservations about whether the genealogy actually stretches to the Chronicler’s own day, see Knoppers, I Chronicles 1–9, 330.

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

133

is of little interest to the Chronicler. 24 However, it contributes to the larger message of 2 Chr 36, a chapter that has significant implications for the future of the Davidic dynasty. After the death of Josiah, the Chronicler marches through the last four kings in rapid succession. Almost no actions are recorded for each king, only their wickedness and the supremacy that foreign kings wielded over them. One sustained interest is the plunder these foreign kings exacted, especially the temple vessels that were taken to Babylon in three different installments (vv. 7, 10, 18). 25 The Chronicler’s account of Jehoiachin reflects these interests. Jehoiachin’s regnal formula (v. 9) declares that he was 8 years old when he became king, 26 that he reigned 3 months and 10 days, and that he did evil in the sight of Yahweh. The Chronicler then dispenses with him in one sentence. At the turn of the year, 27 Nebuchadnezzar sent for him and brought him to Babylon along with the valuable articles of house of Yahweh, causing Zedekiah his “brother” to reign in his stead. 28 24. This is especially so if the Chronicler has 2 Kgs 24–25 (or something close to it) as a Vorlage. In this case he has reduced Jehoiachin’s reign and exile to the bare minimum (Kalimi and Purvis, “King Jehoiachin,” 452). But against Kalimi and Purvis’s assumption that the Chronicler’s Vorlage is virtually identical to the MT of Kings, Werner E. Lemke insists that the Vorlage is a different (Palestinian) text type, thus making detailed textual comparisons invalid (“The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History,” HTR 58 [1965]: 362). In addition, Steven L. McKenzie has argued that the Chronicler’s Vorlage did not even include the final chapters of Kings, and that instead the Chronicler had an edition of Dtr1 (The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History, HSM 33 [Atlanta: Scholars, 1985], 182–87). Notwithstanding that McKenzie has qualified his position (The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History, VTSup 42 [Leiden: Brill, 1991], 128), because these considerations caution against making too much of the differences between Kings and Chronicles, I will mainly concern myself with Chronicles on its own terms. 25. The repeated use of “all” in the final deportation (vv.  17–19) depicts “an all-­ encompassing cataclysm” (Christopher T. Begg, “Babylon and Judah in Chronicles,” ETL 64 [1988]: 148). 26. Most believe that Jehoiachin’s age (8 instead of 18) is the result of textual corruption (e.g., McKenzie, Chronicler’s Use, 183). The extra 10 days could then be explained by the “10” moving from his age to his regnal duration, with “days” added later to explain the misplaced “10” (so Green, “The Fate of Jehoiakim,” 105). This is probably the best explanation of both issues, but it is hardly decisive, especially because the Chronicler sometimes adjusts numerical data for rhetorical purposes (Mordechai Cogan, “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, ed. Jeffrey H. Tigay [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985], 197–209). It is possible that Jehoiachin’s accession age was shortened and his reign lengthened in order to minimize slightly both his guilt and judgment, a positive spin that is reinforced by Josiah also being eight years old when he became king (see 2 Chr 34:1, 3). Ultimately, no view is conclusive. 27. Tg. has “at the end of the year.” The phrase “turn of the year” is consistently connected with the time when kings go to battle (2 Sam 11:1; 1 Kgs 20:22, 26; 1 Chr 20:1), which makes the absence of battle in this verse a noteworthy exception. 28. See p. 130 n. 12.

134

Chapter 6

In this one-sentence dismissal, Nebuchadnezzar is unquestionably the king in control. Instead of describing the siege as in 2 Kgs 24, the narrator simply has Nebuchadnezzar send for Jehoiachin and bring him to Babylon, as though he were one of his officers. 29 This instance furthers a trend that began with Neco in 2 Chr 35:20–21, where foreign kings are portrayed as the true vassals of Yahweh, over against the Davidides. 30 Neco speaks a prophetic word (cf. David’s portrayal as a prophet in 1 Chronicles 31), God is with Nebuchadnezzar in battle (see ‫ ְּביָד‬+ ‫ נתן‬in 1 Chr 14:10; 2 Chr 36:17), and Cyrus is the true king whom Yahweh has installed to build the temple (2 Chr 36:23). 32 All this supports the notion we suggested above (see p. 131), that the Davidides’ exile (broadly understood) began with the death of Josiah. 33 The Chronicler’s view of Jehoiachin is closely bound up with his theology of exile. Two basic positions on exile in Chronicles have emerged in scholarship. For some, the Chronicler minimizes the Babylonian exile and its effects. The reference to seventy years temporally limits the desolation of the land (v. 21), 34 which Jonathan E. Dyck believes should be confined to Babylonian rule. 35 Regarding the 70 years, Louis Jonker adds that the Chronicler has turned the exile into a more positive time of Sabbath rest. 36 Moreover, only Jerusalem is mentioned as being conquered, with no reference to what the rest of Judah endured. 37 Sara Japhet also notes a complete disinterest in Gedaliah, Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation, or any other story from 29. Interestingly, Jehoiachin “the captive” (1 Chr 3:17) is not explicitly bound in chains, while Jehoiakim is. 30. Ehud Ben Zvi, “When the Foreign Monarch Speaks,” in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture, ed. M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, JSOTSup 263 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 221–28; Paul S. Evans, “The Function of the Chronicler’s Temple Despoliation Notices in Light of Imperial Realities in Yehud,” JBL 129 (2010): 43. 31. On David as a prophet in Chronicles, see James D. Newsome, “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes,” JBL 94 (1975): 203–4. 32. Ben Zvi, “Foreign Monarch,” 223; Kelly, Retribution, 231. Note my similar observations concerning Nebuchadnezzar’s Davidic portrayal in 2  Kings and Jeremiah (pp. 36–37, 73, 79). 33. See also Begg, “Babylon and Judah,” 146. 34. Ben Zvi, “Shifting the Gaze,” 90; Amber K. Warhurst, “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets,” in What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 177–78. 35. Jonathan E. Dyck, The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler, BibInt 33 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 80. 36. Louis Jonker, “The Exile as Sabbath Rest: The Chronicler’s Interpretation of the Exile,” in Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria, August 2007, ed. Bob Becking and Dirk Human, OtSt 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 223. 37. Sara Japhet, “Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles,” in From the Rivers­ of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 338. Japhet argues that the Chronicler portrays “all Israel” as

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

135

exile. 38 Finally, the interest in previous exiles (such as Manasseh’s) suggests that the last exile is one among several, instead of a unique and climactic catastrophe. 39 Based on these observations, many conclude that the Chronicler views exile as a mere interruption in the course of Israel’s history, an interruption that is now safely in the past. 40 Instead of seeing Persian rule as exile, Israel was to see it as a new beginning, where she can carry on her primary task of worship. 41 Over against this approach, others stress that the Chronicler understands Israel to be still in exile in his day. Johnstone proposed this view in a seminal article, 42 which he reinforced with a two-volume commentary on Chronicles. 43 He argues that Israel was exiled because of ‫ ַמעַל‬, a situation of guilt that still demands atonement in the Chronicler’s day. 44 To this we may add: (1) the call to repentance is also still in force, a repentance that is the prerequisite for return (cf. the example of Manasseh); 45 (2) the final call to “go up” (2 Chr 36:23) functions rhetorically as a call to his present audience, indicating that they have yet to return; 46 and (3) the kingship of Cyrus is hardly a substitute for a reigning Davidide, especially if the promise to David’s house is still in force. 47 On this view, the exile is a major feature in the Chronicler’s theology, and is essential to how he understands his own time. I propose a mediating position that has interesting implications for the Chronicler’s view of Jehoiachin. Johnstone rightly affirms that exile is in some sense ongoing. The Cyrus decree is certainly a positive ending, but never having been exiled nor even having left the land, even though a few tribes (e.g., Judah) were exiled for a time (ibid., 339). 38. Sara Japhet, “Periodization between History and Ideology: The Neo-Babylonian Period in Biblical Historiography,” in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 360–63. 39. Leslie C. Allen, “The First and Second Books of Chronicles,” in New Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999), 658. 40. Gary N. Knoppers, “Treasures Won and Lost: Royal (Mis)appropriations in Kings and Chronicles,” in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture, ed. M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie, JSOTSup 263 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 205–8. 41. Jonker, “Sabbath Rest,” 226; John Goldingay, “Chronicler as a Theologian,” BTB 5 (1975): 116. 42. William Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2 Chronicles,” in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane, ed. James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies, JSOTSup 42 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 113–38. 43. William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles, JSOTSup 253–254 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997). 44. Johnstone, “Guilt and Atonement,” 117–24. 45. Cf. Kelly: “Manasseh is the supreme example of restoration in Chronicles” (Retribution, 224). 46. On the ongoing rhetorical force of ‫ויָעַל‬,ְ see ibid., 190. 47. Evans, “Temple Despoliation Notices,” 44–45; Kelly, Retribution, 211. For more on Israel’s ongoing “virtual” exile, see Allen, “Chronicles,” 3:301–3.

136

Chapter 6

there is no narration of the actual return of Israel, 48 the temple vessels, or the Davidic king. The repeated call to repent and seek Yahweh remains in force, not merely as a timeless ethical imperative, but also as the Chronicler’s answer to the problem of exile. 49 And yet, a transition is clearly implied by Cyrus’s invitation. The time of judgment and removal is past; now is the time to return and rebuild. The synthesis of these two trajectories reinforces the category “ameliorated exile” we developed in ch.  3 (pp.  28, 46–47, 49–50). Yahweh’s intense, destructive wrath (what we have termed “utter exile”) is past, but the Israelites have yet to “humble themselves, and pray and seek [Yahweh’s] face and turn from their wicked ways” so that Yahweh might forgive them and heal their land (2 Chr 7:14, ESV). 50 The category of ameliorated exile helps explain a puzzling feature of 2  Chr 36. How can the Chronicler portray the foreign kings in positive, Davidic terms when he still hopes for a restoration of the Davidic monarchy? The view that minimizes exile often goes hand-in-hand with the understanding that the Chronicler has moved on from the Davidides to a new form of leadership that still enables the Chronicler to achieve his cultic objectives. 51 On this view, David and his progeny are simply a means to an end (namely, the temple) and the portrayal of the foreign kings in Davidic terms indicates that the Chronicler welcomes Cyrus as temple builder as he had welcomed Solomon, and therefore he holds no hope for a reinstatement of the house of David. 52 Against this, if Cyrus’s decree is welcomed as an amelioration of exile but not the end of it, then we can understand that there is still room for a Davidic restoration. Conditions are better, but the picture is incomplete without a Davidide. Another feature of 2 Chr 36 corroborates this conclusion. Several scholars have noted the narrative analogy that links the death of Saul and his sons and the fate of Josiah and his sons. Both Saul and Josiah were killed by foreigners, and their death is explained as a failure to heed the word of God (1 Chr 10:13; 2 Chr 35:22). 53 In Saul’s case, he and his three sons all died together. Perhaps one reason for the brevity of the Chronicler’s portrayal of these last kings is to suggest that they should be considered together 48. However, cf. 1 Chr 9. 49. See footnote 45. 50. On this verse as programmatic for Chronicles, see Riley, King and Cultus, 51; Kelly, Retribution, 50–51. Kelly observes that 2 Chr 36:12–16 functions as the polar opposite of 2 Chr 7:14, where the history of ‫ ַמעַל‬has reached its climax (ibid., 105). 51. E.g., Goldingay, “Chronicler as a Theologian,” 113–16. 52. See the discussion of future Davidic hope in Chronicles on p. 132. 53. Christopher T. Begg, “The Fate of Judah’s Four Last Kings in the Book of Chronicles,” OLP 18 (1987): 84; Riley, King and Cultus, 139. Kelly attempts to rebut this parallel by noting that the Chronicler sees David as a decisive break with the Saulide dynasty. Moreover, David’s line is honored with an eternal promise (“Messianic Elements,” 261– 62). However, as we will see, these contrasts belong alongside the similarities as an integral part of the analogy.

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

137

with Josiah in a way that recalls Saul and his sons. 54 But as Begg notes, what is most striking about this parallel to Saul is the difference in outcome. 55 Whereas Saul’s line dies and is cut off, the Chronicler studiously avoids any mention of death after Josiah. 56 Even Jehoiakim is characterized as an exile! 57 The allusion to Saul thus underscores the endurance of the Davidic promise in contrast to the permanent demise of Saul’s dynasty. Thus, in the last chapter of Chronicles, the Chronicler celebrates the amelioration that has occurred under Cyrus, but he still holds out hope for a restoration of the Davidides, a restoration that is explicitly left open by the manner in which he narrates the final Davidic kings. While not skirting their sinfulness, he downplays the finality of their judgment. Also, by repeatedly tying their exile to the deportation of the temple vessels, the Chronicler suggests that to restore one institution will involve the restoration of the other. 58 Conclusion The Chronicler’s optimism is clearly reflected in his brief treatment of Jehoiachin. Notwithstanding his sin and deportation, Jehoiachin “the prisoner” is not killed, but instead becomes the progenitor of the Davidic heirs down to the Chronicler’s day. Though foreign kings have taken up Davidic 54. In the case of the last four kings, the Chronicler breaks his practice of treating each king as a discrete unit (cf. Ehud Ben Zvi, “About Time: Observations about the Construction of Time in the Book of Chronicles,” in History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles, BibleWorld [London: Equinox, 2006], 149; Rodney K. Duke, The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis, JSOTSup 88 [Sheffield: Almond, 1990], 69–70). Notwithstanding its weaknesses, Rudolf Mosis’s paradigmatic approach may give additional warrant to the analogy with Saul. He argues that Saul is a paradigm of unfaithfulness to Yahweh (over against David and Solomon), a paradigm that is repeated in various forms by the later Davidic kings (Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes, FTS 92 [Freiburg: Herder, 1973], 28–41, 203–4, 231). 55. Begg, “Four Last Kings,” 84. 56. Steven Schweitzer, Reading Utopia in Chronicles, LHBOTS 442 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 118. 57. On the different proposals surrounding Jehoiakim’s fate, see p. 12 n. 7. Of particular interest at this point is Begg’s idea of the Chronicler using a “transfer procedure,” where events related to certain kings in 1–2 Kings are said to occur in the reigns of other kings in Chronicles (“Babylon and Judah,” 145–49). In this case, Zedekiah’s being chained in bronze (‫ אסר‬+ ‫ֻׁשּתַ יִם‬ ְ ‫ ; ַּב ְנח‬2 Kgs 25:7) is transferred to Manasseh and Jehoiakim (2 Chr 33:11; 36:6). 58. Boda, 1–2 Chronicles, 424; Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC 15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 297; Knoppers, “Treasures Won and Lost,” 207. Kalimi and Purvis note that while in Kings the vessels are broken down, in Chronicles, they remain intact (“King Jehoiachin,” 452). That the kings and vessels emerge “intact” from Chronicles suggest that both serve as a “continuity theme” in the Chronicler’s eschatology (cf. Peter R. Ackroyd, “The Temple Vessels—A Continuity Theme,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel, VTSup 23 [Leiden: Brill, 1972], 166–81).

138

Chapter 6

roles for a time, the story of Israel’s emergence from exile is far from over, nor will it be until David returns.

Allusions to Jehoiachin in Haggai and Zechariah Because they exhibit many common features, we will consider Haggai and Zechariah together in this section. 59 Unlike Chronicles, which treats Jehoiachin himself, Haggai and Zechariah focus directly on the Persian period and on Jehoiachin’s grandson, Zerubbabel. 60 My objective is to explain how these prophets understood “the grand narrative of Scripture” 61 as being carried forward in their day, particularly with respect to Jehoiachin. Haggai and Zechariah share a common perspective. Both wrestle directly with Jeremiah’s curse on Jehoiachin ( Jer 22:24–30), 62 and both speak of a reversal of this curse. However, it is vitally important to understand properly the timing of this reversal. For both Haggai and Zechariah, the reversal is still in the future. But encouraging developments are still happening in the present, especially regarding Zerubbabel and Joshua. While the positive events concerning these individuals in Hag 2:20–23 and Zech 6:9–15 do not represent the reversal of Jehoiachin’s curse, they function as a pledge that God’s promises to David are not forgotten, and that the reversal will soon occur. 63 Moreover, Zerubbabel and Joshua do not function 59. However, the Meyers’s position that the texts are basically one literary unit (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1–8, AB 25B [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987], xliv–xlviii) is to be rejected. For arguments against, see Mark J. Boda, “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?” in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking, StTR 5 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 51–54. Ben Zvi and Petersen rightly view the literary coherence of the minor prophets as insufficient to warrant the moniker “Book of the Twelve” (Ehud Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts, ed. James W. Watts and Paul R. House, JSOTSup 235 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996], 125–56; David L. Petersen, “A Book of the Twelve?” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney, SBLSymS 15 [Atlanta: SBL, 2000], 3–10). With Petersen (ibid., 10), I prefer “thematized anthology” for the twelve, and thus will treat Haggai and Zechariah as separate (but closely related) literary units. 60. For a recent overview on Zerubbabel, see Joseph Blenkinsopp, David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 71–103. 61. On this concept, see pp. 180–182. 62. We could discern no allusions to the texts in 2  Kings or Ezekiel that mention Jehoiachin. 63. For others who understand Zerubbabel as a type or pledge of the future king in Haggai and Zechariah, see Samuel Amsler, Aggée; Zacharie 1–8, CAT 11c (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988), 40; Georg Sauer, “Serubbabel in der Sicht Haggais und Sacharjas,” in Das Ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost, ed. Fritz Maass, BZAW 105 (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967), 204; Robert T. Siebeneck, “Messianism of Aggeus and ProtoZacharias,” CBQ 19 (1957): 327; Barry G. Webb, The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come, BST (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), 42, and the bibliography in Anthony

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

139

merely as placeholders; they also furnish new insight into both the rationale for the reversal and the manner in which it will take place. The rest of this chapter offers an exposition and defense of this temporal and theological framework. Haggai 2:20–23 This unit has a simple structure: following the introductory formulas (vv. 20–21a), Yahweh proclaims to Zerubbabel that a shaking of all creation is at hand (v. 21b), in which he will overthrow all nations by their own swords (v. 22). Coordinate with this overthrow (“on that day”) will be the exaltation of Zerubbabel as Yahweh’s signet ring. Rhetorically, the hendiadys of Yahweh taking (‫ )לקח‬Zerubbabel and setting him as a signet ring (ָ‫ְוׂשַ ְמ ִּתיך‬ ‫ַחֹותם‬ ָ ‫ )ּכ‬is the climax of this unit, for the other clauses either provide the background to this action (vv. 21b–22) or are syntactically dependent on it (as with “for I have chosen you” in v. 23). To understand Haggai’s view of Zerubbabel better, we will first consider his temporal framework in vv. 20–23, and then his allusion to Jer 22:24–30. 64 The shaking spoken of in v. 21 employs a participial construction that often conveys a present reality, 65 an observation that initially suggests a transition from the “once more in a little while” of v. 6. Has the promised shaking already begun? Only the language of “on that day” (‫ )ּבַּיֹום הַהּוא‬in v. 23—which almost always denotes the future 66—indicates that the shaking, though imminent, is still future. 67 The connection with the shaking in v. 6 (underscored by the structure of Haggai 68 and the common language of ‫מ ְַר ִעיׁש‬ R. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah, LHBOTS­513 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 38–39. On Wolff ’s description of Zerubbabel as a persönlicher Hoffnungsträger, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 238. 64. On Haggai’s temporal framework, see the list of temporal references in W. J. Wessels, “Bridging the Gap: Haggai’s Use of Tradition to Secure the Future,” OTE 18 (2005): 429. 65. Joüon §121d. 66. See David L. Petersen, who argues that “on that day” speaks not of a general future, but is connected to the eschatological day of Yahweh (Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984], 102). For a full treatment of the phrase, see Simon J. De Vries, From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-­Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 38–63. 67. Joüon §121e. Hence Verhoef ’s decision to read the participles in 2:6 and 21 as examples of futurum instans: “the Lord is on the point of shaking” (Haggai and Malachi, 139). On Haggai’s Naherwartung, see Bedford, Temple Restoration, 235; Simon J. De Vries, “Futurism in the Pre-Exilic Minor Prophets Compared with that of the Postexilic Minor Prophets,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart, BZAW 325 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 271; Klaus Seybold, “Die Königserwartung bei den Propheten Haggai und Sacharja,” Jud 28 (1972): 73. 68. Kessler argues for a structure of a (1:1–15); b (2:1–9); a′ (2:10–19); b′ (2:20–23), where a sections recall the covenant curses and urge repentance, while b sections offer hope to a discouraged population (Book of Haggai, 247–51).

140

Chapter 6

‫ּשׁ ַמיִם ְואֶת־ ָה ָארֶץ‬ ָ ‫ )אֶת־ ַה‬adds another point. In v. 6, the shaking is said to be ultimate, eschatological. 69 Here we are using “eschatology” in the sense of “ultimate things” associated with the new age of restoration described in the prophets. 70 Although Yahweh has shaken the earth in the past, one final shaking of both the heavens and the earth will soon come. This shaking will lead not only to the judgment of the nations (vv. 7, 21b–22) but also the glorification of the temple (vv. 7–9) and everlasting peace (v. 9). Aligning the two references to shaking in vv. 6 and 21, the exaltation of Zerubbabel is a crucial part of this final victory of Yahweh. But the unaided eye sees little warrant for this hope. The opening formula (vv. 20–21a) is a stark reminder that Zerubbabel is presently only a governor (‫ ֶּפחָה‬, repeated 4× in Haggai), in contrast to Darius, who reigns as king ְ ‫ ; ֶמל‬1:1, 15). 71 Nevertheless, Haggai clearly presents Yahweh as the ultimate (‫ֶך‬ sovereign, who declares that at the present time Zerubbabel may not be a king, but he is Yahweh’s servant (‫) ֶעבֶד‬, whom Yahweh has chosen (‫)בחר‬. 72 As is typical for Haggai, this language evokes many texts. Rose’s excellent 69. Notwithstanding Sigmund Mowinckel’s claim that “The message of Haggai and of Zechariah has nothing to do with eschatology” (He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson [New York: Abingdon, 1954], 121), Mason, van Rooy, and others demonstrate that eschatology is central to Haggai (Rex Mason, “Prophets of the Restoration,” in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd, ed. R. J. Coggins, Anthony Phillips, and Michael A. Knibb [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982], 139; H. F. van Rooy, “Eschatology and Audience: The Eschatology of Haggai,” OTE 1 [1988]: 58–62). 70. So also Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962), 360–61; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962), 2:115. 71. Kessler shows that ‫ ֶּפחָה‬is a relatively broad term for a number of lower offices (Book of Haggai, 80). Note also Haggai’s practice of dating by Darius’ reign, and the significance for dating we have observed in 2 Kings and Ezekiel (pp. 36, 111–113). This contrast between Zerubbabel and Darius, as well as the sustained use of the covenant curse tradition ( John Kessler, “Haggai, Book of,” DOTP 304) elsewhere in Haggai, strongly suggest that Haggai sees exile as continuing to the present day. This sort of redemptive-historical awareness makes it difficult to sustain Kessler’s thesis that Haggai does not acknowledge that the covenant was broken (“Tradition, Continuity and Covenant in the Book of Haggai: An Alternative Voice from Early Persian Yehud,” in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, LHBOTS 475 [New York: T&T Clark, 2008], 26), and that he is minimizing the people’s disobedience and Yahweh’s judgment (ibid., 33, 37; see also Janet E. Tollington, Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, JSOTSup 150 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 215). In support of my position, see Wolter Rose’s comments about the miserable conditions of the Persian period and their implications for redemptive history (“Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period,” in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era, ed. Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking, StTR 5 [Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003], 181). 72. That Zerubbabel is already chosen and already Yahweh’s servant, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 226, 229.

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

141

charts on both ‫ ֶעבֶד‬and ‫ בחר‬indicate how rich these terms are in the OT. 73 However, as Rose notes, the diversity of previous usage as well as Haggai’s conciseness make it difficult to identify what he is conveying through this language. 74 Indeed, Kessler concludes that Haggai is deliberately vague about Zerubbabel’s role in the restoration and that further precision is unwarranted. 75 Rose and Kessler’s points curb excited identifications about Zerubbabel (for example, as Isaiah’s suffering servant). Nevertheless, I will argue below that more can be said regarding Zerubbabel’s role. Haggai’s temporal framework may be summarized by drawing a parallel between Zerubbabel and the temple. 76 Like the temple (v. 3), Zerubbabel currently possesses little glory compared to the Davidides of the past. 77 Nevertheless, both Zerubbabel and the temple are visible tokens of a future glory that will surpass even that of the old days (v. 9). 78 Yahweh has bestowed both Zerubbabel and the temple in the present time with a favored status that is hidden to the eye but is knowable through prophetic revelation, and thus Haggai encourages his listeners to a radical faith in Yahweh. 79 73. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 210–13. Note also Kessler’s argument that ‫“ בחר‬indicates the restoration of something that was formerly disrupted or withdrawn” (Book of Haggai, 232), which is more persuasive than Verhoef ’s new election idea (Haggai and Malachi, 145), especially since so much of the logic of this text depends on Yahweh’s everlasting election of David. 74. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 215–18. 75. John Kessler, “Haggai, Zerubbabel, and the Political Status of Yehud: The Signet Ring in Haggai 2:23,” in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts, ed. Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak, LHBOTS 427 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 117. 76. This connection is supported by the structural observations I made on p. 140. The many parallels between Zerubbabel and temple cause Clines’s deconstruction (that 2:20–23 have nothing to do with the main theme of temple) to evaporate (David J. A. Clines, “Haggai’s Temple Constructed, Deconstructed, and Reconstructed,” in Second Temple Studies: Temple and Community in the Persian Period, ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards, JSOTSup 175 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994], 79–80). 77. Kessler, “Haggai, Zerubbabel,” 107. 78. The remnant returning and the small portion of land they inhabit make a similar point. The promises of all Israel being regathered and inhabiting the entire land are not yet realized, but they now have a pledge of these things in small measure. 79. For similar proposals concerning the temporal framework of Haggai, see Amsler, Aggée; Zacharie 1–8, 40; Kessler, Book of Haggai, 240–41. Inadequate attention to temporal markers leads some commentators mistakenly to identify the eschatological restoration as having already begun in Haggai’s day (see Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972], 33; Antonios Finitsis, Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6, LSTS 79 [London: T&T Clark, 2011], 121; Rex Mason, “Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai,” VT 27 [1977]: 420; Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, NCB [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], 33; Siebeneck, “Messianism,” 324; Webb, Zechariah, 35–38). To their credit, one can understand the developments of the Persian period as in some sense a movement toward the fulfillment of restoration prophecy (see Ezra 1:1). However, comparison with prophetic expectation, the emphasis on the future in

142

Chapter 6

The second important issue in this text for our purposes concerns the language of the signet ring (‫)חֹותם‬. ָ In my discussion of Jer 22:24–30, I observed that this metaphor conveys not only the idea of preciousness but also delegated authority. Just as a signet ring represents the authority of the monarch, so the Davidides were Yahweh’s vassals, wielding his authority. Moreover, Jer 22:25–26 portrayed Jehoiachin as a signet ring given into the hands of a foreign power. Thus, the Davidic kings were no longer Yahweh’s special vassal; this privilege has been temporarily handed to the Babylonians. In Zerubbabel’s day, the reigning foreign power had changed (from the Babylonians to the Persians), but the arrangement was still the same. 80 As will become clear, when Haggai declares that Yahweh will make Zerubbabel his ‫חֹותם‬, ָ he alludes to Jer 22:24 to address the issue of foreign rule. That an allusion to Jer 22:24 is present here can be established on the following grounds: both use the somewhat rare term ‫חֹותם‬ ָ (which appears 14 times in the OT) in the context of a Davidide who is subjugated to foreign powers. Although not necessary to establish the allusion, both use the metaphor in a similar way, where being a ‫חֹותם‬ ָ conveys Yahweh’s unique favor. Jeremiah 22:24 is also temporally prior, addressing Jehoiachin’s demise, while Hag 2:23 anticipates Zerubbabel’s reinstatement. 81 Finally, the close Haggai, and the explanation of Zerubbabel and the temple as subeschatological pledges all indicate that eschatological restoration is still wholly future. A closely related issue is the meaning of Hag 1:4 and the delay of temple building, on which, see Bedford, Temple Restoration, 169–81; John Kessler, “Temple Building in Haggai,” in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. Mark J. Boda and Jamie R. Novotny, AOAT 366 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 357–79; Frank Y. Patrick, “Time and Tradition in the Book of Haggai,” in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, LHBOTS 475 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 40–55. 80. On Cyrus, see Isa 44:28–45:1. 81. This claim is self-evident in our “reading with the grain” approach, but not to Carroll, who takes as his starting point that the “ideological clash of prophets” is “characteristic of biblical prophecy, where no two prophets ever agreed with one another without substantive conflict between them” (From Chaos to Covenant, 147). For Robert P. Carroll, most or all of Jer 22:24–30 belongs to “an anti-Zerubbabel movement” and was written after Hag 2:20–23 as a polemic against it (Jeremiah, 442; When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament [New York: Seabury, 1979]). Despite the speculative nature of Carroll’s proposal, he has a following: Yair Hoffman, “Reflections on the Relationship between Theopolitics, Prophecy and Historiography,” in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and Benjamin Uffenheimer, JSOTSup 171 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 99; Job, Jeremiah’s Kings, 86; Tollington, Tradition, 142–43. However, all these scholars focus on politics to the exclusion of theology, causing them to miss the theological explanations the texts offer for this shift (I apply Jeremiah to this issue below). On the dating of texts, see Kessler, Book of Haggai, 236, who, with Goldman, argues that parts of Jer 22:24–30 postdate Haggai, but Goldman believes that the retouches on

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

143

genealogical link between Zerubbabel and Jehoiachin “seals” the connection between the texts. Because these texts are related, how can we describe this relationship? There are two basic positions. For some the reversal is so absolute that Haggai’s message must be a pro-monarchical contradiction of the anti-­ monarchical text in Jeremiah. 82 For many in this camp, the motive is political: Jeremiah’s curse on Coniah is an obstacle to Zerubbabel’s legitimacy and must be countermanded by divine fiat. 83 But most commentators opt for the second position, that Haggai is reversing (not contradicting) Jeremiah’s oracle. 84 The most common explanation for this reversal is that Jeremiah only cursed Jehoiachin’s immediate offspring (note the language of “in his days,” ‫;ּביָמָיו‬ ְ v. 30), thus freeing his grandson for restoration. 85 However, this proposal founders on closer examination of Jer 22:30, for there the phrase “in his days” is tied to Jehoiachin himself, not to his offspring. 86 Jehoiachin will not prosper in his days, but will die in captivity. Regarding his offspring, the language of “seed” in the following clause (“For no man of his seed [‫]מּז ְַרעֹו‬ ִ will prosper, sitting on the throne of David, or ruling again in Judah” [my translation]) strongly suggests an indefinite curse. 87 Just as God’s promise to David’s seed (‫ )זֶרַ ע‬in 2 Sam 7:12 extended not only to Solomon but to all his progeny, 88 so here the curse extends beyond Jehoiachin’s immediate descendants. As such, there is a real dilemma: Jehoiachin’s line has been indefinitely cursed, and yet Haggai states that the curse will one day be abrogated. Nevertheless, Haggai’s reversal is not a contradiction of

Jer 22 serve to “limit the judgment on Jehoiachin and his family to those born in Judah,” and hence make Jer 22 and Hag 2 agree (the exact opposite conclusion of Carroll). 82. In addition to those cited in the previous note, see Finitsis, Visions and Eschatology, 120; Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 228. 83. Hence, Paul D. Hanson derides Haggai as being a mere tool of the local powers (The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979], 247). This observation does not imply that there is no political dimension to this text. In light of our discussion of Nebuchadnezzar as Yahweh’s servant in Jeremiah, the Jeremianic allusion here hints that Zerubbabel’s exaltation is to be understood as the end of the temporary rule of the nations (cf. vv. 21b–22; Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 32). 84. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 54; Kessler, Book of Haggai, 231; Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, 32. 85. Petterson, Behold Your King, 65; Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 147. In this case, the curse is not actually reversed, because it never extended beyond Shealtiel in the first place. 86. It is possible that the temporal phrase “in his days” may regulate this following clause as well. See my discussion on p. 68. 87. On “seed” as extending to multiple generations, see H. D. Preuss “‫זָרַ ע‬,” TDOT 4:150–62, although note his qualifications regarding curses on pp. 155–156. 88. See pp. 42–45.

144

Chapter 6

Jeremiah. Instead, the theological contours we have already traced in Jeremiah provide a ready explanation for Haggai’s declaration. 89 This explanation emerges from the dual theme of uprooting and planting that we traced in Jeremiah with respect to the monarchy (ch. 4). In Jeremiah, the dismantling of the preexilic monarchy (which Jehoiachin’s exile represents) was permanent in the sense that Yahweh would never return to these preexilic institutions that had proven to be failures. 90 However, despite this discontinuity with the past, the Davidic monarchy’s uprooting was not permanent; a new shoot (‫ ) ֶצמַח‬would arise from the line of David, who would surpass the old monarchy by ruling with righteousness and justice. Jeremiah gives several indications that Jehoiachin’s line would be the origin of this shoot, a privilege that he grounds largely in their having passed through the judgment of exile. 91 The solution to Haggai’s reversal is therefore already available in Jeremiah: as with Judah’s other institutions, Jehoiachin’s line (and the monarchy as a whole) is cursed indefinitely, but not permanently. A new and better planting will one day follow the uprooting of the old institutions. Haggai’s declaration to Zerubbabel is consistent with these findings, but he contributes the additional point that Jeremiah’s promises concerning the Davidides will find their fulfillment through Zerubbabel in particular. 92 89. One other consideration in favor of reversal (over against contradiction) is that it would be very strange for Haggai, who elsewhere shows high regard for previous traditions­, to contradict a time-honored prophet. As Kessler writes, “the book of Haggai is a text saturated with earlier traditions, selectively used, hermeneutically reconfigured, and rhetorically shaped, wherein continuity is established with the past, and hope evoked for the future” (“Tradition, Continuity and Covenant,” 3). 90. Haggai shows his agreement in v. 9 by stating that the future glory (in this case, of the temple) will not merely equal but surpass the former. This point balances the emphasis some make on Haggai’s continuity with the past (e.g., Bedford’s language of the return to preexilic “normalcy”; Temple Restoration, 234, 260; cf. Stead, Intertextuality, 185). On the importance of discontinuity with the past for the prophetic vision of restoration, see McConville, Judgment and Promise, 180; Raitt, A Theology of Exile, 113, 212; Stulman, Order Amid Chaos, 74–75; Weinfeld, “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel.” 91. It is also possible that in 2:23 Yahweh is rewarding Zerubbabel for his faithful labors (1:12, 14; so Greg Goswell, “The Fate and Future of Zerubbabel in the Prophecy of Haggai,” Bib 91 [2010]: 80; Kessler, Book of Haggai, 231), although this connection is nowhere clear in the text. 92. While Rose is correct to say that ‫לקח‬, ‫ ֶעבֶד‬, and ‫ בחר‬are not exclusively royal terms, he draws the false conclusion that there is nothing to require a royal interpretation in Hag 2:23 (Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 215–18, 239; so also William J. Dumbrell, “Kingship and Temple in the Post-Exilic Period,” RTR 37 [1978]: 39; Goswell, “Zerubbabel”; Pomykala, Davidic Dynasty Tradition, 46–53). The coordination of these terms is strongly suggestive of a royal hope (note the only other verse with all three, Ps 78:70; Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai: A Commentary, trans. Margaret Kohl [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988], 106), and the allusion to Jer 22:24 evokes an explicitly royal, Davidic topos (cf. Kessler, Book

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

145

In summary, close attention to the temporal framework in Hag 2:20–23 as well as to the allusion to Jer 22:24–30 provides a clearer picture concerning Zerubbabel. In terms of Jeremiah’s temporal framework, Zerubbabel and the returnees still feel the sting of God’s judgment: The monarchy has not yet been reinstated and the Davidic heir continues as a petty officer to a foreign crown. Even so, Haggai tries to buoy his audience with the hope that this humiliation will not last forever. In the near future, Yahweh will act decisively to overturn the might of the nations, and one of the results of this great final victory will be the reinstatement of a Davidide as his signet ring. The Jeremianic allusion enables further precision about this image: as Yahweh’s signet ring, Zerubbabel would not only be a prized possession, but also his vassal, representing his authority. Until that day, Zerubbabel remains a pledge of Yahweh’s promise, his choice for David’s future. Zechariah 6:9–15 Zechariah 6:9–15 poses a number of interpretive challenges. I will first present my interpretation of the whole and then focus on its allusions to Jehoiachin. After the messenger formula in v. 9, Zechariah receives instructions in vv. 10–11 for a sign act. He is to take silver and gold from some newly returned exiles and construct a beautiful (possibly two-tiered) crown. 93 Then he is to set this crown on Joshua’s head, and speak the prophecy contained in vv. 12–13. The prophecy speaks of a third party, the “shoot” (‫) ֶצמַח‬. 94 That a third party is in view emerges from the construction ‫ֵה־איׁש‬ ִ ‫הּנ‬, ִ which in every other instance introduces a new party to the scene. 95 This shoot of Haggai, 236–37, although Kessler thinks Haggai is avoiding royal language, which we doubt). Note also strong affinities between v. 22 and Ps 2 and 110 (so Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 100; Sauer, “Serubbabel,” 202–3). As we have argued throughout, the continuity with David is an essential part of prophetic hope (see also Petterson, Behold Your King, 125–26). 93. On attempts to understand the form ‫עֲטָרֹות‬, see Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 133. See Rose’s extended argument for a singular reading (Zemah and Zerubbabel, 47, 84–86). 94. On the translation of this term, Rose argues that ‫ ֶצמַח‬refers not to a portion of a plant, but to the plant as a whole (Zemah and Zerubbabel, 91–120). But Petterson shows convincingly that this finding does not preclude the idea of something new springing from what was cut down, and he also shows that the term often connotes the small or humble beginnings of the new growth (hence “shoot,” conceived as a small, new plant; Behold Your King, 87–90). With respect to the Persian period, Siebeneck notes that “shoot” was a fitting image because it showed that even though things were lowly now, there was still hope for glory (“Messianism,” 325). 95. Num 25:6; Josh 5:13; Judg 7:13; 19:16, 22; 1 Sam 17:23; 2 Sam 1:2; 18:24, 26; 1 Kgs 13:1, 25; 20:39; Ezek 40:3; Dan 10:5; Zech 1:8; 2:1. See also Joyce G. Baldwin, “ṢEMAḤ as a Technical Term in the Prophets,” VT 14 (1964): 95; Mark J. Boda, “Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7–6:15,” JHebS 3 (2001): §4.3.1.

146

Chapter 6

will sprout (v. 12d), language that indicates a Davidic identity. 96 The text states emphatically that this shoot will build the temple (v. 12e and v. 13a), 97 a claim that immediately associates him with Zerubbabel, whom Zechariah has already said will complete the house (4:9). 98 However, while Zerubbabel executes some of the shoot’s roles, he is not the ultimate referent of Zech 6:12–13c. Ultimately, the shoot is the eschatological David, a point we will defend shortly. After declaring that this shoot will build the temple, Zechariah states that he will bear honor (‫ ִיּשָׂא הֹוד‬99), and sit and rule on his throne. The following line (‫ַל־ּכ ְסאֹו‬ ִ ‫ ְ)ו ָהיָה כֹהֵן ע‬is notoriously ambiguous. Does it state that the shoot will be a priest (“and he will be a priest on his throne”), 100 or does it introduce another figure, a priest who will also be present on his own, separate throne (“and there will be a priest on his [own] throne”)? 101 The second option is preferred. Instead of continuing the chain of ‫ְוהּוא‬ statements, Zechariah employs the language of ‫ו ָהיָה‬,ְ which suggests that Zechariah is starting a new idea. 102 The introduction of a second individual (an eschatological priest) is consistent with Jer 33:14–26, a text to which 96. 2 Sam 23:5; Ps 132:17; Jer 33:15; Ezek 29:21. On the meaning of ‫מּתַ ְח ָּתיו‬, ִ see Petterson, Behold Your King, 108. 97. LXX, Syr omit v. 12e. 98. Because of this connection, some suggest that Zerubbabel’s name was originally in v. 11, but then was replaced by Joshua’s when Zerubbabel “vanished” from the scene (Amsler, Aggée; Zacharie 1–8, 109; John J. Collins, “The Eschatology of Zechariah,” in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and Their Relationships, ed. Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak [London: T&T Clark, 2003], 78–80; Laato, Josiah and David Redivivus, 252). Others (Boda, “Oil, Crowns and Thrones,” §4.3.3.4; Stead, Intertextuality, 143, 152–56) do not espouse this redactional history but still say that the text speaks of Zerubbabel, who was absent in Babylon. In Boda’s and Stead’s case, the historical reconstruction is speculative (which they admit), but certainly possible. However, the mention of two distinct temples argues against identifying Zerubbabel as the shoot. See also Petterson, “The Shape of the Davidic Hope Across the Book of the Twelve,” 235–39; Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 131–36. 99. Note the royal connotations of this language: 1 Chr 29:25; Ps 21:5[6]; Jer 22:18; Dan 11:21; Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 136. 100. See those cited in nn. 102 and 104. 101. Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 60. If a second figure is discerned here, he is not “beside” the throne, but “on” it, as is demanded by the parallel language in the previous clause and the typical meaning of ‫( עַל‬Baldwin, “ṢEMAḤ,” 96; Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, BerOl [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000], 2:632). 102. See Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 60. As several point out (Daniel I. Block, “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003], 36; Marko Jauhiainen, “Turban and Crown Lost and Regained: Ezekiel 21:29–32 and Zechariah’s Zemah,” JBL 127 [2008]: 509; Meredith G. Kline, Glory in Our Midst: A Biblical-­ Theological Reading of Zechariah’s Night Visions [Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001], 223), ‫ ְו ָהיָה‬could just as well indicate continuity with the previous discourse. However, the case is not so decisive as they suggest. For examples of ‫ ְו ָהיָה‬introducing a new grammatical

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

147

Zechariah alludes here (more on this later), and this second figure provides a ready referent for ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם‬ ְ in the last line of 6:13. The final line would then state that the “counsel of peace” will abide between the eschatological shoot and the eschatological priest, indicating their ongoing fraternity. 103 The first option (namely, that the shoot is a priest) would require this line to speak of the counsel of peace between the shoot and Yahweh, an interpretation that has found some support, 104 but that seems more forced since Yahweh’s name appears much further back in the verse. Verse 14 continues Yahweh’s instructions about the sign act. Zechariah is to take the crown from Joshua’s head and place it in the temple as a memorial (‫ ) ִזּכָרֹון‬for the returnees. The timeframe in view is unclear. On the one hand, the passage may assume that the temple was already built and hence Zechariah should put the crown in the existing temple. But if this is the case, why does Zechariah speak of a shoot who is coming to build the temple? On the other hand, the temple may have not yet been completed, but the passage looks forward to a time when it will be, at which point the crown will be placed in the temple to celebrate God’s faithfulness. In this case, the completion of the temple was not far off if Zechariah himself is to place the crown there. Neither option can be ruled out, and both will be considered below. In v. 15 Yahweh then adds another promise to those he made in vv. 12–13, namely, that some who are distant will come and build in (‫ בנה‬+ ‫ )ב‬the temple (presumably to adorn or furnish it 105). The fulfillment of these prophecies will confirm Zechariah as a true messenger of Yahweh, but this fulfillment will only happen if the people obey (v. 15c–d). While this text is closely tied to contemporary events, the book of Zechariah also hints that larger eschatological realities are also in view. According to 4:9, Zerubbabel is the one who began the foundation of the house, and he also will complete it. However, it is uncertain whether he will subject in predictive discourse, see Gen 48:21; Num 24:18; Isa 8:8; 10:17; 11:5; 23:18; 30:26, 32; 32:15, 17; Ezek 37:27; 47:9; Mic 5:7[6]. 103. Hence there is some truth in the classical translation of “between the two offices,” even though this is an untenable reading of ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם‬. ְ Against the pervasive idea of diarchy, one could just as easily argue that each having his own throne indicates that each will continue to rule in their respective spheres (Stead, Intertextuality, 156; see Block, “My Servant David,” 36; Petterson, Behold Your King, 62). For the high-priest as subordinate to the king, see the LXX; B. A. Mastin, “Note on Zechariah 6:13,” VT 26 (1976): 115; Petersen, Haggai and Zechariah 1–8, 277–78. 104. Kline, Glory in Our Midst, 224; Petterson, Behold Your King, 111. Jauhiainen finds Ezek 21:24–27[29–32] to be a crucial background here, because the counsel of peace indicates the end of hostilities between Yahweh and his Davidic vassal (“Turban and Crown,” 509–10). This text—like Jer 22:24–30—is an important background, but it is not decisive for understanding the “counsel of peace” as being between Yahweh and the shoot. 105. For examples of this language referring to the furnishing of an existing temple, see 2 Kgs 16:18; 21:4; 2 Chr 33:4.

148

Chapter 6

complete only the foundation or the entire house. 106 Moreover, Zech 9:8–9 suggests that when the eschatological king comes to Zion, the temple (that is, the “house” in v. 8a) will already have been built. Thus, even if Zerubbabel did complete the house, a more ultimate manifestation of the shoot will come, 107 raising the question of whether this shoot will fulfill the building prophecy in 6:12–13 in a new way. 108 Finally, 3:10 speaks of a time of idyllic peace that will accompany the arrival of the shoot. But the book of Zechariah gives no hint of this peace having occurred in Zerubbabel’s time (nor does any other canonical book). 109 These hints accord with our conclusions above concerning the dual referent of Hag 2:23. Even if Zechariah and Haggai are pointing at Zerubbabel (or Joshua) when they speak of the “signet” or the “shoot,” they are ultimately pointing through them to eschatological realities. Zerubbabel’s building work and Joshua’s coronation are contemporary pledges of the future, when the eschatological David will reverse the curse on God’s people. Recognizing two allusions to Jeremiah reinforces the idea that a more thorough reversal of God’s wrath is still to come. The first involves Jer 22:30. Stead has offered the most robust defense of this allusion, which is rooted in the convergence of the terms ‫יׁשב‬, ‫מׁשל‬, and ‫הֹוד‬, as well as the special term ‫ ֶצמַח‬. 110 However, for Stead, the purpose of this allusion is to reemphasize a contrast between the unrighteous Jehoiachin and the future righteous shoot: “Though Jehoiachin was the Davidic King, he is clearly a paradigmatic example of the ‘evil shepherds’ whom Yahweh will ‘visit’ ( Jer 23:2), and in whose place Yahweh will raise up true ‘shepherds’ (‫)ר ִֹעים‬ who will shepherd his people faithfully ( Jer 23:4).” 111 The contrast between the wicked preexilic kings and the righteous future shoot is certainly present in Jeremiah. But Jer 22:24–30 is a “judgment speech without a reason.” Therefore, Jehoiachin can hardly be called “a paradigmatic example of the ‘evil shepherds.’” Instead, Jehoiachin is a paradigm for the judgment that must befall the monarchy, though his own wickedness is not mentioned. 112 106. See discussion in Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 277–78. 107. On the Davidic identity of the shoot, see p. 149. 108. Several others have argued that the temple in 6:12–13 is eschatological. See John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 5:159; Jauhiainen, “Turban and Crown,” 510; and especially Petterson, Behold Your King, 115–19. Rose is more reticent (Zemah and Zerubbabel, 137–38). 109. Joshua also seems to be a temporary representative of the shoot. See Jauhiainen, “Turban and Crown,” 510; Petterson, Behold Your King, 108; Seybold, “Die Königserwartung,” 77. Note also an important connection to 3:8, where Joshua and his companions are “men of portent” (‫) ַא ְנׁשֵי מֹופֵת‬, foreshadowing the shoot (Rose, Zemah and Zerubbabel, 83). 110. Both also share the topic of the monarchy (Stead, Intertextuality, 137–38). 111. Ibid., 138. 112. In our treatment of 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, the only clear negative statement regarding Jehoiachin’s morality we discovered was in 2 Kgs 24:9.

Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures

149

This emphasis on his status (over against his morality) is mirrored in Zech 6. Here, Zechariah indicates that Yahweh will reverse the Davidides’ dethronement and consequent loss of honor. To encourage the returnees to wait patiently for the fulfillment of Jer 23:5–6, Yahweh commands Zechariah to perform a sign act and leave a lasting memorial in the temple. A second allusion to Jeremiah adds a new dimension to this picture. On the basis of ‫ ֶצמַח‬+ ‫( צמח‬verb and noun together), the phrase ‫ַל־ּכּסֵא‬ ִ ‫יׁשב ע‬, and the coordination of Davidic and priestly restoration, Nurmela and Stead argue convincingly that Zech 6:9–15 also has Jer 33:14–26 in view. 113 I already noted in my chapter on Jeremiah that Jer 33:14–26 exhibits many affinities with 22:24–30, including the reversal of the Abrahamic trope of childlessness. Zechariah supports this claim by weaving these two texts together. He also insists that the restoration of the priestly line must happen in coordination with the restoration of the monarchy. In fact, he goes further than Jeremiah by emphasizing the unity of these two offices. Verse 13 has two individuals in view (an eschatological king and an eschatological priest) and climaxes with the statement that they will be at peace. Verse 11 is even more dramatic, speaking of a crown composed of two different metals placed upon the head of a priest! Thus, while Zechariah supports the dual referent of Jer 33:14–26, it is possible that he also begins to merge the eschatological king and priest. 114 Zechariah’s allusions to Jer 23:5–6 and Jer 33:14–26 indicate that a full reversal of the curse on the Davidic line (and even more specifically, on Jehoiachin’s line) is still on the horizon. Zerubbabel and Joshua may be the beginnings of this reversal, but Zechariah also looks beyond them to an eschatological Davidic shoot. 113. Risto Nurmela, Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14 (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1996), 65; Stead, Intertextuality, 138–39. An important third allusion that Stead develops is to 2 Sam 7 (ibid., 140–45). 114. The exact import of the priest being crowned (v. 11) and having a throne (v. 13) is very difficult to establish. On the one hand, Rose (Zemah and Zerubbabel, 55) and Boda (“Oil, Crowns and Thrones,” §4.3.3) show that the word ‫ עֲ ָטרָה‬is a rather general word, and not always to be translated “crown,” and likewise priests are known to have their own “seats” (‫;ּכּסֵא‬ ִ e.g., 1 Sam 1:9). In Boda’s case, the priest being crowned is an encouragement that the rest of the promised blessings are sure to follow (ibid., §4.3.2.4; so also Stead, Intertextuality, 168). Stead argues that the crowning of Joshua in Zech 6:11 is the second phase of an investiture process that began with the turban being put on (reminiscent of Lev 8:9; ibid., 161). These are plausible arguments. However, given the Jehoiachin background of v. 13, it is possible that the ‫ עֲטָרֹות‬of Zech 6:11 is a reversal of the beautiful ‫ עֲ ֶטרֶת‬coming down from Jehoiachin’s head in Jer 13:18. Jehoiachin is connected to the treasures that were lost in exile (see 2 Kgs 24:12–16; Jer 28:6; 2 Chr 36:10), an important note in Zech 6:10. Also, the idea of a priest-king is found elsewhere in the OT (see Petterson, Behold Your King, 120–23), and this sort of figure even plays prominently in Zech 9–14. In the end, it is difficult to adjudicate these possibilities.

150

Chapter 6

Conclusion Haggai and Zechariah provide a crucial orientation to the Persian period that resonates deeply with our conclusions concerning Chronicles. Together, they display a unified perspective on the progress of restoration prophecy, namely, that there is not much progress! The Davidic heir—whom they identify as Zerubbabel—still lacks royal honor, the nations still rule, and the temple is far from Solomon’s glory, let alone the grandeur Ezekiel promised. To counter the people’s discouragement, Yahweh uses Haggai and Zechariah to reiterate and expand on the restoration promises made by previous prophets. In full consistency with Jeremiah, Haggai highlights Yahweh’s ongoing choice of the Davidides and indicates that the signet ring that Yahweh hurled away will once again be restored to honor. Indeed, Haggai emphasizes that the time is at hand. Zechariah proclaims a similar message, explicitly invoking the promise of the shoot and merging it with the promise to Levi’s house. Both prophets provide powerful signs that Yahweh still intends to carry out his promises. In particular, Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the crown in the temple serve as dramatic pledges to reinforce the people’s hope. In this respect, they function similarly to the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin in 2 Kgs 25:27–30 and Jer 52:31–34. 115 Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation was not the restoration itself but a deposit guaranteeing that restoration would someday come, thereby introducing a period of “ameliorated exile.” In the same way, Hag 2:20–23 and Zech 6:9–15 do not deny the ongoing exilic realities of their day but offer visible signs to encourage faith in Yahweh’s notyet-visible restoration. These texts even go beyond Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation in that they directly address Jeremiah’s curse on Jehoiachin’s line and say that it will not last. 115. Rose also notes that the Davidic dynasty is still in the same basic position as it was in this earlier period (“Messianic Expectations,” 180).

Chapter 7

Jehoiachin in Second Temple Texts In pursuit of a biblical-theological perspective on Jehoiachin, we must attend to traditions pertaining to him from the Second Temple period. However, because my goal is biblical theological and these texts are not canonical, 1 I will only survey them briefly. Although each source is worthy of further study in its own right, my primary purpose here is to uncover trends in this period that may lie in the background of the NT’s portrayal of Jehoiachin and thus assist in my biblical-theological purposes. Some texts surveyed below may postdate the NT (for example, 2 Baruch, Josephus, the rabbinic literature), but they are included because they may preserve more ancient traditions that pre-date their writing.

Septuagint The previous chapters have already discussed septuagintal variants on occasions when they bear on textual criticism. This section considers Septuagint books as literary units in their own right, observing places where the portrayal of Jehoiachin departs from what we have already traced in the MT. 2 Kings LXX While 2 Kgs 25:27–30 LXX is quite close to the MT, 2 Kgs 24:8–17 LXX exhibits some important differences. First, 2 Kgs 24:12 LXX adds καὶ οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ (“and his children”) to the list of captives whom Nebuchadnezzar led away from the city. This note reinforces the theme of hope for a future through Jehoiachin. 2 More significant is the portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar’s action in 2 Kgs 24:11 LXX. The text reads, καὶ εἰσῆλθεν Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεὺς βαβυλῶνος εἰς τὴν πόλιν (“And Nabouchodonosor, king of Babylon, entered the city;” NETS, emphasis mine). One possible reason for translating ‫ַוּיָבֹא‬ as καὶ εἰσῆλθεν is that the LXX had omitted the phrase “servants of ” (‫)ע ְַבדֵ י‬ 1. On the canonical status of the Septuagint, see p. 7 n. 39. 2. Regarding Jehoiachin’s children, 2 Kgs 24:17 LXX preserves the difficult reading τὸν Μαθθανιαν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. It is difficult not only grammatically (note the missing τὸν after Μαθθανιαν), but also because Jehoiachin’s “son” is older than he by three years. Hence later witnesses correct the text by replacing υἱὸν with ἀδελφον του πατρος (so LXXL and many cursives).

151

152

Chapter 7

in v. 10. Hence, in v. 10 Nebuchadnezzar had already come to the city. To say that he arrived outside it in v. 11 would be a non sequitur, so the LXX employs the stronger language of him “entering” the city in v. 11. But in so doing, LXX has created another non sequitur, because the very next phrase is καὶ οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐπολιόρκουν ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν (“and his servants were besieging it” [NETS]). The narrative flow is therefore unclear in LXX: to what degree did Jehoiachin willingly surrender when he could have extended the siege a long time? From the perspective of LXX, did Jehoiachin come out because Nebuchadnezzar had already penetrated the city in some fashion? These questions remain unanswerable. Jeremiah LXX The many differences between Jeremiah MT and Jeremiah LXX make it impossible to evaluate Jehoiachin in Jeremiah LXX exactly as we did for Jeremiah MT. 3 Jeremiah LXX is less interested in the restoration of monarchy in general, and as we will now document, the book mutes Jehoiachin’s presence in particular. However, the portrayal of Jehoiachin we developed in ch. 4 still holds in Jeremiah LXX. Jehoiachin is still associated with the uprooting of the monarchy and also with its future planting, albeit in a more tangential fashion. 4 Several passages that we treated at some length in ch. 4 are either missing in the LXX or changed in such a way as to nullify the connection to Jehoiachin. Missing from the LXX is Jer 33:14–26 (MT), which, along with the unusual translation in 22:30 of ‫ֲר ִירי‬ ִ‫ ע‬as ἐκκήρυκτον (“banished”; a hapax), dissolves the Abraham analogy we uncovered above. Likewise, the promise that the temple vessels would be returned (27:21–22 [MT]) is absent from LXX. Jer 13:18 LXX reads τοῖς δυναστεύουσιν (“those in power”) for ‫ְבירָה‬ ִ ‫ ַלּג‬, thus making it impossible to identify the king in that text as Jehoiachin (because that largely depended on his association with the queen mother). Finally, the translation of Jehoiachin’s name as ᾽Ιωακίμ in Jer 52:31 LXX suggests identifying the man restored by Evil-Merodach as Jehoiachin’s father, Jehoiakim, who is ᾽Ιωακίμ elsewhere in Jeremiah LXX (whereas Jeremiah LXX consistently renders Jehoiachin as ᾽Ιεχονίας). 5 3. On the relationship between Jeremiah MT and Jeremiah LXX, see p.  52 n. 1. In this section, I do not take a stance on whether one Hebrew edition was prior to the other, but simply evaluate the two synchronically concerning their perspectives on Jehoiachin. While the Vorlage of Jeremiah LXX may predate Jeremiah MT, our concern here is with the Greek translation itself as a possible background to later NT developments concerning Jehoiachin. 4. If we consider 1 Baruch to be part of the “literary unit” of Jeremiah LXX (being one of the “additions to Jeremiah”; see p.  155 n. 19), then the positive portrayal of Jehoiachin is amplified considerably. However, for this section we will consider Jeremiah LXX on its own terms. 5. On Jehoiachin’s names, see appendix 1. Several redaction-critical comparisons of Jer 52 have attempted to determine the viewpoint of the translator concerning Je-

Jehoiachin in Second Temple Texts

153

These differences both attenuate the portrayal of Jehoiachin and dampen the hopes for kingly restoration in Jeremiah LXX. However, the following texts remain, which allow us to affirm some basic points we made concerning Jeremiah MT. First, Jer 22:24–30 LXX identifies Jehoiachin as the Lord’s signet ring, who will be flung into exile. The rendering of v. 28 as a statement (ἠτιμώθη Ιεχονιας ὡς σκεῦος; “Iechonias was dishonored like a vessel” [NETS]) rather than a question reaffirms his dismal fate in vv. 24–27, but without the tone of lamentation I noted in ch. 4. Verse 30 lacks the line ‫ִצלַח ְּביָמָיו‬ ְ ‫“( ֶּגבֶר לֹא־י‬A man who will not prosper in his days” [NASB]), and thus the curse is not tethered to Jehoiachin’s lifetime but has a more indefinite duration. 6 Hence, Jehoiachin is certainly uprooted in Jeremiah LXX. There is also hope for his planting, but the only text that suggests this hope for Jehoiachin in particular is Jer 24, which groups him among the “good figs.” 7 Jeremiah LXX also articulates a hope for the restoration of the monarchy in general (see 17:25; 23:5; 37:9), but it is much more subdued. Thus, the Jehoiachin of Jeremiah LXX is a pale but still recognizable silhouette of the Jehoiachin of Jeremiah MT. Ezekiel LXX Jehoiachin in Ezekiel LXX resembles closely the profile we developed in ch. 5. 8 However, as with Jeremiah LXX, in some texts the reference to Jehoiachin is more difficult to perceive. For example, in Ezek 19 LXX, the plural “princes of Israel” is rendered with the singular τὸν ἄρχοντα τοῦ Ισραηλ, and the distinction between the rod and the vine plant in vv. 10–14 is no longer discernible on the basis of grammatical gender. The loss of these important clues makes the text even more enigmatic. Also, in 17:22–24, Lust observes that the close linguistic parallels to 17:3–4 are not present in LXX, thus weakening the connection between Jehoiachin and the hopes for a new hoiachin, but with varying (and largely speculative) results. Some see Jer 52 LXX as proJehoiachin (Alexander Rofé, “Not Exile But Annihilation for Zedekiah’s People: The Purport of Jer 52 in the Septuagint,” in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992, ed. Leonard J. Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995], 165–70), while others see it as anti-Jehoiachin (Fischer, “Jeremia 52,” 351–52). 6. See Goldman, Prophétie et royauté, 231–35. Roy D. Wells argues that this change intensifies the lamentation over Jehoiachin (“Indications of Late Reinterpretation of the Jeremianic Tradition from the LXX of Jer 21,1–23,8,” ZAW 96 [1984]: 409). 7. See also Jer 36:2 LXX (29:2 MT) and to a certain degree Jer 52:31–34 LXX. Raymond De Hoop argues that Jeremiah LXX evinces no substantial differences from Jeremiah MT on the topic of exile (“Perspective after the Exile: The King, ʿabdî, ‘My Servant’ in Jeremiah—Some Reflections on MT and LXX,” in Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA­/ OTSSA, Pretoria, August 2007, ed. Bob Becking and Dirk Human, OtSt 50 [Leiden: Brill, 2009], 107). 8. We will employ the pre-hexaplaric P967 and LXXB as our primary witnesses to Ezekiel LXX. See Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 7–10.

154

Chapter 7

David. 9 However, in this case, enough parallels still remain (e.g., κέδρος) for the reader to understand that vv. 22–24 is a continuation of vv. 3–4. In general, the Davidic hope in Ezekiel LXX and MT is quite similar. Lust and Crane 10 perceptively analyze the differences but ultimately overemphasize them. As we discuss above (p. 122), the translation ἄρχων in ְ ‫ ) ֶמל‬does not affect the portrayal of David in 37:24 (where the MT reads ‫ֶך‬ a substantial way. The different position of ch. 37 (after the Gog pericope) in P967 is more significant, but it cannot sustain Crane’s suggestion that P967 portrays a peaceful Davidic shepherd over against a more militaristic Davidic ruler in MT. 11 In both P967 and MT, the Davidic ruler is portrayed as a peaceful shepherd, feeding the flock after Yahweh has gathered them back to the land. 12 Finally, the unusual variant in 17:22 deserves special mention. Where MT describes Yahweh planting the sprig on a “high and lofty mountain” (‫הַר־‬ ‫)ּגָב ֹ ַה ְו ָתלּול‬, LXX has the “high mountain” (ὄρος ὑψηλόν), but then renders καὶ κρεμάσω αὐτὸν (“and he will hang him”) in place of ‫ו ָתלּול‬.ְ P967 has καὶ κρεμαστόν only (a “high and hanging mountain”?). 13 Recourse to the root ‫“( תלה‬to hang”) may explain how the translator of P967 attempted to make sense of this rare word, but it does not explain the first-person verb form or the direct object witnessed in other LXX texts (namely, καὶ κρεμάσω αὐτὸν). Lust is perhaps correct in suggesting that the phrase καὶ κρεμάσω αὐτὸν is a later Christian adaptation (thus alluding to Jesus “hanging” on the cross at Golgotha). 14 For this reason, we tentatively regard the P967 text (with its minimal change to MT) as predating the other LXX variant and is therefore more likely to have been current when the NT was written. 15 1–2 Chronicles LXX The few substantial differences in 1–2 Chronicles LXX concerning Jehoiachin are: (1) rendering ‫ א ִַּסר‬as a proper name (Ιεχονια-ασιρ) in 1 Chr 3:17; (2) his regnal age is 18 years in 2 Chr 36:9 (but cf. LXXB, which agrees with the MT); and (3) Zedekiah is his father’s brother in 2 Chr 36:10. These all 9. Johan Lust, “‘And I Shall Hang Him on a Lofty Mountain’: Ezek 17:22–24 and Messianism in the Septuagint,” in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995, ed. Bernard A. Taylor, SBLSCS 45 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997), 241. 10. Lust, “Messianism in LXX-Ezekiel”; Crane, Israel’s Restoration, 250–57. 11. Ibid., 251–55; see Block, “Royal Ideology,” 238–39. 12. See my discussion on pp. 120–124. 13. Lust convincingly suggests that the other unusual variant in v. 22 (καρδίας instead of ‫ְקֹותיו‬ ָ ‫ )יֹנ‬is a confusion of the word κράδας (“quivering sprig”), which may have been the original translation. 14. Lust, “‘And I Shall Hang Him,’” 249. 15. Against Lust’s argument that Ezek 17:22–24 downplays the individual messianism by its plural grammatical forms (ibid., 250), the text as a whole describes God plucking one among several branches (note the singular verb forms in v. 23).

Jehoiachin in Second Temple Texts

155

smooth out difficulties in the MT, but do not materially affect the portrayal of Jehoiachin. 1 Esdras Similar changes occur in 1 Esdras: (1) Jehoiachin is appointed king at 18 years of age (v. 41) and (2) his relationship to Zedekiah is unspecified (v. 44). However, 1 Esdras evinces an interesting development that will reappear in later literature: apparently, there is confusion about how the names of the final kings of Judah should be rendered in Greek. In 1 Esdras, the final four kings are named: (1) ᾽Ιεχονίας, (2) ᾽Ιωακίμ, (3) ᾽Ιωακίμ, and (4) Σεδεκίας. Jehoahaz is called ᾽Ιεχονίας nowhere else and this rendering is probably an accident. 16 The use of ᾽Ιωακίμ for both Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin appears in 2 Kings LXX and Jeremiah LXX, but as Talshir notes, this assimilation of two discrete names in Hebrew to a common LXX name has no basis in any Hebrew text. 17 1 Baruch While 1 Baruch is difficult to date, most scholars locate it in the second century B.C. 18 If so, 1 Baruch marks one of the earliest texts to rehabilitate Jehoiachin’s moral character. 19 While in exile, 20 Baruch reads what is probably the book of Jeremiah to the exiles (1 Bar 1:1–4). 21 Jehoiachin is prominent in the audience (v.  3). Unlike Jehoiakim, who rejected God’s word through Jeremiah ( Jer 36), Jehoiachin imitates his grandfather Josiah by being humble of heart. 22 Jehoiachin and the gôlâ respond with 16. So also Zipora Talshir, I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary, SBLSCS 50 (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 59. 17. Ibid., 60, 72–73. 18. See the survey in David G. Burke, The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9, SBLSCS 10 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 26–32. 19. Whether one views 1 Baruch as a separate book (so André Kabasele Mukenge, “Les derniers rois de Juda et la lecture du ‘livre’: Josias (2 R 22–23), Joiaqim ( Jer 36) et Jékonias (Ba 1, 1–14),” RTL 30 [1999]: 11–31) or an appendix to Jeremiah (so Pierre Maurice Bogaert, “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, LXX et VL),” in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday, ed. Gerald J. Norton and Stephen Pisano [Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1991], 1–17; André Wénin, “Y a-t-il un ‘livre de Baruch’? A propos du livre récent d’André Kabasele Mukenge,” in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, ed. André Wénin and J.-M. Auwers, BETL 144 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999], 231–43) makes little difference for the portrayal of Jehoiachin. 20. The narrative timeframe is confused in 1 Baruch and does not lead to a single clear date. See Anthony J. Saldarini, “The Book of Baruch: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in NIB (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 942–43. 21. See Wénin, “Baruch.” 22. For this threefold narrative analogy, see Mukenge, “Les derniers rois,” who is building on the work of Bogaert (see “Les trois formes,” 389).

156

Chapter 7

weeping­, fasting­, and a repentant prayer reminiscent of Dan 9. They also send an offering to the people who remain in Jerusalem (vv. 6–9). Mukenge argues that in this positive portrayal of Jehoiachin, the author of 1 Baruch was striving to explain Jehoiachin’s seemingly undeserved exaltation under Evil-­Merodach. 23 Although this is hard to substantiate from 1 Baruch, it emerges again in Rabbinic interpretation.

2 Baruch Most scholars believe 2 Baruch to be a Jewish text written between AD 70 and 132. 24 The sole reference to Jehoiachin in this text appears in its first verse: “And it happened in the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah, the king of Judah, that the word of the Lord came to Baruch, the son of Neriah.” 25 The pseudepigraphical work then proceeds to treat a variety of theological concerns relating to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Daniel M. Gurtner argues that “the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah” refers to the 25th year from when Jeconiah began to reign (and not to his age). 26 This conclusion places the narrative setting of the book in approximately 572 BC, well after the fall of Jerusalem in 586. Given the parallel between the two falls of Jerusalem, Gurtner then proposes that the ostensive date in 2 Bar 1:1 corresponds to the actual time of the writing of 2 Baruch (approximately 95 AD, 25 years after the fall of Jerusalem). 27 However, this argument suffers from two major flaws. First, as Sayler had argued previously, Jerusalem did not fall until eleven years after Jeconiah’s deportation. Thus, the 25th year of Jehoiachin’s exile would be 14 years after the fall of Jerusalem, and if the date in 1:1 did correspond to the time of 2 Baruch’s writing, we should date 2 Baruch to sometime around AD 84 (14 years after AD 70). 28 But aside from the question of 2 Baruch’s dating, Gurtner does not seem to notice that the reference to “the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah” does not make sense in the context of 2 Bar 1. On that date, 2 Bar 1 says that Baruch received an oracle from the Lord, where the Lord threatens certain punishment on Judah, including casting them from his presence and scattering them among the nations. In the following chapters, the author continues this preexilic temporal perspective until he narrates the fall of Jerusalem in 6:1–8:5. The rest of the book exhibits a consistently 23. Mukenge, “Les derniers rois,” 24–25. 24. Rivḳah Nir has argued that 2 Baruch is actually a Christian text (The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, SBLEJL 20 [Atlanta: SBL, 2003]), but her argument has not won many supporters. 25. “2 (Syrian Apocalypse of ) Baruch,” trans. A. F. J. Klijn (OTP 1:615–52). 26. Daniel M. Gurtner, “The ‘Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah’ and the Date of 2 Baruch,” JSP 18 (2008): 23–32. 27. Ibid., 32. 28. Gwendolyn B. Sayler, Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch, SBLDS 72 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 105, 107.

Jehoiachin in Second Temple Texts

157

exilic temporal framework. Thus, 2 Baruch is inconsistent: 1:1 seems to start the narrative in a time well after the fall of Jerusalem, but the following verses assume that the book starts from a preexilic temporal framework. In light of this inconsistency, it seems that the person in view in 2 Bar 1:1 is not Jehoiachin, but his father, Jehoiakim. We have observed above that as early as the LXX, Jehoiachin and Jehoiakim were confused (as well as Jehoahaz; 1 Esd 1:32), with both names being translated Ιωακιμ (or variants). Because a Greek original probably lies behind the Syriac translation that is our primary witness to 2 Baruch, 29 the Syriac translator may have mistakenly translated ᾽Ιωακίμ as “Jeconiah.” 30 Several additional factors reinforce the hypothesis that Jehoiakim was originally in view. First, 2 Kgs 23:36 and 2 Chr 36:5 say that Jehoiakim became king when he was 25 years old. If we understand “the twenty-fifth year of Jehoiakim” in 2 Bar 1:1 to refer to Jehoiakim’s age, then the author is situating his narrative shortly after the death of Josiah, at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign. 31 Second, this dating makes better sense of 1:3, where God says that, whereas the people of the northern kingdom “were forced by their kings to sin,” the people of southern kingdom “have themselves forced and compelled their kings to sin” (1:3). While it is not clear what the author had in mind when he said that the people “compelled their kings to sin,” 32 this statement assumes a more positive view of a Judean king, which aligns with Josiah (see 2 Bar 66). But the strongest argument in favor of this shift to Jehoiakim is the incoherence of 2 Baruch’s narrative flow apart from it. 33

Josephus Josephus has a very high view of Jehoiachin. 34 In his impassioned speech to John of Gischala and the Jews on the walls of Jerusalem, Josephus invokes the story of Jehoiachin’s capitulation to Nebuchadnezzar as a “noble example” (καλὸν ὑπόδειγμα; J.W. 6.103–6 [Thackeray, LCL]). Just as Jehoiachin freely left the city to prevent its destruction (and especially the destruction of the temple), so Josephus urges his listeners to surrender­to the 29. “2 (Syrian Apocalypse of ) Baruch” (OTP 1:615–16). 30. Other textual witnesses provide no light on this question. The Arabic version is missing the first two chapters. 31. Admittedly, this understanding of the formula “the x year of King Y ” goes against the grain of the biblical idiom, which normally uses this language to specify a time from when a king began to reign. See Gurtner, “Twenty-Fifth Year,” 29–30. 32. But see 1 Esd 1:22. 33. But given the incoherence of the timeframe in other books (e.g., 1 Baruch, see p. 155 n. 20), even this argument is far from conclusive. 34. For detailed treatments of Josephus on Jehoiachin, see Christopher T. Begg, Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185), BETL 145 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 519–31; and Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Jehoiachin,” PAPS 139 (1995): 11–31.

158

Chapter 7

Romans. Josephus adds that, because of Jehoiachin’s surrender, he is “celebrated in sacred story by all Jews, and memory, in a stream that runs down the ages ever fresh, passes him on to posterity immortal” (6.105 [Thackeray, LCL]). The Rabbinic evidence cited below suggests some particular ways in which Jehoiachin may have been celebrated among the Jews in Josephus’s time. 35 Jehoiachin also receives another positive treatment in the Antiquities (10.97–102, 229–30). The story of his reign follows a unique narration of the last days of Jehoiakim’s reign. 36 Josephus claims that when Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem, Jehoiakim permitted him to enter, but then Nebuchadnezzar had him put to death, faithlessly abandoning his earlier pledges to the contrary. At this point, Nebuchadnezzar installed Jehoiachin as king. However, before Nebuchadnezzar got far from the city, he reversed his decision to allow Jehoiachin to reign, a decision that Josephus describes as a mixture of faithlessness (10.230) and fear of rebellion (10.99). 37 When the Babylonian forces came to lay siege to the city, Jehoiachin who was “kind and just [φύσει χρηστὸς ὢν καὶ δίκαιος], 38 did not think it right to suffer the city to be endangered on his account” (10.100 [Marcus, LCL]). 39 Jehoiachin then surrendered when he had received the promise that the city would not come to harm. Later, Josephus briefly narrates Jehoiachin’s release from prison under Evil-Merodach, intensifying the intimacy of their relationship (he was as “one of his closest friends [ἀναγκαιοτάτοις τῶν φίλων],” 10.229 [Marcus, LCL]), and indicating that Evil-Merodach was motivated by remorse over his father’s faithlessness (10.230). 40 35. On Josephus’ probable access to proto-Rabbinic material, see Louis H. Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 65–73. 36. The story of Jehoiakim’s demise is probably a harmonistic invention on Josephus’s part, as appears, for example, in Nebuchadnezzar’s supposed terror (δέος) of an insignificant kingdom (so Begg, Josephus’ Story, 524). That Josephus often creates unprecedented details through synthesis can be seen from the number of captives in Antiquities 10.101 (10,832). Begg demonstrates that Josephus is synthesizing the 10,000 from 2 Kgs 24:14 and the 832 from Jer 52:29 (see Begg, Josephus’ Story, 527). 37. Nebuchadnezzar’s faithlessness is important for Josephus because it explains why Jehoiachin’s surrender did not work out well (Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Jehoiachin,” 27). 38. Josephus employs these terms to describe some of his greatest heroes, including Samuel (Ant. 6.294), David (7.391), Jehoiada (9.166), Hezekiah (9.260), and Nehemiah (11.183). See Feldman’s treatment of these qualities as they pertain to Jehoiachin (“Josephus’ Portrait of Jehoiachin,” 19–25), and also his extended treatment of character qualities in Josephus (Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 74–131). 39. Thus in Josephus’ telling, the single siege of 2 Kgs 24:10–16 becomes two discrete Babylonian visits to Jerusalem. 40. Josephus often injects motives and emotions into his stories (Begg, Josephus’ Story, 533).

Jehoiachin in Second Temple Texts

159

Even though the OT says that Jehoiachin “did evil,” it is not surprising that Josephus would tout Jehoiachin as a model of virtue. 41 First, Jehoiachin’s capitulation to the Babylonians bears a close resemblance to Josephus’s own surrender. 42 For Josephus, it seems that this similarity was not merely a coincidence but that in some way history was repeating itself. As a result, Josephus closely links himself to Jeremiah, Joseph, and other biblical characters. 43 But as David Daube observes, these comparisons work both ways: Josephus not only sees himself in light of these biblical characters; he also sees the biblical characters in light of himself. 44 This dynamic goes a long way toward explaining the positive evaluation Jehoiachin receives: in a self-approbating manner, Josephus retrojects his own experiences into the story of Jehoiachin. However, Jason B. Hood points out that Josephus invoked a broader tradition in JW 6.105 (“he is celebrated among all the Jews in their sacred memorials” [Thackeray, LCL]) which may also influence his portrayal. 45 In summary, Josephus portrays Jehoiachin as an example of prudent, selfless submission to the higher powers of his day, much as he saw himself.

Targums and Rabbinic Traditions Later Jewish reflection exhibits an overwhelmingly positive perspective on Jehoiachin. 46 A full survey of Jehoiachin in these texts can be found elsewhere, but a summary is given here. 47 The Rabbis attempted to resolve problems regarding Jehoiachin’s age and the precise date of his 41. Another example of Josephus reversing the Bible’s ethical judgment is his treatment of King Joash of Israel (9.177; Begg, Josephus’ Story, 525). On how such overt changes fit with Josephus’s promise that he will not change anything (Ant. 1.17), see Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 37–46. 42. So also Begg, Josephus’ Story, 534; Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Jehoiachin,” 25–26; Peter Höffken, “Josephus: Wie man mit Niederlagen umgehen kann: Zu Lebensgeschichte und Auslegung alttestamentlicher Überlieferungen im Bellum Judaicum,” in Kontexte: biografische und forschungsgeschichtliche Schnittpunkte der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft: Festschrift für Hans Jochen Boecker zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Hans Jochen Boecker (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 25–26. For other motivations driving Josephus’ modifications, see the summary in Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus, Biblical Figures in,” EJud 2:1251–52. 43. See David Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” JJS 31 (1980): 20, 26–29; Feldman, Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible, 56. 44. Daube, “Typology in Josephus,” 22; see also Christopher T. Begg, “The Gedaliah Episode and Its Sequels in Josephus,” JSP 12 (1994): 26, 38–39. 45. Jason B. Hood, The Messiah, His Brothers, and the Nations: Matthew 1.1–17, LNTS 441 (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 80. 46. Although not necessarily “Second Temple” texts, these texts are treated here as additional noncanonical sources on Jehoiachin. 47. We are especially indebted to Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Jehoiachin,” 27– 30, of which this section is a short summary. See also Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the

160

Chapter 7

rehabilitation­. 48 They upheld him as an example of repentance and Torahkeeping piety, even attributing the continuance of Judaism in Babylon to his efforts. 49 Other stories involve his willing return of the temple keys to God and Daniel’s instrumental role in his release. 50 One source even indulges in the complete vindication of Jehoiachin’s honor at the expense of Nebuchadnezzar (whose corpse was exhumed and dishonored). 51 By contrast, Jehoiachin received the promise that he would be the ancestor of the Messiah. 52

Conclusion While the Septuagint obscures many of the close readings we developed in chs. 3–6, it still preserves the basic contours of Jehoiachin’s character. Other sources we have from this period rarely mention Jehoiachin. However, the one significant trend is the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin’s moral character, a process that began in 1 Baruch (where Jehoiachin is the paradigmatic repentant sinner) and was completed in Josephus and the Rabbis (where he is a paradigm of virtue in exile). Jews, trans. Henrietta Szold (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909), 4:286–87. 48. S. ʿOlam 25.7; ʾAbot R. Nat (version B) 17.2. 49. Midr. Song Rab. 8.6; cf. my discussion of 1 Baruch on pp.155–156; Midr. Lev. Rab. 19.6; S. ʿOlam 25. Note the tradition of the “exile of the scholars,” where Jehoiachin is said to have gone into exile with extremely learned masters of the Torah (see Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrait of Jehoiachin,” 28). 50. Midr. Lev. Rab. 19.6; Tg. Esth. Sheni 2.1. 51. ʾAbot R. Nat (version B) 17.3. 52. Tan. Toledot 14.

Chapter 8

Jehoiachin in the New Testament Having explored Jehoiachin’s significance through the OT and the Second Temple period, we conclude our treatment of Jehoiachin in tradition by examining three NT texts. The first is the only place where he occurs by name in the NT, in Matthew’s genealogy. In light of Jehoiachin’s importance for Matthew’s genealogy, we will next address his absence from Luke’s genealogy. Finally, we will discuss the parable of the mustard seed, which involves an important allusion to Ezek 17:23.

Matthew 1:11–12 Jehoiachin (hereafter, “Jechoniah,” in keeping with Matthew’s consistent usage) occupies a critical position in Matthew’s genealogy, on a level similar to Abraham and David. Just as Abraham and David mark the first two major divisions in Matthew’s genealogy, the deportation (μετοικεσία) marks a third, and Jechoniah is the figure who straddles the deportation: Stage 1 (vv. 2–6a): Abraham to David Stage 2 (vv. 6b–11): David to the deportation ( Jechoniah) Stage 3 (vv. 12–16): The deportation ( Jechoniah) to Jesus

However, it would be a mistake to elevate Jechoniah to the same level as Abraham and David, for Jechoniah does not appear in the title (“the son of David, the son of Abraham,” 1:1, ESV), nor in the summary verse (1:17), where Matthew refers to the third division by μετοικεσία, rather than with Jechoniah’s name. Nevertheless, Jechoniah occupies a unique place in Matthew’s artfully constructed genealogy, which invites the question: how does Matthew understand Jechoniah’s place in the history of redemption? Because Matthew’s main purpose in his Gospel is to expound Jesus’ identity, a second important question is: how does a better understanding of Jechoniah help prepare the reader to understand Jesus’ person and work? 1 1. It may seem that very little can be said about Jechoniah from the brief mention of him in the genealogy. But studies on biblical genealogies demonstrate that they provide a rich and evocative means of literary, historical, and theological communication. See Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, SNTSMS 8 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969) and Wilson, Genealogy. For a recent summary of the literature on genealogies, see Hood, The Messiah, 9–34.

161

162

Chapter 8

The Purposes of Matthew’s Genealogy Genealogies serve many purposes: for example, they ground a character’s identity, they legitimate someone for an office, 2 or they “summarize history, with a rapid pace through a particular era until the narrative pace is slowed down for detailed story-telling.” 3 In general, Alter and others have highlighted how genealogies “are very effectively employed to amplify the themes and to effect a complementary imaginative realization, in another genre, of the purposes of the narratives in which they are embedded.” 4 Scholars generally agree that Matthew’s genealogy identifies Jesus as the goal or telos of Israel’s history. 5 He is called the Christ (1:1, 16, 17), he comes at the end of a genealogy that encompasses the whole of Israel’s history, and he is located at a climactic point: the end of the third series of 14 generations. 6 Thus, one purpose of the genealogy is to retell Israel’s history in a way that highlights Jesus as the eschatological climax of it. 7 In particular, Jesus completes Israel’s history by fulfilling the promises made to Abraham and David. 8 He is introduced as “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1), and both Abraham and David loom large in the OT as recipients of

2. Character’s identity: P. Abadie, “Les généalogies de Jésus en Matthieu et Luc,” LumVie 48 (1999): 50. Legitimate for office: Wilson, Genealogy, 132. 3. Joel Kennedy, The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1–4:11, WUNT 2/257 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 39. 4. Robert Alter, The World of Biblical Literature (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 55. For a helpful catalog of the rhetorical functions of genealogies in Genesis 1–11, see Richard S. Hess, “The Genealogies of Genesis 1–11 and Comparative Literature,” Bib 70 (1989): 247–50. 5. Christoph Burger, Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 99–102; John Nolland, “The Four (Five) Women and Other Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy,” NTS 43 (1997): 530; Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Inter­ Varsity, 1992), 6–7. 6. Two interpretations for the number 14 have been proposed. Some argue that the three 14s are actually six 7s, and thus Jesus is the beginning of the seventh 7. This reading emphasizes the eschatological nature of Jesus’ coming. However, Matthew treats the generations as three 14s, not six 7s. Others argue that Matthew is engaging in gematria, where 14 is the number for David (‫ ד‬is 4, ‫ ו‬is 6; 4 + 6 + 4 = 14). Although this technique seems unlikely in a Greek document, it is still possible because Jewish readers would know that 14 is the number for David, and it reinforces the importance of David in the genealogy. The latter proposal is more likely, but neither is conclusive. 7. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 75. On the narrative quality of the genealogy, see n. 13 below. 8. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 63; Mervyn Eloff, “Exile, Restoration and Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus O Christos,” Neot 38 (2004): 81; John C. Hutchison, “Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy,” BSac 158 (2001): 153.

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

163

divine promises. 9 The gracious covenants God initiates between Abraham and David become driving forces in redemptive history that are not satisfactorily fulfilled within the OT. 10 As I will argue below, God’s promises to Abraham and David are also a driving force in the “plot” of the genealogy. Given Jesus’ close connection to David and Abraham and his climactic position in the genealogy, the genealogy highlights how God will fulfill the promises made to Abraham and David through Jesus. 11 A second perspective on the purpose of Matthew’s genealogy is found in Joel Kennedy’s recent work on the recapitulation of Israel. He demonstrates that “Jesus is portrayed as repeating, reliving and representatively embodying Israel’s history in Matthew 2:1–4:11.” 12 The genealogy is an introduction to this theme, because it “functions as a compressed retelling and recapitulation of Israel’s history.” 13 Kennedy argues that the genealogy has a plot that begins with Abraham, finds an initial highpoint with King David, but then declines until the low point of deportation. He then traces an upward swing once again in the names following the deportation until the climax of the story in Jesus. 14 The following four chapters (1:18–4:11) of Matthew then portray Jesus as reliving key incidents in the history of Israel, but without Israel’s sin. 15 Jesus can represent all Israel and recapitulate its history precisely because he is the king of Israel, the descendant of David who subsumes in himself the identity of the people as a whole. 16 Thus, the genealogy serves two complementary purposes: on the one hand, it looks backward, summarizing the story of Israel up to Jesus and identifying him as the one who has come to complete that story. But it also 9. The exact scope of what 1:1 introduces is debated. The views range from the genealogy alone to some portion of Matthew’s prologue (e.g., 1:1–4:16) to the entire Gospel. For a helpful overview, see Leroy A. Huizenga, The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew, NovTSup 131 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 139. At the very least, 1:1 introduces the genealogy. 10. In ch. 6, I defined exile as the absence of the prophetic promises of restoration (p. 128). But these promises are themselves reaffirmations of the ancient oaths to Abraham and David (e.g., Jer 4:2; 33:14–26), and hence the oaths to Abraham and David are unfulfilled (or partially fulfilled at best) as long as exile endures. 11. Jack Dean Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 45. 12. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 216. 13. Ibid., 218. On the importance of earlier texts anticipating later ones in Matthew, see Janice Capel Anderson, Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again, JSOTSup 91 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 152–72, 189–90. 14. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 80, 218. The unusual idea that a genealogy has a plot finds further support in Hood’s argument that Matt 1:1–17 is simultaneously a genealogy and a “summary of Israel’s story” (The Messiah, 35–62). 15. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 225. Indeed, the only way that Jesus can be the true Israel is that he is also Yahweh. The paradigms of Israel and Yahweh overlap in Matthew’s depiction of Jesus. 16. D. C. Allison makes the same point from the title “Son of God” (“The Son of God as Israel: A Note on Matthean Christology,” IBS 9 [1987]: 74–81).

164

Chapter 8

looks forward, identifying Jesus as Israel’s kingly representative and providing Israel’s history as a template for the life of the messiah. 17 Jechoniah in the Narrative of Matthew’s Genealogy This section will explore Kennedy’s and Hood’s conclusion that Matthew’s genealogy is a narrative and will endeavor to show how Jechoniah figures within it. At the outset, we must recognize the highly allusive nature of genealogies. Being primarily a list of names, genealogies say very little explicitly, but the names nevertheless evoke a host of narratives and connotations. Matthew invites his readers to recollect these associations, and hence all our previous discussion of Jehoiachin is potentially relevant to Matthew’s reference to him here. But Matthew also directs us to particular facets of these characters through his annotations (for example, “Judah and his brothers”). Matthew’s narrative genealogy proceeds in three stages. The first stage (vv. 2–6a) commences with Abraham. God promises him the land of Canaan, abundant descendants, and blessings to the nations through him (Gen 12:1–3). The latter two promises (involving descendants and the nations) are especially in the foreground in this section of the genealogy. Regarding many descendants, in two places the genealogy draws attention to how the descendants of Abraham multiplied beyond the line that is being narrowly traced here: the multiple descendants of Jacob (᾽Ιακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾽Ιούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ; v. 2), 18 and the multiple descendants of Judah (᾽Ιούδας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Φάρες καὶ τὸν Ζάρα; v. 3). 19 Regarding the nations, the three women mentioned in this section (Tamar, Rahab, and Ruth) were all regarded as Gentiles in the traditions of Matthew’s day, whether because of explicit OT texts ( Josh 2:1 for Rahab, and Ruth 1:4 for Ruth), or because of reasoning based on OT traditions (Tamar). 20 The climax of this section is the naming of David as “the king” (v.  6), which recalls another promise to Abraham, that kings would come from him (17:6). 21 This is the only instance of a title in the genealogy apart from Jesus being called χριστός (v. 16), and is clearly positive. 22 In climaxing with David and in its 17. For more on the genealogy as both retrospective and prospective, see Merrill Kitchen, “Another Exile: ‘Jesus and His Brothers’ in the Gospel of Matthew,” ABR 59 (2011): 2, 4, 7. 18. For an additional dimension to Judah’s annotation, see my discussion of Hood below (p. 167). 19. For differing views on the “brothers” annotations, see p. 167. 20. Richard Bauckham, “Tamar’s Ancestry and Rahab’s Marriage: Two Problems in the Matthean Genealogy,” NovT 37 (1995): 324–29; Hood, The Messiah, 101–8. 21. Cf. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 100, who argues that the goal since Abraham was “to give a king, a ruler for God’s people, to provide the leadership to fulfill Israel’s call and mandate.” 22. Although βασιλεύς is sometimes used negatively in Matthew’s Gospel (for Herod the Great in 2:1, 3, 9; for Herod Antipas in 14:9; for worldly kings in general in 10:18; 11:8;

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

165

syntax, the first stage recalls Ruth’s genealogy, which Kennedy argues was the primary source and inspiration for this section. 23 Hence, the first section of the genealogy focuses favorably on the progress toward the fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham. The second section, however, introduces a twist in the story. David, who was the climax of the previous section, becomes the initiator of a new, negative trajectory in the second section. 24 The first annotation alerts the reader to this new trajectory. The fourth woman in the genealogy, Bathsheba, is not referred to by name but as ἡ τοῦ Οὐρίου (v. 6), suggesting that her role differs from the previous three women. This point is crucial, for it turns up a false assumption that has plagued much of the scholarship on this genealogy. Interpreters often assume that similar annotations must serve similar functions, without respect to their position in the narrative. Notwithstanding Jason Hood’s emphasis on the narrative qualities of the genealogy, 25 Hood understands Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah (not Bathsheba) to serve the same basic narrative function. As four praiseworthy non-Jews, they highlight Jesus’ messianic vocation to the nations. 26 Similarly, in the case of the repeated καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ (vv. 2, 11), Hood argues that they point to the same self-sacrificial role that Judah and Jechoniah played in offering themselves on behalf of their brethren, another important foretaste of Jesus’ messianic calling. 27 I will treat Hood’s proposal concerning Jechoniah in depth below, but for now I note that the assumption about the common purpose of similar annotations ignores the narrative flow of the genealogy. 28 It is certainly important to interpret common annotations in light of one another, but before doing so, one must consider each annotation in its own 17:25), it is largely used in a positive sense (by Jesus in the parables, 18:23; 22:2, 7, 11, 13; 25:34; 25:40; to refer to Jesus in 2:2; 21:5; 27:11, 29, 37, 42 [some of these are ironic]; and to refer to God in 5:35). 23. Kennedy, Recapitulation, 59–65. Contra Hubert Frankemölle, Jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des Evangeliums nach Matthäus (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974), 317. 24. Cf. David R. Bauer, “The Literary Function of the Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel,” SBLSP 29 (1990): 460: “By introducing the period of the monarchy in this way, Matthew suggests that this kind of moral and religious failure characterized the entire period and led finally to the destruction of the monarchy with the Deportation.” 25. Hood, The Messiah, 35–62. 26. Ibid., 119–38. See Hood’s extensive survey of the literature (ibid., 88–118), which shows the difficulty in finding a common function for all four of the women (or five, if Mary is included). 27. Ibid., 80–87. 28. Hood argues for the opposite, stating that if at all possible, repetitions should be understood as serving a common function. In his view, this expectation emerges from how repetitions function in other “Summaries of Israel’s Story” (ibid., 117). But as Sternberg notes, all repetition involves both similarity and difference, with the significance often emerging from the juxtaposition of very different entities (Poetics, 365–440; esp. pp. 382–87).

166

Chapter 8

right, asking how it contributes to the narratival trajectories of the context in which it is located. As I will argue below, the καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς phrase in v. 11 should be read in light of the previous instance in v. 2, but noting the ironic difference. The same applies to the reference to Bathsheba. The difference in phrasing from the previous three women alerts the reader to a new intent. Here, “she who belonged to Uriah” does not remind the reader of the inclusion of the Gentiles and how the kingly line was preserved by the heroism of three women (contra Hood), but instead points to David’s adultery and the massive shift that that sin brought about in the narrative of 1–2 Samuel (see also the prohibition in Deut 17:17). 29 In his sin with Bathsheba, David signaled the beginning of the end for the line of David (see 2 Sam 12:10), and Matthew underlines this sin as a decisive turning point in his genealogy. As he states in the programmatic verse of his Gospel, the sin of Israel is the precise reason Jesus has come (1:21). The decline initiated by David reaches its nadir in the final notice concerning Jechoniah and his brothers. Scholarly attention has been preoccupied with several problems: first, what happened to Jehoiakim, who is missing between Josiah and Jechoniah? Second, who are the “brothers” of Jechoniah? 1 Chronicles 3:16 mentions only one brother, Zedekiah. Scholars propose several answers to these questions. The most common approach to both issues is to suggest that Matthew meant Jehoiakim, not Jehoiachin. This assertion is made either in the more radical way of proposing an emendation (Anton Vögtle), 30 or in the more attenuated way of John Nolland, who says, “‘Jechoniah’ is first and foremost himself, but secondarily a cipher for the father with whom he shares a name.” 31 Either way, this proposal deserves consideration. Jehoiakim had several brothers (1 Chr 3:15), and he was the direct son of Josiah. 32 But as Nolland cogently argues, Vögtle’s emendation cannot be accepted because of the lack of manuscript evidence, 33 and because his linking the period of exile with Jehoiakim does not explain Matthew’s failure to include “Jehoiakim produced Jechoniah,” 29. Bathsheba seems to have been an Israelite, even if Uriah was not. For the focus on David’s sin, see the five references to ἡ γυνὴ Ουριου (or similar phraseology) in 2 Sam 11:3, 26; 12:9, 10, 15. All these appear in negative contexts (those in ch. 12 are part of Nathan’s condemnation of David). When Bathsheba is referred to without this epithet in relation to David, the contexts are not overtly negative (e.g., 2 Sam 12:24; 1 Kgs 1:11, 15). 30. Anton Vögtle, “Josias zeugte den Jechonias und seine Brüder (Mt 1:11),” in Lex Tua Veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 8. August 1961, ed. Heinrich Gross and Franz Mussner (Trier: Paulinus, 1961), 311–13. 31. John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 84. He argues for this conclusion more thoroughly in his article, “Jechoniah and His Brothers (Matthew 1:11),” BBR 7 (1997): 176. 32. Considering Matthew’s willingness to say that Joram begot his great great ­grandson Uzziah (v. 8), this point is weaker than the first. 33. See Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (London: United Bible Societies, 1994), 2.

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

167

for Jechoniah was born well before the deportation. 34 However, Nolland’s proposal also founders. He is correct to notice a confusion between Jehoiakim and Jechoniah in the Septuagint and in Second Temple traditions that could provide the grounds for Matthew conflating the two (especially with the name ᾽Ιωακίμ; cf. 1 Esd 1:37, 43 [35, 41 LXX]). 35 However, Matthew uses the name ᾽Ιεχονίας, which is less ambiguous; with the exception of 1 Esd 1:32 (and possibly 2 Bar 1:1), it is used exclusively for Jehoiachin, the grandson of Josiah. 36 Thus, it is hard to imagine a purposeful conflation of Jehoiakim and Jechoniah as Nolland suggests. 37 Therefore, Matthew seems to refer to Josiah’s grandson, Jehoiachin, when he uses the name ᾽Ιεχονίας. But the problems remain: why does he skip Jehoiakim, and who are Jechoniah’s brothers? Hood’s recent proposal understands ᾽Ιεχονίας as Jehoiachin. He notes the repetition of “and his brothers” after Judah and Jechoniah (vv. 2, 11), and concludes that in both cases they are pictures of “a servant king who serves by self-sacrificially preventing disaster from befalling his brothers.” 38 On this understanding, Jechoniah’s “brothers” are his fellow Israelites who went into captivity with him. This position is certainly possible, and the evidence for understanding Judah this way in vv. 2–3 is strong. 39 However, the evidence Hood marshals for seeing Jechoniah this way is weak: his best support derives from Josephus’ speech from Jewish War 6.103–6, 40 which, as we have observed, reflects Josephus self-servingly reading his own experience into the OT story. 41 Perhaps Hood’s best argument is the common annotation “and his brothers.” If Judah is understood in a sacrificial way, why not interpret Jechoniah in the same manner? 42 As we will see, these two annotations 34. Nolland, Matthew, 83. 35. See p. 155 and appendix 1. 36. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 27. 37. See also Hood’s treatment of Vögtle and Nolland in The Messiah, 76–80. 38. Ibid., 86. 39. The only OT example of “Judah and his brothers” is in Gen 44:14, where Judah leads his brothers before Joseph (ibid., 70). Hood also points to Gen 49:8–12, which invokes Judah’s brothers in a messianic context (ibid., 71). 40. Hood, The Messiah, 80. 41. See pp. 157–160. 42. Several other interpretations have been proposed for the references to brothers in vv. 2 and 11 (also v. 3: “and Zerah”). Raymond E. Brown understands these as a reference to divine selectivity, thus narrowing the line (The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, rev. ed. [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 71; see also Frankemölle, Jahwebund, 317). But Bauer (“Literary Function,” 459) argues for the opposite, saying that these annotations point “to the lateral implications of the genealogy over against its otherwise linear emphasis. Jesus is . . . the one who has significance for all Israel.” That several plausible interpretations exist is a result of the extreme brevity of the annotations and calls for both close attention to context as well as modesty in our conclusions.

168

Chapter 8

should be read in light of each other, but one must first account for the very different narrative contexts of Judah and Jechoniah. To interpret the significance of “Jechoniah and his brothers” in the narrative better, we begin with what is most explicit about Jechoniah in Matthew’s genealogy: his association with μετοικεσία. 43 This close association is particularly apparent from how Jechoniah’s name straddles the references to μετοικεσία in vv. 11–12, creating a little inclusio. Jechoniah is thus the figure who links the end of the second section and the beginning of the third, a link that is forged through μετοικεσία. The word μετοικεσία and its cognates generally refer to a removal from one place to another. 44 The LXX uses μετοικεσία exclusively with reference to the exile, although it may refer either to the event of removal from the land ( Judg 18:30; 1 Chr 5:22) or to the ensuing state of exile (Obad 1:20; Nah 1:30; Lam 1:7; Ezek 12:11). In Matt 1:11–12, it refers to the event of removal, for two reasons: (1) Matthew refers to the μετοικεσία as a discrete period of time that does not continue (v. 17); (2) Matthew speaks of Jechoniah’s begetting Shealtiel after the μετοικεσία (1:12), though Shealtiel was surely born in Babylon. 45 However, as Nolland observes, the language of Josiah begetting Jechoniah and his brothers ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος argues for a period of time “in which the deportation to Babylon took place.” 46 Here μετοικεσία refers not to the exile, but to the period surrounding the several deportations to Babylon (spanning roughly 605–586 BC). 47 As we have seen in previous chapters, Jechoniah’s association with deportation has deep roots in the OT, including Chronicles, one of Matthew’s primary resources. 48 Jechoniah is the only figure in the Davidic genealogy in Chronicles to receive a title, ‫“( א ִַּסר‬a prisoner”), 49 which identifies him closely with exile. Furthermore, the extremely brief reference to Jechoniah in 2 Chr 36:9–10 confirms this reading: Jechoniah is introduced merely to be captured by Nebuchadnezzar and taken to Babylon. The connection to Chronicles helps to explain Jechoniah’s brothers. Jechoniah’s “brothers” are actually close relatives, his father and uncles 43. See Charles T. Davis, “Fulfillment of Creation: A Study of Matthew’s Genealogy,” JAAR 41 (1973): 530. 44. So BDAG. On μετοικεσία and its cognates, see Johan Lust, “Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel,” in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert, ed. André Wénin and J.-M. Auwers, BETL 144 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999), 100–3. 45. Burger (Davidssohn, 96) agrees: μετοικεσία means “nicht das 70jährige Exil, sondern das Ereignis der Deportation nach Babel” (quoting Theodor Zahn). 46. Nolland, Matthew, 84. 47. The deportation was not a single event; there were at least three distinct removals spread out over the course of about 20 years (605–582 B.C.). 48. On Chronicles as Matthew’s primary source for the second stage of his genealogy, see Frankemölle, Jahwebund, 316–17; Kennedy, Recapitulation, 66–71. 49. See p. 130–131.

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

169

( Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah), the three other kings who went into exile (according to the Chronicler) during the last years of Judah. The following evidence supports this conclusion: first, Matthew’s introduction of “and his brothers” reflects the shift from a linear genealogy in 1 Chr 3:10–14 to a segmented genealogy in vv. 15–24, a shift that begins with the generation following Josiah. 50 For the Chronicler, listing Josiah’s sons by birth order in v. 15 represents an ironic reversal of the listing of David’s sons by birth order in v. 1. Whereas the multitude of David’s sons signifies his exalted status, the multiplicity of Josiah’s sons recalls the history of deportation that lies behind each. The branching of the genealogy after Josiah is thus a sign of the decline of David’s line, for the branching recalls that the line of David no longer reigns, but has been entirely deported. Second, the common fate of deportation supports our interpretation: with the exception of Johanan, who is otherwise unknown, all three of Josiah’s sons are deported in the Chronicler’s account, including Jehoiakim (2 Chr 36:6). Jehoiakim’s deportation represents a notable departure from the account in 2  Kings, which simply records that Jehoiakim “slept with his fathers” (2 Kgs 24:6 ESV). As I argued above, this transformation of Jehoiakim’s fate is part of a larger rhetorical agenda in which the Chronicler groups all four of the final kings together, a grouping that Matthew reflects with his reference to Jechoniah’s brothers. Third, Chronicles itself calls Zedekiah Jechoniah’s “brother” (‫ ;אָח‬cf. 2 Chr 36:10). 51 Although this may reflect a corrupt text, it seems Jechoniah is considered a “brother” of his deported father and uncles because he shared in this fate of deportation. Finally, if Jehoiakim is included among Jechoniah’s brothers, then this explains the absence of his name in Matthew’s genealogy. Thus, Matthew’s second use of καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ creates an ironic twist on the first instance in v. 2, where Matthew mentions Judah and his brothers. Contrary to univocal readings, 52 there is a clear shift from positive to negative connotations, a shift that is mirrored in the references to women in the first and second sections. Whereas the mention of Judah and his brothers communicated a movement towards the realization of God’s promises to Abraham, the mention of Jechoniah and his brothers suggests a movement away from the fulfillment of God’s promises to David as a result of the sin of David and his offspring. 53 50. See p.  130. There, I noted that the change in structure reflects the shift from listing reigning kings to listing potential heirs to the throne. 51. See p. 130 n. 12. 52. In addition to Hood, see Brown, Birth, 71. 53. Davis, “Fulfillment of Creation,” 529–30, is on the right track when he says “Judah and his brothers marked the beginning of the fulfillment of promise; Jeconiah and his brothers mark its cancellation.” However, to say that Jechoniah and his brothers mark the cancellation of God’s promises is too strong. God’s promises to David (and

170

Chapter 8

This discontinuity undercuts Hood’s idea that Matthew depicts Jechoniah as a sacrificial sufferer like Judah. Especially given 2 Kings’ description as one who did “evil” (2 Kgs 24:9), there is nothing to suggest that Jehoiachin had honorable motives for his surrender. We have consistently found that 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel have little interest in Jehoiachin’s moral character. Instead, Jeremiah and Ezekiel focus on his status as a cursed exile, and yet dare to affirm that the “Jehoiachin exiles” are the future of Israel. 54 Ironically, by losing the throne, Jechoniah became the seed for a new beginning at the very nadir of Israel’s history (cf. Ezek 17). 55 Rather than viewing Jechoniah as a sacrificial sufferer, Matthew uses Jechoniah’s paradoxical movement through curse to hope in order to prepare his readers for a similar movement in his story of Jesus, a point to which we will return. On the basis of these reflections, it is not surprising that Jechoniah heralds a new beginning in Matthew’s third section. 56 In this way, he serves the opposite purpose of David in v. 6. Whereas David was the climax of the first section but also the beginning of a new, negative trend in the second section, Jechoniah is the anticlimax of the second section, and at the same time the beginning of a new, positive trend in the third and final section. 57 This upward trend is signaled by the introduction to the third section, Μετὰ δὲ τὴν μετοικεσίαν Βαβυλῶνος (v. 12). Based on the discussion of μετοικεσία above, this verse does not refer to the time after exile, but after­ by implication, to Abraham) are never cancelled or forgotten; but they certainly remain unfulfilled. For another interpreter who sees a movement from positive to negative connotations in the reference to brothers, see Bauer, “Literary Function,” 460. 54. See pp. 88, 127. 55. However, Hood’s interpretation of Jechoniah’s “brothers” as Jechoniah’s fellow exiles (The Messiah, 83–86) is dubious, because it is difficult to understand Josiah as “begetting” the rest of the exiles, even metaphorically. Hence we stand by our interpretation that Jechoniah’s “brothers” are the other three kings at the time of the deportation ( Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah), who are literally his uncles. 56. Cf. Herman C. Waetjen, “Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel according to Matthew,” JBL 95 (1976): 209. 57. Along these lines, some have argued that Matthew leaves out a generation in his third section because Jechoniah is supposed to be counted twice, indicating that his appearance after exile signals a beginning so new that it counts as another generation. See Brown, Birth, 83; Burger, Davidssohn, 93; Eloff, “Exile, Restoration,” 78; William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 125–26; R. Larry Overstreet, “Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies,” GTJ 2 (1981): 307–8. Although this conclusion fits well with our argument, it cannot be sustained because the first section also has 13 begettings, resulting in fourteen generations by inclusive reckoning (which is the usual manner, compare the 10 generations of Gen 5). The real issue is: why does Matthew have fourteen “begettings” in his middle section, but 13 in his first and third sections, though he still says that each section has 14 generations (v. 17)? Apparently, Matthew is alternating between inclusive and exclusive reckoning, perhaps to create an inclusio. So also Craig L. Blomberg, “The Liberation of Illegitimacy: Women and Rulers in Matthew 1–2” BTB 21 (1991): 146.

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

171

the deportation. Though the rest of Matthew will indicate that exile continues until the arrival of Jesus, 58 this introduction to the third section recalls the continuation of the Davidic line after deportation. Deportation is not the end of the Davidic line, for it persists beyond the judgment. The line that continues beyond deportation is fundamentally new in character. Just as the Davidic section introduces a kingly dimension to the Abrahamic line, the μετοικεσία section introduces a new quality to the genealogy. The line that continues after the deportation is royal, but it has been stripped of its glory. The reference to Jechoniah and Zerubbabel after the deportation recalls the deep tension between the eschatological hopes associated with these figures (e.g., Ezek 17:22–24; Hag 2:23) and the humiliation of their being at the mercy of foreign powers. 59 After the deportation, the Davidic house, of which Jechoniah was the first generation, was transformed and humbled by the realities of exile. The most positive development in the whole third section is the birth of the Christ himself, which involves the most unexpected maneuver of all: the break from the A δὲ ἐγέννησεν B pattern that Matthew has consistently followed to this point. In v. 16, Matthew shifts to the passive voice and derives Jesus’ begetting from Mary, not Joseph: τὸν ᾽Ιωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη ᾽Ιησοῦς. Some suggest this move undermines the genealogy as a whole, for it forces a wedge between Jesus and the lineage Matthew provides. 60 However, Matthew prefaces his genealogy by saying that Jesus is the son of David, and he continues to emphasize it in the rest of his Gospel (e.g., 21:9, 15). 61 58. Frankemölle, Jahwebund, 321–31, offers a sustained argument that exile is a significant category in Matthew and that Jesus has come to effect release from exile. He argues particularly from parallels between the structure of Chronicles and Matthew. For more on exile continuing, see the seminal treatment in N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), xvii–xviii, 126–27, 203–4. A recent survey of the literature can be found in Douglas S. McComiskey, “Exile and Restoration from Exile in the Scriptural Quotations and Allusions of Jesus,” JETS 53 (2010): 673–96. Against this trend, Steven M. Bryan helpfully critiques Wright, noting that Wright uses “exile” loosely as a cipher for “non-restoration” (Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration, SNTSMS 117 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002], 12– 20). However, this does not warrant Bryan’s conclusion that we should reduce the exile’s significance and decouple the end of exile from the beginning of restoration (ibid., 19). Rather, as we argued in ch. 6, the OT itself expands the definition of exile, a trend that the NT authors capitalize on to herald Jesus as the restorer of captive Israel. 59. Leslie McFall incorrectly characterizes the names in this third section as “private citizens” (“The Chronology of Saul and David,” JETS 53 [2010]: 527). They are not reigning kings, but their royal identity nevertheless lurks in the background. 60. E.g., John Mark Jones, “Subverting the Textuality of Davidic Messianism: Matthew’s Presentation of the Genealogy and the Davidic Title,” CBQ 56 (1994): 259. 61. Also, the naming of Jesus by Joseph (the only other person named a son of David in Matthew’s Gospel, 1:20) indicates that he is a surrogate / legal father (Kingsbury,

172

Chapter 8

However, we should not ignore the discontinuity that Matthew introduces. Even as Matthew shows the deep continuity between Jesus and the central trajectories of the OT, he also makes clear that as a son of Abraham and David Jesus will differ radically from all who have preceded him. Mary conceives the final David in a very unusual way, as the following narrative will explain (1:18–25). As far as the narrative of Matthew’s genealogy goes, this stirring discontinuity regarding Jesus’ descent awakens hope that the negative themes of sin and deportation will somehow be overcome by this uniquely begotten son. Conclusion While this discussion has focused on the function of Jechoniah in Matthew’s genealogy, in order to assess his specific contribution we first needed to establish the purpose of the genealogy and then to trace the basic contours of the genealogy’s narrative. Jechoniah is a complex figure, for in straddling the deportation he marks both the lowest point of Israel’s history and also a new beginning. As a low point, Jechoniah offers a unique contribution to the Abraham-David matrix of Jesus’ identity: while Abraham and David point to God’s promises to these figures, the recollection of Jechoniah’s deportation reminds the reader of the forces that oppose the realization of these promises. 62 This chasm of the deportation concluded a negative trajectory that began with David’s sin in v. 6b. How will the ongoing conditions of sinfulness and exile be overcome? 63 This is the primary dilemma posed by the genealogy, but not without giving the reader reason to hope. Jechoniah also functions positively in the third part of the genealogy, for his continuance shows that there is a future beyond deportation, nebulous though it may be. The Davidic line is exiled, but it nevertheless continues. The uniqueness of Jesus’ identity gives this hope greater impetus: he is conceived in a most unusual way (v. 16), he is the Christ, and he has come at a climactic moment in time, at the end of the third “14.” As the son of David and the son of Abraham, he reminds us that these promises have not been forgotten by God during his people’s exile. Thus, Matthew’s genealogy is a fitting introduction to his gospel because it sets the stage for Jesus in four ways: (1) it recalls the promises to the patriarchs; (2) it highlights the role of David; (3) it identifies the crucial problems of sin and exile; and (4) it points to Jesus’ unique identity as the grounds for a forthcoming solution. Matthew­as Story, 47). However, Matthew shows the inadequacy of the “son of David” title if taken alone. See James M. Gibbs, “Purpose and Pattern in Matthew’s Use of the Title ‘Son of David,’” NTS 10 (1964): 460, 464. 62. We are indebted to Nicholas Piotrowski for this point (personal communication). Piotrowski identifies a “broken chiasm” between v. 1, which has Christ—David— Abraham, and the genealogy itself, which has Abraham—David—Deportation—Christ (see also the summary in v. 17). 63. See p. 171 n. 58.

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

173

Reading the genealogy as a unit, we can see how it orients the reader to these fundamental themes. But considering the Gospel as a whole offers a new window into the genealogy’s function. As mentioned above, Joel Kennedy demonstrates that a central, organizing theme of Matt 1:1–4:11 is the presentation of Jesus as the new Israel who recapitulates Israel’s history, yet without Israel’s sin. After Jesus’ temptation in 4:1–11, he continues to represent all Israel as her king. As recapitulator of Israel’s history, the history of Israel recounted in Matt 1:1–17 provides not only the context of Jesus’ story but also the template for his story. Even as Matthew presents “die Geschichte Israels in Form einer Genealogie,” 64 he also presents the history of Jesus in summary form. 65 In this respect, the genealogy prepares the reader for some of the surprising turns of the Gospel narrative. As the Christ, Jesus will share in the kingly dignity of his father David (v. 6), but he will also participate in the humiliation of the deported king, Jechoniah. Jechoniah’s deportation thus becomes a paradigm of the greatest stumbling block of Jesus’ identity, the necessity for the Christ to suffer (Matt 16:21; 17:12). 66 Just as deportation was the necessary conclusion to the nation’s sin, so also Jesus must suffer on the cross. Insofar as Jesus’ suffering on the cross is the climax of his participation in his people’s exile (that is, their punishment; see Matt 16:21; 20:28; 26:28), 67 it is the most likely aspect of his story to associate with Jechoniah’s deportation. On the cross, Jesus brings the theme of Davidic suffering to its apex and thus recapitulates the deportation of Jechoniah and all Israel. But the discontinuities between Jesus’ death and the exile of Jechoniah also demand attention (more on this later). For now, I note that, whereas the aftermath of Jechoniah’s deportation gave a glimmer of hope (in that the Davidic line did not die out), Jesus’ cross issues in glorious new eschatological realities, the very kingdom of God.

Luke’s Genealogy of Jesus If Jehoiachin is so important to Matthew’s genealogy, why is he omitted in Luke’s? In Jehoiachin’s generation Luke diverges significantly from 64. Burger, Davidssohn, 100. 65. Kennedy does not explicitly connect the genealogy to the rest of the gospel in this way, although the connection naturally flows from his work. See Recapitulation, 102. For a proposal similar to mine, see Wolfgang Hammer, “L’intention de la généalogie de Matthieu,” ETR 55 (1980): 305–6, though his linking of each name in the genealogy to specific segments of the gospel cannot be sustained. 66. Interestingly, Stanley Hauerwas Matthew, BTCB (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006), 27, and Huizenga, The New Isaac, 142, find another pointer to the suffering of the messiah in Matthew’s genealogy via the language of “son of Abraham,” which they interpret as an allusion to Isaac and the Akedah. However, the “volume” of this allusion is markedly lower than that of the deportation, which is mentioned explicitly and repeatedly. 67. On our expanded definition of exile, see p. 171 n. 58.

174

Chapter 8

Matthew (as well as from all OT texts). 68 After Zerubbabel and Shealtiel, Luke identifies Shealtiel’s father not as Jehoiachin but Neri (Νηρί; 3:27), a name that is unknown in the OT. 69 None of the names that follow can be associated with OT figures until Nathan the son of David (v. 31; see 2 Sam 5:14). In effect, Luke has excised the line that runs from Solomon through Jehoiachin, and has introduced a substitute line connecting David to Shealtiel. How does the absence of Jehoiachin and the other kings of Judah from Jesus’ genealogy serve Luke’s literary and theological purposes? 70 After surveying answers to this question that scholars have proposed, 71 Dieter Böhler suggests that Luke identifies Jesus as a new beginning from David that is distinct from the failed line through Solomon. 72 He grounds this reading in Mic 5:2[1], which underlies Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth and speaks of a new ruler coming forth from Bethlehem (instead of Jerusalem). 73 Richard Bauckham offers a similar reading and supports the idea of a new Davidic dynasty from Isa 11:1, which speaks of a new sprout from Jesse. 74 Luke thus achieves continuity between Jesus and David, while simultaneously emphasizing discontinuity between Jesus and the failed kings of Solomon’s line. 75 Jesus will be an altogether different son of David. Böhler and Bauckham’s interpretation may be reinforced by several additional considerations. First, Johnson correctly notes that the dynamic of continuity and discontinuity also appears in Luke 3 in connection with Adam as the “son of God” (v.  38). 76 Luke has just reported the introduc68. For a discussion of the differences between Matthew and Luke, see Maximilian Lambertz, “Die Toledoth in Mt 1,1–17 und Lk 3:23bff,” in Festschrift Franz Dornseiff zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Horst Kusch (Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1953), 206–8. Jacques Masson’s suggestion that Matthew gives Shealtiel as the legal son of Jehoiachin while Luke gives Shealtiel as the biological son of Neri is possible, but ultimately speculative (Jesus, fils de David dans les généalogies de saint Mathieu et de saint Luc [Paris: Téqui, 1982], 239–353, see esp. pp. 351–52). 69. Baruch’s father Neriah (Νηριας) would be in the same generation, but the father of Neriah is Mahseiah (Μαασαιας; Jer 51:59 [LXX 28:59]), not Melchi (Μελχι) as Luke has it. 70. I assume here that Luke is not simply reproducing a genealogical source where these names were absent, but that the absence of these kings is intentional. Given Luke’s intimate knowledge of OT history, he could easily have emended his source to include these kings. 71. Dieter Böhler, “Jesus als Davidssohn bei Lukas und Micha,” Bib 79 (1998): 533–35. 72. Ibid., 538. 73. Ibid., 535–38. 74. Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 334. 75. Therefore, Nathan is significant simply as some son of David other than Solomon, contra Johnson’s elaborate proposal that the Nathan here is to be equated with the prophet by that name (Purpose of Biblical Genealogies, 240–52). Zech 12:12 also may underlie this text. 76. Ibid., 238.

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

175

tion of Jesus as God’s son at his baptism (v. 22). This identification is central in the birth narrative (e.g., 1:32, 35). Adam is the only other person to be called the “son of God” in Luke–Acts, 77 thus highlighting a unique analogy between Jesus and Adam. They are both sons of God in a direct way that is distinct from the rest of humanity. 78 But the main force of this analogy is the contrast between Jesus and Adam, as the following temptation narrative makes clear (4:1–13). Whereas Adam failed in the face of temptation, Jesus was obedient in far more intense circumstances. 79 Luke’s genealogy therefore compares Jesus with Adam, even while it distances Jesus from him. Similarly, Luke’s genealogy suggests that Jesus is like David but also that Jesus surpasses him. Another theme supporting this interpretation of the genealogy is the identification of Jesus as David’s son, an important feature in Luke–Acts. Based on texts such as 1:32, 69, 78 and 2:4, Strauss concludes his thorough treatment of the birth narrative by saying, “Jesus is introduced and defined as the one who will fulfill the Old Testament promise made to David.” 80 And yet, as the Davidssohnfrage pericope makes clear (20:41–44), Jesus is a fundamentally different kind of Davidide than Solomon or any of the subsequent kings. 81 He is “great David’s greater Son.” Hence Jesus “does not simply inherit the throne of David: he brings the Davidic monarchy to its climactic eschatological fulfillment.” 82 He is the eschatological son of David because he is unlike all the previous Davidic kings: he is uniquely conceived by the Holy Spirit, he is anointed by God himself, he acts with perfect righteousness, and he has been raised from the dead to receive a throne greater than David (Acts 2:34–36). 83 Thus, the theology of Luke–Acts aligns with our understanding of the genealogy: Luke omits Solomon through Jehoiachin to distance Jesus from the previous Davidic kings even while he reinforces Jesus’ link with David himself. 77. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 349. “Son of God” also has Davidic connections (see 1:32–35; Mark L. Strauss, The Davidic Messiah in Luke–Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology, JSNTSup 110 [Sheffield: Sheffield, 1995], 92, 95). This observation does not undermine our contention that “Son of God” has a particularly Adamic hue in the genealogy, since David himself was a new Adam. 78. Bauckham, Relatives of Jesus, 370. As Bauckham notes, the opening ὡς ἐνομίζετο (v. 23) sets Jesus apart from Joseph, even while he is identified with him. We do not imply that Jesus is the “son of God” in exactly the same way Adam is. 79. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 371, 383. 80. Strauss, Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 124. 81. See the discussion in Anthony Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 221–57. For Le Donne, the Davidssohnfrage emphasizes Jesus’ uniqueness especially in terms of his priestly prerogatives, whereas the superiority of David’s son to David (David calling him “Lord”) implies a higher claim for Jesus’ identity. 82. Bauckham, Relatives of Jesus, 367. 83. Strauss, Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts, 66, 140.

176

Chapter 8

If this understanding of Luke’s purpose is correct, why does he include Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (3:27)? It is unlikely that such an unusual sequence as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel refers to people other than the biblical characters, especially given their approximate position in the exilic period. If all the other names from Joseph to David differ from other biblical witnesses (e.g., 1 Chr 3:10–24), why does Luke include these two biblical names? First, their inclusion throws into sharper relief the absence of all the kings from Solomon to Jehoiachin. But an understanding of the OT texts we have covered in previous chapters suggests a deeper rationale. According to Hag 2:23, Zerubbabel’s reinstatement was not a contradiction of Jer 22:24–30 because Jeremiah preached both the dissolution of the old monarchy and a future new beginning from David. 84 For Jeremiah, the preexilic sons of David (i.e., those from Solomon to Jehoiachin) have proven to be failures. Therefore, God tore down the old house of David so he could make a new, eschatological beginning. Luke’s genealogy identifies Jesus as this new David who, unlike Jehoiachin and all his forebears, will rule with justice and righteousness. 85

The Parable of the Mustard Seed Apart from the explicit reference to Jehoiachin in Matt 1, Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed presents the only allusion to him in the NT, though it is oblique. In all three versions of the parable (Matt 13:31–32; Mark 4:30–32; Luke 13:18–19), Jesus concludes his short narrative by saying that the birds of the air will dwell (κατασκηνόω) in the branches of the full-grown mustard plant. 86 The language recalls several OT texts, but most agree that Jesus has primarily Ezek 17:23 in view. 87 The linguistic overlap is minimal, but the parable exhibits many thematic parallels: a kingdom-tree growing, the contrast between small and great, the branches growing, and birds residing in them. 84. Bauckham attempts to resolve this by saying Zerubbabel was actually not Jechoniah’s grandson (Relatives of Jesus, 338), but there is no evidence for this (cf. 1 Chr 3:17–19). 85. Note also the allusion to Jer 23:5–6 in Luke 1:78 with the word ἀνατολή, the LXX translation of ‫ ֶצמַח‬. 86. The phrasing differs in each Gospel, but because these differences do not affect the overall thrust of the parable or its relationship to Ezek 17, I will deal with all three synoptic texts concurrently. For the similarities and differences across the versions of the parable, see Harvey K. McArthur, “Parable of the Mustard Seed,” CBQ 33 (1971): 205. 87. Ezek 17:23; 31:6; Dan 4:12, 21 (MT 4:9, 18); Ps 104:12 (LXX 103:12). On the basis of linguistic evidence alone, Daniel 4 (Theodotion) is the closest parallel (see details in ibid., 203). Psalm 104:12 (LXX 103:12) is also quite similar, having τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατασκηνώσει. Mark 4’s version is the closest to Ezek 17, repeating the phrase ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν αὐτοῦ. See the detailed treatment in Franz Kogler, Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung: Zur Reich-Gottes-Vorstellung Jesu und ihren Aktualisierungen in der Urkirche, FB 59 (Würzburg: Echter, 1988), 149–68, who argues particularly for Ezek 17:23 MT as the dominant background.

Jehoiachin in the New Testament

177

Ezekiel 31 and Dan 4 contain these elements as well, but they are stories of judgment, where the Weltenbaum is felled. Only Ezek 17 ends positively, with explicit restoration hopes like we encounter in Jesus’ parable. By adding the detail about the birds, Jesus aligns the narrative world of his parable with Ezekiel’s parable about the exalted cedar. In this light, the birds in Jesus’ parable refer to the Gentiles who will submit to his kingship and enjoy the blessings of the kingdom. 88 Both parables also emphasize the disparity between small beginnings and glorious endings. While Ezekiel concludes with a paradigmatic saying about God making high the low, at the heart of Jesus’ parable is the contrast between the inauspicious beginning of the kingdom and its glorious end. 89 But Jesus also adds a new twist to the OT Weltenbaum tradition. He changes the vehicle of the metaphor from a cedar to a mustard plant. 90 Some attribute this surprising development to the mustard seed’s smallness vis-à-vis the full-grown plant. 91 Certainly the smallness of the seed is central, emphasizing the extremely humble beginnings of the kingdom. But the full-grown mustard plant is also an important part of the imagery. Why would Jesus prefer a mustard plant to describe the greatness of the kingdom over a regal cedar? The declared reason is that, notwithstanding its very small seed, the mustard plant becomes larger in the end than all other garden plants (μεῖζον [πάντων] τῶν λαχάνων; Matt 13:32; Mark 4:32; not in Luke). The kingdom of God starts the smallest but ends the largest. But when this parable is seen against the background of the Weltenbaum tradition, the mustard plant seems very small compared to the great trees in the OT. 92 Funk is correct to suggest that this new metaphor for the greatness of the kingdom is part of the Gospels’ attempt to redefine the nature of the kingdom of God. 93 Whereas the audience expected a great empire similar to the greatness of Egypt (Ezek 31), Babylon (Dan 4), or Rome, Jesus ironically­ 88. So also Rudolf Laufen, “Basileia und ekklēsia: Eine traditions- und redaktions­ geschichtliche Untersuchung des Gleichnisses vom Senfkorn,” in Begegnung mit dem Wort: Festschr. für Heinrich Zimmermann, ed. Josef Zmijewski and Ernst Nellessen, BBB 53 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1979), 119–20; Ulrich Luz, Matthew: A Commentary, trans. James E. Crouch, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2001), 2:262. 89. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 284. 90. As Ryan S. Schellenberg argues, the mustard plant does not have any special symbolic valences in the ancient world, and thus we must rely on cues in Jesus’ parable itself to rightly interpret the symbol (“Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven,” CBQ 71 [2009]: 527–43). 91. E.g., McArthur, “Mustard Seed,” 210. 92. The phrase καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς δένδρον in Luke (καὶ γίνεται δένδρον in Matthew) may highlight this comparison between the mustard plant and its OT correlates. 93. Robert W. Funk, “Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds: Ezekiel 17:22–24; Mark 4:30–32,” Int 27 (1973): 7–8. Similar observations can be found in Luz, Matthew, 261–62; Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Book of Ezekiel,”

178

Chapter 8

switches from a cedar to a mustard plant to emphasize the unostentatious, otherworldly character of his kingdom’s greatness. 94 Where is Jehoiachin in these reflections? If Ezek 17 is the primary intertext for the parable of the mustard seed, we see Jesus identifying himself and his kingdom as the end of Jehoiachin’s story in Ezek 17 and as the fulfillment of the promises in Ezek 17:22–24. But even if Jesus is only recalling the general Weltenbaum tradition found in Ezek 17, 31, Dan 4, and elsewhere, there is still a thematic link between Jesus and Jehoiachin. Just as Jehoiachin was the paradigmatic humiliated king in Ezekiel, Jesus emphasizes that the kingdom of God must start low if it is to reach true greatness.

Conclusion As with the rest of the Second Temple period, the scarcity of references to Jehoiachin in the NT indicates that he was not a major point of reflection. But the three texts treated above reinforce and develop several important trajectories we have traced in the OT. Jehoiachin’s repeated association with exile makes him an important template in Matthew’s genealogy for the suffering that Jesus must endure to complete Israel’s story. The absence of Jehoiachin and the other preexilic kings in Luke’s genealogy highlights Jesus’ identity as the eschatological David. And the parable of the mustard seed indicates that Ezekiel’s contrast between the lowliness of the kingdom’s beginning and its end is an active part of Jesus’ own reflection on the kingdom. in The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence, ed. H. J. de Jonge and Johannes Tromp (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007), 95. 94. Blomberg notes that Jesus often inserts unrealistic surprises in his parables (such as the phrase “and became a tree”; see n. 94 above) to highlight this otherworldly dimension (Parables, 166, 285).

Chapter 9

Jehoiachin in Theology To this point, we have asked a consistent question of each canonical unit: taking the corpus as a whole (for example, the final form of Jeremiah), what role does Jehoiachin play in the larger theology of that corpus? These literary endeavors (chs. 3–6, 8) provide the basis for the biblical theological work that we will undertake here. In a sense, we are asking the same question—what is the significance of Jehoiachin within a given corpus?—but I will now expand the corpus under consideration to be the entire Bible (Protestant canon). However, inasmuch as the Bible is unlike any other book, viewing the Bible as a whole calls for special methods beyond the purview of literary analysis. Because the nature and methods of biblical theology are heavily contested, I will first develop our understanding of biblical theology before seeking to understand Jehoiachin in a full canonical context.

A Salvation-Historical Approach to Biblical Theology The same sympathetic disposition underlies My approach both to individual books and to the Bible as a whole. Two sources of the Bible’s unity emerge from the Bible’s own witness to itself. First, in the Bible’s view, a common author underlies every book: God himself. Second, a common story intertwines every book, a story I shall term “salvation history.” I shall briefly develop each of these points. The Bible is presented as the written word of God. Although humans are represented as playing a genuine role in the Bible’s composition, God is consistently set forth as the essential author of the whole. 1 As we will see, 1. One of the most robust defenses of this position remains Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, “The Biblical Idea of Inspiration,” in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), 131–66. See also Sinclair B. Ferguson, “How Does the Bible Look at Itself?” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, a Challenge, a Debate, ed. Harvie M. Conn (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 47– 66; John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” in The Infallible Word, ed. Ned Bernard Stonehouse and Paul Woolley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 1–52. On the ultimacy of the divine author, see J. Todd Billings, The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 93–94; Daniel J. Treier, “The Superiority of Pre-critical Exegesis? Sic et Non,” TJ 24 (2003): 98. For an example of an interpreter who assumes divine inspiration as the foundation for his poetics while remaining noncommittal as to its reality, see Sternberg, Poetics, 81.

179

180

Chapter 9

this dual authorship of Scripture (with priority given to the divine author) will play a decisive role in the practice of biblical theology. 2 In particular, the all-important decision to seek unity amid diversity (both on the book level and on the canonical level) stems ultimately from the coherence of the divine author. 3 Divine authorship does not imply a monochromatic reading of the Bible. God inspired biblical books over the course of many generations (one reason for its diversity). I will seek to chart the biblical story, but I will do so recognizing that the significance of any aspect of the story morphs over time. For instance, the Babylonian deportation is viewed in particular ways by contemporaries (such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel), but it takes on new significance after the return (e.g., in Haggai and Zechariah) and is developed still further in the NT. One of biblical theology’s central tasks, therefore, is to understand the communicative purposes of the implied divine author by tracing the organic unfolding of revelation over time. 4 2. On the hermeneutical implications of divine authorship, see Vern S. Poythress, “Divine Meaning of Scripture,” WTJ 48 (1986): 241–79; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The Apostolic Discourse and Its Developments,” in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics, ed. Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 198, 202; Timothy Ward, Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 255–59. In sum, divine authorship shifts the focus from the intentions of individual human authors to “canonical intention.” 3. On the importance of this decision, see J. G. McConville, “Using Scripture for Theology: Unity and Diversity in Old Testament Theology,” SBEL 5 (1987): 54. Scholars such as Walter Brueggemann, Burke O. Long, and Roland E. Murphy want to absolutize disorder for the sake of preserving the richness of the Bible’s diversity, as well as for postmodern philosophical reasons (Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997], passim; Burke O. Long, “Letting Rival Gods Be Rivals: Biblical Theology in a Postmodern Age,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 231; Roland E. Murphy, “Reflections on a Critical Biblical Theology,” in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim, ed. Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 268). But by absolutizing diversity they undercut the Bible’s self-understanding as a book that is propounding a common religion through its individual books (see Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993], 100), and they stop short of the true richness that emerges from seeing the diverse parts as a unified whole (see pp. 5–6). 4. As Geerhardus Vos writes, biblical theology seeks to exhibit “the organic process of supernatural revelation in its historic continuity and multiformity” (“The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980], 15). Our understanding of biblical theology’s purpose owes much to the seminal work of Vos and his successors. See Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1948); Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961);

Jehoiachin in Theology

181

Divine authorship is the ultimate source of the Bible’s unity, but another important source is the grand, unified story that spans the whole. 5 Biblical books offer their own windows on this story, contributing complementary perspectives on historical events. 6 Thus, we can distinguish three distinct levels of history: (1) “real history,” the events as they occurred; (2) “salvation history,” the grand story of the Bible; and (3) individual narratives, the particular biblical witnesses to portions of the grand story. 7 The Bible claims to represent “real” history faithfully, although the precise relationship between the narrative presentations and the history behind them is a complex function of genre. 8 Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” WTJ 38 (1976): 281– 99; Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002); Willem VanGemeren, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1988). See n. 7 below for a caveat concerning Vos’s approach. Although this approach bears a superficial resemblance to Brevard S. Childs’ canonical approach, we differ from Childs on several core issues: (1) Childs does not emphasize the idea of progressive revelation; (2) Childs’ emphasis on the “discrete witness of the Old Testament” tends to obscure the Bible’s unity and the NT’s claim to be authoritative ending of the OT story. For further critique of Childs, see Paul R. Noble, The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs, BibInt 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995). 5. This claim is also rooted in Scripture itself, with its many “summaries of Israel’s story” (Richard Bauckham, “Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story,” in The Art of Reading Scripture, ed. Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 41). See Hood, The Messiah, 35–62 for a helpful survey of the summaries of Israel’s story. 6. Although our main focus is salvation history, we acknowledge that it is not the only framework for carrying out biblical theology ( John Goldingay, “The ‘Salvation History’ Perspective and the ‘Wisdom’ Perspective within the Context of Biblical Theology,” EvQ 51 [1979]: 194–207). The canon has many elements that are not narrative in genre (so J. J. M. Roberts, “Historical-Critical Method, Theology, and Contemporary Exegesis,” in Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives: In Honor of J. Christiaan Beker, ed. Steven John Kraftchick, Charles Davison Myers, and Ben C. Ollenburger [Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995], 135). However, much of the nonnarrative portions are dedicated to explicating the narrative (for example, the prophets, the epistles), and even the wisdom literature depends on and enhances the biblical narrative (see Richard L. Schultz, “Unity or Diversity in Wisdom Theology? A Canonical and Covenantal Perspective,” TynBul 48 [1997]: 271–306). 7. Levels 2 and 3 correspond to Genette’s categories of “story” and “narrative,” respectively (see Bauckham, “Coherent Story,” 43). By focusing on the narrative world of the Bible (that is, “salvation history”; level 2), I answer Sailhamer’s critique of classical salvation-historical hermeneutics (for example, Vos), which sometimes sought to move “behind the text” to “objective, uninterpreted history” (level 1); see John Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 69–70. 8. See V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History, FCI 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

182

Chapter 9

When viewed through the lens of the Christian canon, salvation history finds its climax in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:26– 27; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:22–23; Rom 1:1–4; 1 Cor 15:3–4; 1 Pet 1:10–12). 9 The OT provides an essential foundation for this NT climax, establishing “the preconditions for the intelligibility of Jesus’ person and work.” 10 It narrates the story of world history up to Christ’s coming (which demonstrates the necessity of his arrival). It also foreshadows the nature of Christ’s person and work through its depiction of Yahweh, and through promises and types. 11 As one unified book, the NT is also the determinative context for understanding the OT. Francis Watson argues that there can be no unbridgeable gulf between what the Old Testament texts ‘originally’ or ‘actually’ meant and what they come to mean in the context of Christian faith. Such a view would legitimate the existence of two separate exegetical methods, confirming the widespread impression that to understand these texts as the Christian Old Testament is to impose an arbitrary construal that goes against the grain of the texts themselves. 12

The end of the story disambiguates what was previously left open. As part of the same divinely authored canon, the NT is not an intrusion from outside the OT 13 but is the authoritative “final word” on the intrinsic meaning of the OT story as a whole (see Heb 1:1–4). 14 Our work is not complete, 9. On the Bible as Christ-centered, see G. K. Beale, “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,” in Eschatology in Bible and Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, ed. Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 11–52; idem, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 7–9, 97. 10. Francis Watson, Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 218. 11. For a survey of many ways in which the OT relates to the NT, see David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010). 12. Watson, Text and Truth, 217. 13. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 293. 14. Levenson notes that for a Christian OT theology to incorporate the NT would “commit the greatest sin known to the historical-critical method, the sin of anachronism” (Hebrew Bible, 29). In historical criticism, no part of the Bible “is to be read against literature, either internal or external, that cannot be reasonably presumed to have existed at the time” (ibid., 2; see David C. Steinmetz, “Uncovering a Second Narrative: Detective Fiction and the Construction of Historical Method,” in The Art of Reading Scripture, ed. Ellen F. Davis, and Richard B. Hays [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 54–65). But Levenson, Green, and Legaspi show that having a secular view of history as the controlling context for biblical interpretation is the hallmark of historical criticism and is inimical to Christian biblical interpretation (Levenson, Hebrew Bible, 1–32; Green, “Rethinking ‘History’”; Michael C. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies, OSHT [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], 3–26, 155–70).

Jehoiachin in Theology

183

therefore, until we have considered Jehoiachin retrospectively from the end of the story in Jesus Christ. However, this position does not suggest that “the voice of the Old Testament is only what moves uncomplicatedly into the New’s version of its own witness.” 15 Instead, by tracing the unfolding of divine revelation diachronically, I will attend to both continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments and will endeavor both to read the OT in light of the NT and the NT in light of the OT. In preparation for this unified reading, we have listened to each biblical book on its own terms (chs. 3–6, 8). As we consider how to integrate each book’s witness to the gradual disclosure of divine revelation, my final assessment will not be merely a litany of biblical perspectives on Jehoiachin, set in chronological order. Instead, I allow the various witnesses to qualify each other, asking how Jeremiah’s perspective on Jehoiachin complements Ezekiel’s perspective, for example. The end result will be greater than the sum of the parts because of the recontextualization intrinsic to canon. As Harry Y. Gamble writes, In the nature of the case, canonization entails a recontextualization of the documents incorporated into the canon. They are abstracted from both their generative and traditional settings and redeployed as parts of a new literary whole; henceforth they are read in terms of this collection. In this way their historically secondary context becomes their hermeneutically primary context. 16

This sort of recontextualization need not flatten the distinctives within each corpus, although this is a danger. When we articulate the Bible’s unity, we must be careful not to silence its diversity or to ultimatize any one part of the tradition, 17 but instead we must seek a unity that emerges from the Bible’s own standards of rationality. 18 In assessing this method, it is obvious that we endorse bringing preformed theological conclusions to the task of biblical theology. The concepts charted above are hardly self-evident but instead are the result of millennia of churchly reflection, and represent a particular branch of 15. Christopher R. Seitz, “The Canonical Approach and Theological Interpretation,” in Canon and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Craig G. Bartholomew et al. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 79; cf. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 78. 16. Quoted in Dempster, “Geography and Genealogy,” 68. 17. See Richard L. Schultz, “Theological Diversity in the Old Testament as Burden or Divine Gift? Problems and Perspectives in the Current Debate,” in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture: Historical, Biblical, and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. Carlos R. Bovell (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 133–63; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2:428. 18. As von Rad writes, “The most urgent task to-day, as it seems to me, is that of avoiding all conceptions of unity which are not fully authenticated by the material itself ” (Old Testament Theology, 2:427); see Barton, “Reading Texts,” 376–77.

184

Chapter 9

Reformed­Protestantism to which we belong. Although all interpreters bring their worldviews to the text, this particular set of assumptions raises two important objections. First, to what extent will it be possible to learn anything from the Bible when there are so many foregone conclusions? Here I dispute with John J. Collins, who believes that “openness to revision is the trademark that distinguishes critical method from dogmatism of any sort.” 19 But not all dogma is of the entrenched variety against which Johann Philipp Gabler, Collins, and many others have reacted. On the contrary, dogma that is attempting to be biblical must also be open to revision. 20 A second objection is that such a specific understanding of the Bible closes down the possibility of dialogue with others who do not share these presuppositions. Again we quote Collins: “If biblical theology is to retain a place in serious scholarship, it must be able to accommodate the best insights of other branches of biblical scholarship and must be conceived broadly enough to provide a context for debate between different viewpoints.” 21 Collins therefore wants to eliminate the traditional understanding of the Bible as prescriptive revelation, and instead define biblical theology as a descriptive enterprise. For Collins, biblical theology is a specialization of the history of religion, a definition that he believes offers greater possibility for debate between those of differing worldviews, since the question focuses on the shared interest of what beliefs were held in the past. 22 And yet, as Levenson points out, Collins’s concept of biblical theology is not neutral but is “founded upon discreet assumptions,” namely Troeltschian humanism, a point Collins freely acknowledges. 23 But Levenson notes, “to the extent that Jews and Christians bracket their religious commitments in the pursuit of biblical studies, they meet not as Jews and Christians, but as something else,” 24 namely, historical critics. In short, Levenson rightly asserts that our activity as biblical interpreters is intrinsically bound up with our identity as whole people who are part of particular religious communities and traditions.  25 In particular, biblical theology is an 19. John J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman, BibJudS 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 7. 20. See Billings, Word of God, 41; Thiselton, New Horizons, 6; Vanhoozer, Meaning, 466–67. 21. Collins, “Critical,” 6. 22. Ibid., 9. As John Barton writes, “The essence of biblical criticism is that the Bible is not ‘owned’ by anyone, not even by orthodox Christians, but should be interpreted according to publicly available criteria of the meanings of words and sentences” (“Canon and Old Testament Interpretation,” in The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton, SOTSMS [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007], 41); see Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 735. 23. Levenson, Hebrew Bible, 120; Collins, “Critical,” 7. 24. Levenson, Hebrew Bible, 84. 25. For another discussion of “confessional interpretation” that largely endorses Levenson, see Walter Brueggemann, “Old Testament Theology,” in The Oxford Hand-

Jehoiachin in Theology

185

intrinsically confessional enterprise, requiring biblical theologians to take stands on matters such as the scope of canon, the nature of Scripture, and the question of unity and diversity. Our ability to engage in dialogue with those outside our traditions will not be accomplished by bracketing our traditions and meeting under the umbrella of historical criticism, but instead by standing within our own traditions while practicing a sympathetic hermeneutic toward others.

Jehoiachin in Salvation History In light of the foregoing, our present purpose is to understand Jehoiachin’s place in salvation history while recognizing that the full canonical perspective on Jehoiachin emerges over time. Here we will trace the canon’s view of Jehoiachin as it unfolds organically over three periods: the exilic period (Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel), the Persian period (Chronicles, Haggai, Zechariah), and the NT period. 26 In so doing, we seek to put contemporary texts “in conversation” with each other, assessing how they sound together on the topic of Jehoiachin, and asking how they develop previous revelation. Jehoiachin in Exilic Scriptures The books of Kings, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all emphasize that Jehoiachin suffered the fury of God’s wrath. Nebuchadnezzar came against the city because Yahweh would not forgive (2 Kgs 24:4), Jeremiah says that Jehoiachin was cast out like a worthless vessel ( Jer 22:28), and Ezekiel portrays Jehoiachin and his father as a caged lion that was hauled away (Ezek 19:5–9). In particular, Jeremiah portrays Jehoiachin’s dethronement as a reversal of the picture of Davidic supremacy found in 2 Sam 7 and Ps 2. 27 Nevertheless, all three books hesitate to attribute sin to Jehoiachin as a way of explaining this wrath. 2 Kings 24:9 says that Jehoiachin did evil, and both Jer 22 and Ezek 19 group him among other wicked kings, but none of these books hints at the source of his guilt. 28 Instead, the curse against Jehoiachin in Jer 22:24–30 is a “judgment speech without a reason,” 29 emphasizing the consequences of sin rather than the sin itself. The explicit statements that Jehoiachin did evil (2 Kgs 24:9; 2 Chr 36:9) cannot be ignored, book of Biblical Studies, ed. J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 687–93. 26. The decision to group these texts in this way stems from our sympathetic hermeneutic. Whatever the actual history of these books’ composition (level 1 as defined on p. 181), my interest here is in how these books present themselves as related to particular periods in the grand story (levels 2 and 3). 27. See pp. 64–66. 28. Perhaps the closest is 2 Kgs 24:9, which says that he did evil “according to all that his father had done.” 29. See pp. 58–59.

186

Chapter 9

and will play an important role in the reflections below. But the canon equally emphasizes that Jehoiachin bears the judgment due to others. His father Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:1), but apparently did not live to see the consequences of his rebellion, which fell on Jehoiachin (see also Jer 36:30–31). Similarly, 2 Kings underscores that the fall of Jerusalem was ultimately God’s response to the horrific sins of Manasseh (2 Kgs 22:16–17; 23:26; 24:3; see Jer 15:4), although Ezekiel qualifies this perspective by insisting that Jerusalem also fell for the sins of their own time (ch. 18). Jehoiachin was not righteous, but the canon explains his exile as largely the consequence of others’ sins. However, if these texts do not focus on Jehoiachin’s wickedness, they say nothing about his virtue. Viewed from the perspective of Jeremiah’s preaching about the virtues of surrender (21:3–10), Jehoiachin’s surrender to the king of Babylon appears remarkably submissive not only to Nebuchadnezzar’s pressures but also to Yahweh’s purposes, especially when contrasted with Zedekiah’s staunch resistance. 30 Indeed, Jehoiachin stands almost alone in the narrative traditions of this period as one who accepted the divinely ordained Babylonian hegemony. 31 However, Jeremiah’s word in 21:3–10 is addressed to Zedekiah a decade after Jehoiachin’s surrender and is not directly applicable to Jehoiachin. In lieu of more explicit evidence, we cannot attribute genuine humility to Jehoiachin. Instead, the canon focuses on his state of humiliation, rather than any virtue of humility. Surprisingly, the humiliation of exile is the source of hope concerning Jehoiachin’s future. Indeed, Jehoiachin was no sooner exiled than Jeremiah began to speak of him as a “good fig” and as an heir to restoration promises with the rest of the gôlâ ( Jer 24:4–7). This paradoxical connection between exile and restoration was highlighted in our treatment of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Yahweh will “exalt that which is low and abase that which is high” (Ezek 21:26[31]). Precisely because Yahweh had torn down and uprooted the exiles, he would build and plant them ( Jer 31:28). As a lowly king, Jehoiachin stood to inherit high honors, in contrast with the many arrogant rulers­whom Yahweh would humble (for example, Zedekiah, Pharaoh, and others in Ezekiel). Jeremiah provides the clearest rationale for this surprising development: the final years of Judah’s history highlight the people’s failure to overcome sin under the old covenant. Insofar as the people did repent, it was not whole-hearted (3:10), and the people were largely bent on hardened acts of idolatry (2:4–37), distorting even good gifts like the law and the temple to justify their sin (7:3–11; 8:8). The monarchy was at the forefront of these 30. Even Josiah may be a point of contrast here (see his refusal to submit to foreign powers in 2 Chr 35:20–24). 31. Besides Jehoiachin, only Gedaliah and Jeremiah submit to Babylon in the biblical narratives.

Jehoiachin in Theology

187

abuses (chs. 21–22; 34; 36). As flagrant defiance against Yahweh, these sins called for covenant justice (11:1–13), but Jeremiah shows that Yahweh also used his destructive wrath in a redemptive manner. By uprooting the old covenant order, Yahweh made a new covenant possible, in which he would provide the power to obey (24:7; 31:33). The exile, therefore, should not ultimately be interpreted as a temporary retraction of Yahweh’s promises to Abraham and David, but actually as a forward step toward their eschatological fulfillment. Several texts concerning Jehoiachin resonate with this positive view of exile. In Ezek 17, Nebuchadnezzar removes Jehoiachin the cedar sprig to Babylon, but here Babylon is not so much a place of judgment as a “greenhouse” where the cedar sprig may one day grow into a splendid tree (17:22– 24). In a different vein, Jeremiah aligns Jehoiachin with the wilderness generation (which died outside of the land) and with childless Abraham ( Jer 22:24–26, 30; see pp.  62–63, 68). Even so, these temporary periods of deprivation led eventually to the reception of the promises. 32 The necessity of exile as the path to eschatological restoration, therefore, is deeply woven into Jehoiachin’s story. Nevertheless, just as all three books testify that Jehoiachin is the future of the monarchy, they also deny that he will ever see the restoration himself. In Jeremiah, God swears with an irrevocable oath that Jehoiachin and his mother will die outside the land (22:24–27). Ezekiel says that it is only after the sprig has grown to a full-grown tree that the twig will be plucked and planted on Zion (Ezek 17:22–24). The story of Evil-Merodach’s gracious provision indicates that Jehoiachin ate it for the rest of his days (most emphatic in Jer 52:34 with the phrase ‫)עַד־יֹום מֹותֹו‬. The exile will be long. Even though Jehoiachin will not enjoy the restoration himself, in his later days he received a taste of God’s kindness. For all its subtlety, Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation (2 Kgs 25:27–30 // Jer 52:31–34) fosters hope by showing that God had not forgotten his promises to David, even when all seemed lost. David’s line not only continues, but even enjoys a place of favor before the world powers. However, the end of Kings does not narrate the beginning of restoration, but rather a “little reviving” in Jehoiachin’s bondage (cf. Ezra 9:8). Jehoiachin is no longer in prison but neither is he on the throne of David. We termed this liminal state “ameliorated exile” to indicate both progress (exile has been ameliorated) and the lack thereof (exile continues). As the curtain falls on this last glimpse of Jehoiachin, we suggest this liminal state is a sign of progress in another way. At the end of 1–2 Kings, 32. The parallel with Abraham may operate on another level as well. The Primary History begins and ends in Babylonia (understanding Gen 1:1–11:26 to be a prologue). This inclusio suggests a new beginning: just as Abraham’s family emerged from Ur of the Chaldeans long ago, now the story has been “reset” to a situation of landlessness and childlessness in Babylon, albeit with the promises to Abraham still in effect. See Granowski, “Jehoiachin,” 186.

188

Chapter 9

Jehoiachin is the opposite of Solomon, especially in his lack of glory. But when we consider the story of Judah’s decline since Solomon’s day, the narrator hints that Jehoiachin’s humiliation is somehow progress. Our thesis concerning Ezekiel’s humble king of the restoration corroborates this suggestion. In Ezekiel’s view of the eschatological David/nāśîʾ, less is more: what counts is complete fealty to Yahweh, not outward splendor. Humility (a virtue) is only hinted at in Jehoiachin’s portrayal in 2 Kgs 25:27–30 (he does not openly revolt against Babylon, but neither does he overtly repent toward Yahweh). Instead, the emphasis falls on his humiliation (a status). But in the theology of Deuteronomy, the state of humiliation offers a much more likely context for the virtue of humility (that is, repentance) to arise (Deut 6:10–12; 8:10–20; 31:20; 30:1–10; 32:15). And as Deuteronomy makes clear, repentance is the way out of exile for Israel (see Deut 4:30; 30:1–10; pp. 45–46). My survey concerning Jehoiachin in these three exilic sources uncovered a surprising measure of theological richness. Even before moving on to later revelation, Jehoiachin has emerged as pivotal figure in the story of the Bible. More than any other character in the OT, he links the condemned, preexilic epoch with the time of exile and the hopes for restoration. Jehoiachin in Persian-Period Scriptures The brief appearances of Jehoiachin in Chronicles underscore two key points: his participation in the judgment that befell all the last kings of Judah (2 Chr 36:8–10), and, notwithstanding his prisoner status, his identity as the future of David’s line (1 Chr 3:16–17). This mixture of judgment and hope also appears in Haggai and Zechariah. These books do not see exile as having ended, but instead as continuing. To encourage the people’s patience during their long exile, Yahweh introduces several pledges to assure them that his promises still stand. One of the most important of these pledges is Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jehoiachin. Even though Jehoiachin’s line was condemned indefinitely ( Jer 22:30), Yahweh declares that he will one day reverse this judgment and take one of Jehoiachin’s progeny as his signet ring. Indeed, Zerubbabel is already his chosen servant (Hag 2:23). Similarly, in a text that also recalls Jer 22:24–30, Zechariah performs a sign-act involving a crown that is placed in the temple (Zech 6:9–15) to show that God’s promise to David has not been forgotten. Haggai and Zechariah’s allusions to Jer 22:24–30 do not contradict that text, but rather present a reversal that accords well with Jeremiah’s own theology of tearing down and building. The old Davidic tree needed to be chopped down and the stump will remain lifeless for the indefinite future. But Jeremiah does not foreclose the possibility that a new shoot may yet emerge, even from Jehoiachin’s line (a possibility laid open by Jer 22:30 not being sealed with a divine oath).

Jehoiachin in Theology

189

The Persian-period texts concerning Jehoiachin do not add much new content, except to identify Zerubbabel as the future of Jehoiachin’s line. But they do confirm themes that were less explicit in the exilic texts. The returnees continue in the state of ameliorated exile, and one of the primary ways God ameliorates their bondage is through a series of pledges attesting to his ongoing faithfulness to his people. Although none of his immediate offspring reigns as king, Jehoiachin has a future: he has progeny (1 Chr 3:17–18), and one was even the object of divine favor (Hag 2:23). 33 Jehoiachin in the New Testament In the NT, Jehoiachin plays a pivotal role in the story of Israel leading up to Jesus. Matthew’s genealogy remembers Jehoiachin and “his brothers” as receiving the brunt of the deportation at the lowest point in Israel’s history. And yet, Jehoiachin emerges from the deportation as the future of Abraham’s and David’s line, affirming our understanding of him as a “linking” figure between Israel’s demise and her future. But Matthew’s genealogy is more than a summary of Israel’s story; it also anticipates the story of Jesus, the true Israel. In this respect, Jehoiachin and the deportation hint that Jesus the messiah will not come merely to triumph, but that he too must pass through “deportation,” an experience of God’s wrath and curse seen climactically on the cross. The parable of the mustard seed strikes a similar note: the kingdom’s glory will not be seen immediately; it starts as a humble mustard seed, and only later will attain to Weltenbaum grandeur. The grandeur that Jesus eventually attains as king brings closure to the prophecy to Zerubbabel in Hag 2:23. Jesus is the chosen servant whom Yahweh has taken and made his signet ring, the ruler over all the nations of the earth. 34 In his installation as king, Jesus completes the rehabilitation of Jehoiachin’s line that Haggai envisioned. Even so, the great shaking of the nations remains still future (Heb 12:26–29), as does the public acknowledgement of Jesus’ kingship (Heb 2:8). Canonical Analogies We have stepped through the biblical revelation associated with three historical epochs (exile, Persian period, NT) in order to describe Jehoiachin in salvation history in a way that accounts for the organic unfolding 33. J. G. McConville argues that all Persian-period books look “either explicitly or implicitly, but without fundamental disagreement, for a new age, which the God of Israel is powerful to achieve” (“Diversity and Obscurity in Old Testament Books: A Hermeneutical Exercise Based on Some Later Old Testament Books,” Anvil 3 [1986]: 47). 34. For a survey of Jesus as the restorer of human and Davidic kingship, see Dan G. McCartney, “Ecce Homo: The Coming of the Kingdom as the Restoration of Human Vicegerency,” WTJ 56 (1994): 1–21.

190

Chapter 9

of the Bible over time. In some cases, later revelation simply affirmed what preceded it (for example, that Jehoiachin is a figure of both judgment and hope). But later revelation also made some themes more explicit or emphatic (for example, that Jehoiachin and his line function as “pledges” of a future David who is yet to come). Finally, the NT moves in a new direction by reappropriating Jehoiachin’s story as a paradigm for Jesus’ own story. However, this diachronic perspective has limitations. As readers of a canon, our “cave of resonant signification” 35 is larger than the books in which Jehoiachin texts appear. While later texts sometimes recall earlier texts (e.g., the allusion to Jer 22:24 in Hag 2:23), a synchronic reading of the Bible can also suggest connections between texts where there is no clear direction of influence. These texts appear in parallel, mutually informing each other without one having a clear temporal precedence over the other. Building on Michael Riffaterre, Richard L. Schultz terms these synchronic parallels “intertexts,” as opposed to allusions, which are diachronic. 36 Moreover, Michael Fishbane considers intertextuality to be “the core of the canonical imagination.” 37 Intertextuality is bound up with canon because, as Schultz notes, these lateral connections arise from the canonical insistence that certain books should be read together. 38 Granting that God superintended the formation of canon, biblical intertextuality is not merely a function of the reader, as Sommer argues. 39 While he is right to observe that “readers may notice links among many texts, whether the authors of the texts knew each other or not,” 40 the common divine authorship that undergirds all of Scripture makes it possible that intertextual connections are divinely intended and not simply an act of readerly imagination. The close relationship between canonical books impels us to expand Schultz’s category of “intertexts.” Whereas for Schultz “intertexts” are primarily a linguistic phenomenon (earlier he uses the term “verbal parallels” 41), 35. That is, the textual world that a text reverberates in; on this phrase, see Hays, Echoes, 21. 36. Richard L. Schultz, “Intertextuality, Canon, and ‘Undecidability’: Understanding Isaiah’s ‘New Heavens and New Earth’ (Isaiah 65:17–25),” BBR 20 (2010): 27. See also Benjamin D. Sommer, “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,” VT 46 (1996): 479–89. 37. Quoted in Schultz, “Intertextuality,” 30. 38. Ibid. For another argument that “a balanced intertextual approach . . . flows from the diachronic to the synchronic,” see Mark J. Boda, “Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11.4–16 in Its Literary Contexts,” in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, JSOTSup 370 (London: Sheffield Academic, 2003), 291. 39. Sommer, “Allusion and Intertextuality,” 486–87. 40. Ibid. 41. Schultz, Search for Quotation.

Jehoiachin in Theology

191

we are interested not only in synchronic linguistic parallels but also synchronic thematic parallels. Just as a common situation may signal narrative analogies even without linguistic parallels, the canonical reader can juxtapose two texts that have a common thematic interest or plot pattern. The more specific the interest or plot pattern, the “louder” the echo between the texts. Regardless of whether they are signaled by themes, language, or both, we may call these lateral links between texts “canonical analogies.” When the texts concerning Jehoiachin are placed in the “cave of resonant signification” that is, the whole canon, what analogies emerge? We have discovered two distinct ways in which Jehoiachin’s stories reverberate in the canon: (1) with other portrayals of suffering kings and (2) with other portrayals of exalted exiles. Analogies with Other Portrayals of Suffering Kings The concept of a suffering king is well-attested in the OT. 42 David himself goes into exile (2 Sam 15–20) and the Davidic psalms are filled with kingly sorrows, including military defeat, notwithstanding the innocence of the king (e.g., Pss 18; 22; 31). Two texts even lament the defeat of a king in terms that recall the Babylonian onslaught (Ps 89:38–49; Lam 4:20), although these apparently speak of Zedekiah. 43 While the story of Jehoiachin faintly echoes themes in these texts, a striking parallel appears with the servant in Isa 52:13–53:12 (hereafter, Isa 53). 44 Michael Goulder argues that the anonymous author of Deutero-Isaiah was stimulated by the news of Jehoiachin’s release and created a poetic reflection on Jehoiachin’s life that appears in Isa 53. 45 In so doing, Goulder has revived an older minority view that understood the servant to be Jehoiachin. 46 We are not persuaded by Goulder’s thesis for several reasons: (1) the 42. Contra Brueggemann, who writes, “the notion of a king as ‘suffering servant’ plays no role in Old Testament witness as such” (Theology of the Old Testament, 619). On a suffering king in the OT, see Petterson, Behold Your King, 203. 43. For Ps 89, note the breaking of the walls (v. 40) and the defeat in battle (v. 43). See Michael H. Floyd, “Psalm LXXXIX: A Prophetic Complaint about the Fulfillment of an Oracle,” VT 42 (1992): 456. For Lam 4, note the pursuit in the mountains and the capture in the wilderness (v. 19). See Delbert R. Hillers, Lamentations: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 7A (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 150–51. 44. Will Soll has proposed that Jehoiachin is the speaker of Ps 119 (Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting, CBQMS 23 [Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1991], 152–54). If so, it would witness to Jehoiachin’s repentance in exile (for example, v. 67; ibid., 153). However, while some details fit Jehoiachin’s circumstances well, others do not (see vv. 10, 60, 87), and he only provides a small list of parallels. 45. M. Goulder, “‘Behold My Servant Jehoiachin,’” VT 52 (2002): 175–90. 46. In particular, Ernst Sellin, Der Knecht Gottes bei Deuterojesaja, vol. 1 of Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jüdischen Gemeinde nach dem babylonischen Exil (Leipzig: Deichert, 1901), 240–87. See also Henri Cazelles, “Le roi Yoyakin et le serviteur du Seigneur,” in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, ed. Pinchas Peli ( Jerusalem: World

192

Chapter 9

ways the servant partakes of several archetypes (including David, Moses, Israel, even Yahweh), some of which do not apply to Jehoiachin; (2)  the many details that do not align well with Jehoiachin but which Goulder­ either ignores or bends to fit his argument (e.g., the servant’s appearance being marred [52:14], his being pierced [53:5], his having done nothing wrong [53:9]); (3) the evidence that Isaiah is intentionally ambiguous about the servant’s identity; 47 and (4) the evidence instead that Isaiah’s servant (at least after ch. 49) is an eschatological individual. 48 Nevertheless, Goulder observes some noteworthy parallels to Jehoiachin, including his exile on account of the people’s sin, 49 and exile as a place of death. 50 To these, we would add: Jehoiachin and the servant as a ‫( יֹונֵק‬Ezek 17:4; Isa 53:2), Jehoiachin’s silent surrender to Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:12; cf. Isa 53:7), and Jehoiachin’s removal from the land of the living (i.e., Judea; cf. Isa 53:8). Reading Isa 53 alongside the story of Jehoiachin, they complement each other as templates of the suffering messiah who is to come. My reading of Matthew concluded that Jehoiachin became a paradigm for the exilic sorrows of Jesus, and we will argue below that Jehoiachin functions as a type of Christ in the canon as a whole. The parallel between Jehoiachin and Isa 53 strengthens this case: Jehoiachin is not alone as an exemplar of a suffering king but is joined by the servant (among other OT portraits). 51 But Isa 53 goes further than our typological reading of Jehoiachin and speaks with greater clarity. Matters that we hesitate to attribute to Jehoiachin—such as moral innocence, a willing surrender as a sacrificial action for others, and a subsequent complete exaltation—are directly attributed to the servant in Isa 53. Thus, even though Jehoiachin is not the servant of Isa 53, together they contribute to a larger portrait of a future king whose sufferings will issue in eschatological restoration. 52 Union of Jewish Studies, 1973), 1:121–25; John Franklin Genung, “‘This Man Coniah,’” BibW 37 (1911): 89–99 and the summaries in Christopher R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 50–53, 192–94; Herbert Haag, Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja, EdF 233 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985), 110–11. 47. Rikki E. Watts, “Consolation or Confrontation: Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the New Exodus,” TynBul 41 (1990): 56; Randall Heskett, Messianism within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah, LHBOTS 456 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 220. 48. Watts, “Consolation,” 57–59. 49. Goulder, “My Servant Jehoiachin,” 182. 50. Ibid., 184. 51. On the servant as a kingly figure, see Block, “My Servant David,” 43–49. For a broader biblical-theological perspective on the servant, see Stephen G. Dempster, “The Servant of the Lord,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 128–78. 52. In addition to echoing the servant who inaugurates the restoration, Jehoiachin also echoes Israel as the recipient of salvation (see the references to the freed prisoner who does not lack food in Isa 42:7 and 51:14).

Jehoiachin in Theology

193

Analogies with Other Portrayals of Exalted Exiles Thomas Römer and others have noticed a common thematic pattern between Jehoiachin, Joseph, Esther, Mordecai, and Daniel. All of them began in a low position in a foreign land and found their way to astonishingly high rank in court. Based on thematic and linguistic parallels, Römer and others suggest that these stories belong to a Diasporanovelle genre, where exile is transformed into diaspora, a place not so much of punishment but of opportunity. 53 We have discussed Joseph as a narrative analogy to Jehoiachin in ch. 3. However, when all these stories are viewed together, two variations emerge. On the one hand, Joseph and Daniel are models of piety. Joseph is blameless with Potiphar’s wife, and Daniel refuses to compromise his commitment to ritual purity and prayer. But Esther and Mordecai are more ambiguous. While they exhibit moments of heroic virtue, both Esther and Mordecai appear compromised in comparison with Joseph and Daniel. Esther eats the king’s food and is married to an uncircumcised pagan king, both of which seem opportunistic. 54 In this twofold schema, Jehoiachin seems to follow the Esther/Mordecai pattern rather than the Joseph/Daniel pattern. In particular, Jehoiachin is willing to eat from the king’s table, an act that I described above as deferential. Viewed in light of the principled stance of Daniel and his three friends (Dan 1:8–21), Jehoiachin’s eating seems morally problematic. However, to adopt this view would allow the rhetorical and moral frameworks of other contexts to have too much sway over our understanding of 2  Kgs 25:27–30. A real ethical difference exists between Esther and Mordecai on the one hand, and Daniel and Joseph on the other. But these differences probably result from the distinct rhetorical appeals of each corpus: Daniel sets an example of faithful Torah-keeping in exile, while the book of Esther underscores God’s providential hand at work even among Jews compromised by exile. 55 Our deferential reading of Jehoiachin’s rehabilitation fits with its own literary context (e.g., the Gedaliah pericope, 2 Kgs 25:22–26) that urges submission to Babylon. Together, these portraits contribute to a mutually informing theological vision for exile: God is at work to exalt his people even in their captivity. 56 53. Römer, “Transformations”; Arndt Meinhold, “Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I,” ZAW 87 (1975): 306–24; idem, “Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle II,” ZAW 88 (1976): 72–93; Smith, Religion of the Landless, 153–62. Although we largely agree with Römer, see my qualifications on p. 51 n. 140. 54. See Carol M. Bechtel, Esther, Int (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 10–14. 55. See Barry G. Webb, Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, NSBT 10 (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, 2000), 122–28. 56. Some discern another echo to these themes in the end of the book of Acts, where Paul is under house arrest but still preaching freely. See Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty,

194

Chapter 9

Jehoiachin in Biblical Theology Bringing both diachronic and synchronic perspectives together to consider the Bible as a whole, we conclude that Jehoiachin is an important linking figure, embodying both the failure and the hopes of the Davidic monarchy. 57 He navigated two transitions in salvation history. The first is the progression from kingship to exile. As yet another wicked king in the last days of Judah, Jehoiachin was liable to God’s judgment. Jehoiachin then accepted his fate and entered exile, the final punishment of the Davidic kings. After many years, Jehoiachin navigated a second transition, moving from utter exile to ameliorated exile. In the gracious act of Evil-Merodach, Jehoiachin became the first recipient of a divine blessing that would characterize the period all the way up to Jesus: while still imposing the consequences of Judah’s sin (exile), God began to lighten the intensity of those consequences (amelioration). This amelioration functioned as a pledge, fostering Israel’s hope that Yahweh would one day completely fulfill his restoration promises. Moreover, as Jehoiachin linked the old covenant order with the new, he represented the hope that the new shoot of David would indeed emerge from the stump of the old monarchy; Yahweh will not start “from scratch.” 58 In these two transitions, Jehoiachin moves from being a figure of judgment to a figure of hope. However, the rationale for this astonishing transformation has little to do with any exemplary morality on Jehoiachin’s part. Jehoiachin is deemed “wicked” like the other final kings, and yet God graciously preserves him, not for anything in himself but because he is key to the divine agenda for restoring David. 59 As Jeremiah and Ezekiel make clear, the one attribute that qualifies Jehoiachin for this rehabilitation is not his morality, but—paradoxically—his status as an object of judgment. The basic outline of Jehoiachin’s story suggests an analogy between Jehoiachin and the central figure of the Bible, Jesus. Both Jehoiachin and Jesus are kingly figures who experienced the wrath and curse of God. Both of them also point beyond that doom, Jehoiachin in a shadowy way, and Jesus with all the clarity of the resurrection. This analogy is not accidental but deserves the special label “type.” Before discussing the ways in which Jehoiachin is a type of Jesus, I will briefly 233; James A. Sanders, “Isaiah in Luke,” in Interpreting the Prophets, ed. James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 78. 57. We are indebted to Richard L. Schultz (personal communication) for this formulation. 58. In the words of Brueggemann, “Jehoiachin had displaced David as a primary cipher for interpretive dispute concerning Israel’s future” (“Heir and Land,” 100). 59. We are indebted to Daniel I. Block (personal communication) for this phrasing. The one possible exception is Jehoiachin’s ready willingness to surrender to the king of Babylon instead of forcing a prolonged siege. However, there is no indication that this surrender was for any nobler purpose than self-preservation.

Jehoiachin in Theology

195

sketch my definition of “type.” 60 In many respects, types are like the narrative analogies discussed in ch. 3. 61 As with narrative analogies, a constellation of similarities between the previous story and the later story help to identify the type. Types can center around a person, institution, or event, just as in narrative analogies. Also, types and narrative analogies require close attention to the differences as well as the similarities between the two stories, because the significance of the type often lies in the ways it differs from its antitype (that is, the eschatological fulfillment to which it points). However, types are different from narrative analogies in one key respect: whereas narrative analogies look back to a previous story as a template for explaining the later story, types look forward, anticipating in prophetic fashion their eschatological antitype. This forward-looking aspect of types is also the largest cause for concern regarding them. How can the OT’s portrayal of a person foreshadow another person in the NT who comes hundreds of years later? The concern about anachronism largely explains the disappearance of typology as an interpretive practice with the dawn of the Enlightenment. 62 Typology (on our definition) presupposes not only divine authorship (because God alone knows the future) but also divine sovereignty over history (because typology is only effective if God can accomplish what he prefigured) and divine consistency (that God acts according to patterns). 63 When these were called into question and history was reimagined in a secular manner, 64 typology lost its plausibility. But if the theological tenets just sketched are 60. For surveys of the literature on typology, see Baker, Two Testaments, 169–89; Beale, Handbook, 13–25; Richard M. Davidson, Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures, AUSDDS 2 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981), 15–114. 61. They also resemble the “canonical analogies” discussed in the previous section, but types are more like narrative analogies because both narrative analogies and types are intrinsically diachronic. Thus we disagree as a matter of definition with Frances Young (“Typology,” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton, BibInt 8 [Leiden: Brill, 1994], 30–48), who minimizes the diachronic aspect of types. One can also speak of “vertical” typology, where heavenly realities provide the pattern for earthly types (see Baker, Two Testaments, 178), but this kind of relationship is not relevant to our discussion of Jehoiachin. 62. Frei, Eclipse, 6, 37. 63. For discussions of the presuppositions of typology, see ibid.; Francis Foulkes, “The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 364. 64. See the classic articulation in Ernst Troeltsch, “Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology,” in Religion in History, trans. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense, FTMT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 11–32, as well as the rearticulations in Collins, “Critical,” 2–3; Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, GBS (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 55–58.

196

Chapter 9

consistent with biblical teaching, typological interpretation emerges as a natural outflow of the Bible, and not as a foreign imposition on it. But even granting divine foreknowledge, providence, and consistency (as a sympathetic reading will), another important concern is the criteria by  which one identifies a type so as to avoid the excesses of some interpreters. My comments concerning the identification of narrative analogies are applicable here as well: the need to establish multiple points of correspondence, the usefulness of Hays’ criteria of volume, thematic coherence, satisfaction, and so on (see pp.  31–33). 65 Furthermore, with Benjamin J. Ribbens, I contend that whatever the differences between types and antitypes, they will correspond both in their outward phenomena and their narratival significance. 66 However, types also differ from narrative analogies and thus require special handling. First, I posit that all types have an eschatological thrust. 67 While this point is debated, 68 I adopt it as a matter of definition. As Davidson argues, the NT authors understood all OT types as pointing to Christ or the eschatological realities introduced by him. 69 As eschatological realities, antitypes will heighten and exceed their shadowy types. A second unique facet of types is that their forward-looking nature is mainly a function of divine intentionality. Although some types are discernable without recourse to the NT, 70 many are recognized only after mature reflection on the canon as a whole. 71 The canon highlights the forward-looking nature of a type in the following ways: (1) often a type solves a fundamental problem (such as sin, oppression, suffering) in a provisional or partial way, while the promises of God impel the narrative towards a final solution; 72 (2) various passages that orient us as canonical readers encourage us to understand parallels to Christ as forward-looking types (e.g., Luke 24:26–27; 1 Pet 1:10–12); (3) the NT writers (whom we are seeking to emulate) endorse a strongly eschatological reading 65. Note that Hays’s criteria of availability and historical plausibility do not apply in the case of typology. 66. Benjamin J. Ribbens, “Typology of Types: Typology in Dialogue,” JTI 5 (2011): 89. 67. For our definition of eschatological as “ultimate things associated with the new age of restoration described in the prophets,” see p. 140. 68. Ribbens, “Typology of Types,” 90–91. 69. Davidson, Typology, 388–396, 399, 407. 70. The book of Hebrews illustrates this logic, arguing that the repetition of old covenant sacrifices points forward to an eschatological sacrifice (Heb 9:25–26; 10:11–14). 71. Hence types may not have been discernable by the original authors and audiences. However, this does not invalidate them, because our primary interest is in canonical (that is, divine) intention. 72. See the reasoning of Heb 8:7; 9:8–9a; and 10:1–4 concerning the covenant, temple­, and sacrifice. These OT institutions showed themselves to be provisional by the temporary, incomplete way they handled the fundamental problem of sin.

Jehoiachin in Theology

197

of the OT and adopt typology as their default interpretive practice. 73 If an OT reality corresponds to Christ in substantive ways, then the NT writers understand it as providentially ordained by God to reveal Christ and his redemption proleptically. 74 This eschatological orientation to the OT need not undercut the intrinsic value and internal integrity of the OT, but it can be abused if the criteria above are ignored. In summary, a type is a person, institution, or event that foreshadows an eschatological reality when the canon is viewed as a whole. Discerning types involves not only a forward-looking, Christ-centered attitude toward the OT, but also the intertextual rigor of Hays and the important qualification of Ribbens that type and antitype agree both in outward phenomena and significance. Given this complexity, the practice of typology demands a wisdom that leans on the apostles and subsequent church history. Does a given typological reading emulate the practices of the NT authors? Does it enrich systematic theology or does it impugn a long-standing consensus? With this orientation in view, I argue that Jehoiachin is a type of Christ based on a close correspondence between their stories. Jeremiah emphasized that exile must precede restoration, much as Ezekiel demanded that humiliation precede glory. Both Jesus and Jehoiachin embody this pattern. Jehoiachin accepted exile and Jesus accepted the cross (Matt 26:39; Phil 2:7– 8; Heb 12:2). 75 Even before the cross, Jesus acknowledged the legitimacy of Gentile political powers as a temporary divine institution (Matt 22:21; John 19:11), similar to Jehoiachin’s posture under the Babylonians. In both cases, their suffering was the necessary first step in a larger movement toward restoration, although Jehoiachin himself only had the slightest foretaste of this hope. This pattern of suffering unto glory lies at the very heart of Jehoiachin’s significance, and insofar as Jehoiachin embodied this pattern (especially as a king), he foreshadowed Jesus, who knew that the Christ must suffer­before he can enter into his glory (Luke 24:26), and who took the humble form of a servant before being exalted to the highest place (Phil 2:6–11). 76 73. Leonhard Goppelt argues that “from the frequency of its use and from its very nature, typology is the method of exegesis that is the characteristic use of Scripture in the NT” (Typos, the Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New, trans. Donald H. Madvig [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 200). 74. Davidson, Typology, 406. 75. We can also speak of Jesus accepting Israel’s exile in a broader sense (see p. 173). 76. Even Jehoiachin’s place at the commencement of a period of ameliorated exile may point forward to Christ. It is possible that the ironic mixture of humiliation and exaltation in Jehoiachin’s release from prison provides a foretaste of John’s paradoxical Christology, where Jesus’ being “lifted up” on the cross is simultaneously the point of his deepest humiliation and also the commencement of his glory ( John 3:14; 12:32–33). See Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 68–69.

198

Chapter 9

But Jesus also surpasses the story of Jehoiachin as his eschatological antitype. Both recognized the necessity of their suffering, but Jesus understood the redemptive goal of his suffering in a way we never saw with Jehoiachin (Mark 10:45). Also, while Jehoiachin’s moral status was questionable, Jesus died as a truly innocent man (Luke 23:47). Here the evaluation that Jehoiachin “did evil” plays a decisive role: as one who did evil, Jehoiachin’s surrender cannot be considered a sacrifice for the sake of his people (at least insofar as sacrifice implies an innocent substitute), whereas Jesus’ surrender to death was exactly that. And whereas Jehoiachin’s story ended in death, Jesus was raised on the third day to inherit the everlasting throne of David (Luke 1:33). 77 These inadequacies in Jehoiachin’s story show that even prior to Jesus’ coming one can legitimately expect a more excellent fulfillment of the “suffering king” narrative, where the old covenant order is dissolved and God’s wrath is exhausted through a willing royal sufferer. However, this perspective is only clear in light of the final fulfillment in Christ. Thus, to call Jehoiachin a type of Christ says more than what we concluded in ch. 8, where we argued that Matthew used Jehoiachin as a template for understanding Christ’s suffering. In the case of Matthew, a previous story serves as an analogy for the present story. Here, in light of the whole canon we claim a predictive quality for the story of Jehoiachin itself, that in his exilic humiliation Jehoiachin pointed forward to the necessity that the Christ suffer, particularly as a king. As a type of Christ’s kingly suffering and humiliation, Jehoiachin contributes in a unique way to our understanding of the Old Testament as a book that speaks of the “sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (1 Pet 1:11; Luke 24:26, 46).

Conclusion Having reigned only three months, Jehoiachin appears to have been an insignificant king in the tumultuous last days of Judah. But his rehabilitation at the end of 1–2 Kings and the attention he receives in Jeremiah and Ezekiel suggest that his theological significance outweighs his political import. As an exercise in biblical theology, this work has investigated the canonical witness concerning Jehoiachin and concludes that Jehoiachin is an important linking figure in salvation history, embodying both the failure and the hopes of the Davidic monarchy. Jehoiachin navigated two transitions in salvation history, the first being the progression from kingship to exile. Finding himself under the doom of exile, Jehoiachin accepted his fate and underwent judgment (2 Kgs 24:8–17). Yahweh’s oath against Jehoiachin sealed his death in exile ( Jer 22:24–27) and another oracle terminated hope for his line indefinitely ( Jer 22:30). Paradoxically, the wasteland of exile became the fertile ground for new hope. In 77. These discontinuities highlight the themes we discovered in Luke’s genealogy, which emphasizes Jesus’ uniqueness over against the previous sons of David.

Jehoiachin in Theology

199

exile, Ezekiel identifies Jehoiachin as the lowly one whose line will one day be exalted (Ezek 17:22–24). After many years, Jehoiachin navigated a second transition, moving from utter exile to ameliorated exile. In the gracious act of Evil-Merodach (2 Kgs 25:27–30), Jehoiachin became the first recipient of a divine blessing that would characterize the period all the way up to Jesus: while still imposing the consequences of Judah’s sin (exile, broadly defined), God began to lighten the intensity of those consequences (amelioration). This amelioration functioned as a pledge, fostering Israel’s hope that Yahweh would one day completely fulfill his restoration promises. This hope is further encouraged by Hag 2:23 and Zech 6:9–15, both of which hint at the reversal of Jer 22:24–30. Matthew’s genealogy then assigns an important place to Jehoiachin as the figure who straddles deportation (Matt 1:11–12). In light of the whole canon, the exile of Jehoiachin and the hopes that emerge through his judgment suggest that Jehoiachin is a type of Jesus, the son of David whose sufferings are the necessary means to glory (Luke 24:26).

Appendix 1

Names of Jehoiachin This appendix provides several lists of Jehoiachin’s names: his names in Hebrew (table 4), how these Hebrew appearances are translated in LXX (table 5), other instances of Jehoiachin’s names in Greek (table 6), and finally, uses of the same Greek names cataloged for Jehoiachin for people other than Jehoiachin (table 7). Table 4.  Names in Hebrew Name

References

‫ָכין‬ ִ ‫ יְהֹוי‬2 Kgs 24:6, 8, 12, 15; 25:27 [2×]; 2 Chr 36:8, 9; Jer 52:31 ‫ָכן‬ ִ ‫ יְהֹוי‬Jer 52:31 ‫ָכין‬ ִ ‫ יֹוי‬Ezek 1:2 ‫ יכוניה‬Jer 27:20 [ketiv] ‫ ְי ָכ ְניָה‬Jer 27:20 [qere]; 28:4; 29:2; 1 Chr 3:16, 17; Esth 2:6 ‫ ְי ָכ ְניָהּו‬Jer 24:1 ‫ ָּכ ְניָהּו‬Jer 22:24, 28; 37:1

Table 5.  Translations into Greek Name

References

‫ָכין‬ ִ ‫ יְהֹוי‬2 Kgs 24:6, 8, 12, 15; 25:27 [2x]; Jer 52:31

Greek Translation Ιωακιμ Ιεχονιας

2 Chr 36.8, 9 ‫ָכן‬ ִ ‫ יְהֹוי‬Jer 52:31

Ιωακιμ

‫ָכין‬ ִ ‫ יֹוי‬Ezek 1:2

Ιωακιμ

‫ ְי ָכ ְניָה‬Jer 27:20 (LXX 34:20); 28:4 (LXX 35:4); 29:2

Ιεχονιας

(LXX 36:2); 1 Chr 3:16; Esth 2:6 (LXX 1:1)

Ιεχονια-ασιρ

1 Chr 3:17 ‫ ְי ָכ ְניָהּו‬Jer 24:1

Ιεχονιας

‫ ָּכ ְניָהּו‬Jer 22:24, 28

Ιεχονιας Ιωακιμ

Jer 37:1 (LXX 44:1)

200

Names of Jehoiachin

201

Table 6.  Other Instances of Jehoiachin’s Name in Greek Name

References

Ιεχονιας

1 Bar 1:3, 9; Matt 1:11, 12; Josephus, Ant. 10.229, 230; idem, J.W. 6.103

Ιωακιμ

1 Esd 1:41

Ιωακειμος Josephus, Ant. 10.97 [2×], 98, 99 [2×], 101, 102, 139

Table 7.  Uses of the Greek Names in Table 6 for People Other than Jehoiachin Name Ιεχονίας

Ιωακιμ

Ιωακειμος

Disambiguation

References

a resident near Beth-Shemesh

1 Sam 6:19

a captain of a thousand in the days of Josiah

1 Esd 1:9

King Jehoahaz, son of Josiah

1 Esd 1:32

a son of Jehiel (=Shecaniah in Ezra 10:2)

1 Esd 8:92

King Jehoiakim, son of Josiah

2 Kgs 23:34, 35, 36; 24:1, 5, 6, 19; 1 Chr 3:15, 16; 2 Chr 36:4, 5 [2×], 8 [2×]; Jer 1:3; 22:18; 25:1; 26:1, 21 (LXX 33:1, 21); 35:1 (LXX 42:1); 36:1, 9, 28, 30, 32 (LXX 43:1, 9, 28, 30, 32); 45:1 (LXX 51:31); 46:2 (LXX 26:2); 1 Esd 1:37, 38 (LXX 35, 36); Bar 1:3; Dan 1:1, 2

a descendant of Judah

1 Chr 4:22

a great-grandson of Jehoiachin

1 Esd 5:5

a high priest in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah

Neh 12:10 [2x], 12, 26; Jdt 4:6, 8, 14; 15:8; 1 Bar 1:7

a Jewish noble in Babylona

Sus 1:4, 7, 29; Sus (TH) 1:1, 6, 28, 29, 63

King Jehoiakim, son of Josiah

Josephus, Ant. 10.82, 83 [2×], 87 [2×], 89, 93, 98, 103

a high priest in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah

Josephus, Ant. 11.121, 158

a. As Carey A. Moore notes, it is very unlikely that Ιωακιμ in Susanna refers to Jehoiachin, because the author mentions him in passing and draws no attention to him (Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, AB 44 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977], 95).

Appendix 2

Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment Chapter 4 distinguished between divine oaths and other predictions that are not ratified with an oath, suggesting that God can opt not to carry out actions where no oath is attached (e.g., Jonah 3:4; cf. Jer 18:1–10). However, when God swears to do something, he willingly binds himself to an irrevocable promise. To support the arguments of Pratt and Chisholm further, the following is a list of all divine oaths in the Bible, along with whether there is biblical warrant for understanding these oaths as being fulfilled, yet to be fulfilled, or unfulfilled with no possibility of fulfillment. Oaths are identified by a variety of oath formulas, including: ‫ יָד‬+ ‫ִׁשּבַע ;נׂשא‬ ְ ‫יָּה יָד ;חַי־ ָאנִי ;נ‬ ‫עַל־ּכֵס‬. When the canon is not sufficiently clear as to the fulfillment of the oath (either when there is not enough information or when the answer is extremely complex, as in the case of the oath to Abraham), then the fulfillment is marked “uncertain.” Oaths that are attached to assertions (as opposed to predictions; e.g., Ezek 16:48; 33:11) are not listed. While further work is necessary to substantiate this analysis in each case, our preliminary observation on the basis of the data below is that all divine oaths are either fulfilled, yet to be fulfilled, or uncertain as to their fulfillment. There is no evidence (as in other predictions such as Jonah 3:4) for a divine oath that is unfulfilled with no possibility of fulfillment. Table 8.  Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment Oath Content

References

Fulfillment Status

God will never flood the earth again

Gen 9:8–17; Isa 54:9

Abrahamic promises: God will give to Abraham and his offspring the land, abundant offspring, and a special covenant relationship with God

uncertain Gen 15:7–21; 22:16; 24:7; 26:3; 50:24; Exod 6:8; 13:5, 11; 32:13; 33:1; Num 11:12; 14:23, 30; 32:11; Deut 1:8, 35; 4:31; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:8, 12, 13; 8:1; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9, 21; 13:17 (MT 18); 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:9, 11; 29:13 (MT 12); 30:20; 31:7, 20, 21, 23; 34:4; Josh 1:6; 5:6; 21:43–44; Judg 2:1; 1 Chr 16:16 // Ps 105:9–10; Neh 9:15; Jer 11:5; 32:22; Ezek 20:5, 6, 28, 42; 47:14; Mic 7:20; Luke 1:73; Heb 6:13–18

202

fulfilled to the present

Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment

203

Table 8.  Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment Oath Content

References

Fulfillment Status

God will have war against Exod 17:16 Amalek from generation to generation

uncertain

The wilderness generation will not be able to enter the land

fulfilled

Num 14:21–24, 28–35; 32:10; Deut 1:34; 2:14; Josh 5:6; Ezek 20:15; Ps 95:11; 106:26; Heb 3:11; 4:3

God will destroy his ene- Deut 32:40 mies, restoring his people

uncertain

Eli’s house will never be atoned for

uncertain

1 Sam 3:14

God will establish David’s Ps 89:3, 35, 49; Ps 132:11; Acts offspring to rule forever 2:30

fulfilled (Acts 2:31–36)

God will transfer the kingdom from Saul to David

fulfilled

1 Sam 15:28; 2 Sam 3:9

God will make the Psalm- Ps 110:4 ist’s “lord” a priest forever

fulfilled (Heb 7:20–22, 28)

Assyria will fall, the nations will be freed from its yoke

Isa 14:24–25

fulfilled

All people will bow the knee to the Lord

Isa 45:23–25

uncertain

Zion will bind people on her walls like an ornament, she will be full of inhabitants

Isa 49:18–20

uncertain

God will not be angry nor rebuke his people; his covenant will not be shaken

Isa 54:9–10

uncertain

Isa 62:8–9 No more will enemies take their food; instead, those who grow it will enjoy it in God’s sanctuary

uncertain

The temple will become a Jer 22:5 desolation if the kings do not obey

fulfilled (2 Kgs 25:8–17)

Jehoiachin will go into exile and die there

fulfilled (2 Kgs 24:12; Jer 52:34)

Jer 22:24–27

204

Appendix 2 Table 8.  Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment Oath Content

References

Fulfillment Status

Jer 44:26 God’s name will not be be invoked again by any man in Judah who lives in Egypt

uncertain

A punisher will come to Egypt

Jer 46:18–19

uncertain

Edom will be destroyed

Jer 49:13

uncertain

Babylon will be filled with Jer 51:14 a population like locusts

uncertain

Judah will be destroyed

Ezek 5:11–12; 14:16, 18, 20; 33:27–29

fulfilled (2 Kgs 25:1–21)

Zedekiah will be judged by Babylon for rebelling, will die in Babylon

Ezek 17:16, 19

fulfilled ( Jer 52:9–11)

The grapes proverb will not be used

Ezek 18:3

uncertain

God will not be inquired of by the elders

Ezek 20:3, 31

uncertain

God swore in the wilder- Ezek 20:23 ness that he would scatter them

fulfilled

God will be king over the Ezek 20:33–38 people and will bring the people back, but first will purge them of rebels

uncertain

God will judge the wicked Ezek 34:8–10 shepherds and deliver his people from them

uncertain

God will judge Seir, blood- Ezek 35:6, 11 shed will pursue them

uncertain

Ezek 36:7–8

uncertain

God will make the nations endure their own insults, but the mountains will put forth fruit for his people

Apostate Levitical priests Ezek 44:12 will bear their shame; they cannot be priests but can still do service in the house

uncertain

Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment

205

Table 8.  Divine Oaths and Their Fulfillment Oath Content

References

Fulfillment Status

The wicked rich who oppress the poor in Samaria will be taken away with meat hooks

Amos 4:2

uncertain

God will deliver up the city of Samaria

Amos 6:8

fulfilled (2 Kgs 17:6)

God will not forget the evil deeds of the oppressors in Israel; the land will quake; judgment will come

Amos 8:7

uncertain

God will make Moab and Ammon like Sodom and Gomorrah

Zeph 2:9

uncertain

Appendix 3

Genre in Ezekiel 17 Ezekiel 17 opens with the command to Ezekiel to “propound a riddle, and speak a parable” (‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ּומׁשֹל מ‬ ְ ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫ ;חּוד ִח‬v. 2 ESV). How does this dual genre classification prepare the reader to interpret the text that follows? Both ‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ מ‬and ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫ ִח‬are emic genre designations that denote many different kinds of texts. The word ‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ מ‬is used for prophetic or wisdom discourses (Num 23–24; Job 27–29), short proverbs (1 Sam 10:12; 24:13; Prov 10:1), and derisive bywords (Deut 28:37; 1 Kgs 9:7)—a breadth of usage reflected in the book of Ezekiel itself (see 12:22; 14:8; 24:3). The word ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫ ִח‬is narrower, being used for riddles ( Judg 14:12–19) or obscure sayings in general (1 Kgs 10:1; Prov 1:6). Despite their diverse usage, these two terms repeatedly appear in parallel, especially in wisdom contexts (Ps 49:4; 78:2; Prov 1:6; Hab 2:6). ָ ‫ מ‬and ‫ידה‬ From this survey, I conclude preliminarily that ‫ָשׁל‬ ָ ‫ ִח‬do not suggest tight genres but rather stimulate more general ideas. 1 ָ ‫ מ‬and ‫ידה‬ What general ideas lie behind ‫ָשׁל‬ ָ ‫?ח‬ ִ Dus, Polk, Schipper and ָ ‫מ‬. 2 Whether in brief Schöpflin identify comparison as the core idea of a ‫ָשׁל‬ proverbs or lengthier texts such as Ezek 17, in a ‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ מ‬one thing is compared to another. To the basic idea of comparison, ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫ ִח‬adds an element of mystery. 3 Just as Samson’s riddle stymied his listeners ( Judg 14:14), ‫ ִחידֹות‬tend to be “dark sayings” (Ps 78:2) that shroud their meaning in obscurity. The combination of comparison and obscurity is a prominent feature of metaphors, which both reveal and conceal. Julie Galambush also prefers the designation “extended metaphors” for passages such as Ezek 17 (or chs. 16 and 23). She argues that “allegory” is not the best classification for these texts because it implies a simple one-to-one correspondence between text 1. This accords with recent genre theory. As Schipper writes, “texts do not belong to genres; texts invoke genres,” and hence we should focus less on classifying texts and more on how a genre provides “a rhetorical orientation for its speakers” (Parables and Conflict, 102, 108). Cf. Northrop Frye’s distinction between an allegory, which more consistently adopts the allegorical mode, and a work with allegorical tendencies, where allegorical qualities are intermittent. 2. In terms of usage, Joel Rosenberg notes that ‫ְשלִים‬ ׁ ָ ‫ מ‬tend to be political weapons, ָ ‫ מ‬with conflict more as in Judg 9:8–15 and 2 Kgs 14:9. Cf. Schipper, who connects ‫ְשׁלִים‬ generally (ibid., 117). 3. Ellen Davis helpfully distinguishes the two: while the manifest intention of the ‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ מ‬is “to resolve a difficulty,” the ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫“ ִח‬quite deliberately exploits the ambiguous character of reality, usually posing a question that either embodies a seemingly irresolvable contradiction or misleadingly points in one, readily discernible direction, while the correct answer lies in quite another” (Swallowing the Scroll, 95).

206

Genre in Ezekiel 17

207

and referent. Instead, “Ezekiel’s extended metaphors have the complexity and indeterminacy generally understood to characterize metaphor.” 4 But indeterminacy can be overemphasized. Polk, for example, notes ambiguity in Ezek 17 as to whether the first eagle represents Yahweh or Nebuchadnezzar. 5 He concludes that tensions like this in Ezek 17’s imagery loosen “the moorings of the fable [from] any single historical application,” thus making “the chapter as a whole a perennial witness to an ineffable riddle of existence.” 6 But this far-flung conclusion hardly seems warranted from these complexities in Ezekiel’s imagery. 7 There certainly is indeterminacy, but Ezekiel also draws straightforward connections between the first eagle and Nebuchadnezzar, the vine and Zedekiah, and so on. Thus, ‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ מ‬and ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫ ִח‬complement each other, keeping the reader from radical indeterminacy on the one hand and reductionism on the other. We expect a comparison (‫ָׁשל‬ ָ ‫ )מ‬but also the opacity of a genuine metaphor (‫ידה‬ ָ ‫)ח‬. ִ There will be straightforward correspondences, but I will not expect every feature of the text to correspond to something any more than I predicate every attribute of a metaphor’s vehicle to the tenor. 8 Moreover, the world of imagery in Ezekiel’s extended metaphors is not a stylistic husk to be shirked but an irreducible feature of his thought. 9 Any discussion of Ezek 17 must take seriously the richness of Ezekiel’s extended metaphors by first treating the vehicle in its own right before asking how the vehicle connects to the tenor. In addition to the opening designation (v.  2), the structure of Ezek 17 invokes another genre. Ezekiel begins by telling a story (vv.  3–8) that climaxes with a pointed challenge to the audience to concur with the verdict passed on the vine (vv. 9–10). Following this climax, Ezekiel disambiguates the story by expounding the historical events to which it refers (vv. 11–21). This basic flow recalls Nathan’s confrontation of David, where a parable (2 Sam 12:1–4) led to a judgment (vv.  5–6), followed by a disambiguation: “You are the man!” (v. 7 ESV). Uriel Simon noticed this threefold pattern in several texts (2 Sam 12:1–14; 14:1–20; 1 Kgs 20:35–43; Isa 5:1–7; Jer 3:1–5) and dubbed them “juridical parables.” 10 The purpose of juridical parables is 4. Galambush, Jerusalem, 11. 5. Polk, “Paradigms,” 581 6. Ibid., 582. See also Horacio Simian-Yofre, who also finds a multiplicity of possible interpretations, but only by divorcing the parable from its political application in vv. 11–21 (“Ez 17:1–10 como enigma y parábola,” Bib 65 [1984]: 27–43). 7. Perhaps more decisive for Polk is his reader-centered hermeneutic, which insists that “the reader makes the comparison; it is not that the popular proverb is one” (“Paradigms,” 569). 8. Ultimately, we did not need the word ‫ידה‬ ָ ‫ ִח‬to know this, because it is a basic principle of metaphor theory. See Galambush, Jerusalem, 11. 9. Ibid., 18. This maxim is true for metaphors generally. 10. Uriel Simon, “Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb,” Bib 48 (1967): 207–42. Note Schipper’s critiques in Parables and Conflict, 42–43. For further discussion of juridical parables, see Gale

208

Appendix 3

to redirect the listeners’ attention to the moral issues in the story and thus unknowingly pass judgment on themselves, only to have the attention (and condemnation) turned back on them in the disambiguation. 11 The analogy between Ezek 17 and Simon’s juridical parables is not exact: in Ezek 17, God pronounces the judgment (not the audience), and Ezekiel is directly attacking Zedekiah, not the listeners. Nonetheless, Simon shows an important feature of parables, which is their ability to distance the audience from a heated debate to see the issues in a new light. 12 The vehicle of Ezekiel’s indirection is a story about a cedar, a vine, and two eagles, which suggests yet another genre: the fable. Ann M. Vater Solomon surveys several qualities of fables and concludes, “the fable may be defined as a simple unreal type of oral or written tale, featuring talking animals and plants, told to reinforce some moral teaching or to satirize political leaders.” 13 Although the degree to which all these qualities exist in an ancient Near Eastern context is unclear, 14 this genre complements some of the interpretive dynamics identified earlier. Just as the goal of a fable is a moral teaching or political criticism, the focus of Ezekiel’s fable is not the story itself but the political realities to which it refers. Also, we should not be misled by the unrealistic actions in the story (for example, an eagle planting things), which are perfectly at home in this genre. Ezekiel 17 thus evokes several overlapping genres: the extended metaphor, the juridical parable, and the fable. These genres frame our expectations, but the extent to which this chapter conforms to these conventions must be left to a detailed exegesis of the text, for Ezekiel often plays with genre expectations to shock and discomfit his audience. 15 A. Yee, “A Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1–7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable,” CBQ 43 (1981): 30–40. 11. Simon, “Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb,” 221. 12. As Simon notes, this rhetorical strategy only works if the audience does not surmise the correspondence before they pass judgment. Hence, “the narrator has to strike a careful balance between getting too close to the parable’s application and being too remote from it” (ibid.). 13. Ann M. Vater Solomon, “Fable,” in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature, ed. George W. Coats, JSOTSup 35 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 119. 14. For examples of extrabiblical ancient Near Eastern fables, see ANET 427–30, 592–93; COS 1.178: 571–573. 15. The thwarting of genre conventions especially obtains in the “lament” of Ezek 19. For Ezekiel’s sophistication, see Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “Ezekiel Among the Critics,” CurBS 2 (1994): 19.

Bibliography Abadie, P. “Les généalogies de Jésus en Matthieu et Luc.” LumVie 48 (1999): 47–60. Ackerman, Susan. “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel.” Pages 179–94 in Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader. Edited by Alice Bach. New York: Routledge, 1999. Ackroyd, Peter R. “Aspects of the Jeremiah Tradition.” IJT 20 (1971): 1–12.    . “The Temple Vessels: A Continuity Theme.” Pages 166–81 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel. VTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Albertz, Rainer. “In Search of the Deuteronomists: A First Solution to a Historical Riddle.” Pages 1–17 in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History. Edited by Thomas Römer. BETL 147. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.    . Israel in Exile: The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. StBibLit 3. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Albright, William Foxwell. “King Joiachin in Exile.” BA 5 (1942): 49–55. Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Leicester, UK: Inter-Varsity, 2000. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Waco, TX: Word, 1994.    . Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008.    . “The First and Second Books of Chronicles.” Pages 297–659 in vol. 3 of NIB. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999. Allison, D. C. “The Son of God as Israel: A Note on Matthean Christology.” IBS 9 (1987): 74–81. Alter, Robert. “Sodom as Nexus: The Web of Design in Biblical Narrative.” Pages 146– 60 in The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Edited by Regina M. Schwartz. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990.    . The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.    . The World of Biblical Literature. New York: Basic Books, 1992. Amsler, Samuel. Aggée; Zacharie 1–8. CAT 11c. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1988. Anderson, Janice Capel. Matthew’s Narrative Web: Over, and Over, and Over Again. JSOTSup 91. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Andreasen, Niels Erik A. “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society.” CBQ 45 (1983): 179–94. Applegate, John. “The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah (Part 1).” VT 48 (1998): 137–160.    . “The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah (Part 2).” VT 48 (1998): 301–8. Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Joe Sachs. FPL Newburyport, MA: Focus, 2006. Baker, David L. Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and New Testaments. 3rd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2010. Baldick, Chris. The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1972.    . “ṢEMAḤ as a Technical Term in the Prophets.” VT 14 (1964): 93–97.

209

210

Bibliography

Baltzer, Klaus. “Das Ende des Staates Juda und die Messiasfrage.” Pages 33–43 in Studien zur Theologie der alttestamentlichen Überlieferungen. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Klaus Koch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961. Barstad, Hans M. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the “Exilic” Period. SO 28. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. Bartholomew, Craig G., and Michael W. Goheen. “Story and Biblical Theology.” Pages 144–71 in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig Bartholomew, Mary Healy, Karl Möller, and Robin Parry. SHS 5. Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2004. Barton, John. “Canon and Old Testament Interpretation.” Pages 31–42 in The Old Testament: Canon, Literature and Theology: Collected Essays of John Barton. SOTSMS. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007.    . Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. London: Darton, Longman, & Todd, 1986.    . “Reading Texts Holistically: The Foundation of Biblical Criticism.” Pages 367–80 in Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007. Edited by André Lemaire. VTSup 133. Leiden: Brill, 2010.    . Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1996. Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.    . Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990.    . “Reading Scripture as a Coherent Story.” Pages 38–53 in The Art of Reading Scripture. Edited by Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.    . “Tamar’s Ancestry and Rahab’s Marriage: Two Problems in the Matthean Genealogy.” NovT 37 (1995): 313–29. Bauer, David R. “The Literary Function of the Genealogy in Matthew’s Gospel.” SBLSP 29 (1990): 451–68. Bea, A. “König Jojachin in Keilschrifttexten.” Bib 23 (1942): 78–82. Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.    . “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology.” Pages 11–52 in Eschatology in Bible and Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Edited by Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997. Bechtel, Carol M. Esther. Int. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Becking, Bob. “Divine Reliability and the Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Consolation ( Jeremiah 30–31).” Pages 163–79 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004.    . From David to Gedaliah: The Book of Kings as Story and History. OBO 228. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2007. Bedford, Peter R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. JSJSup 65. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Beentjes, Panc C. “What a Lioness Was Your Mother: Reflections on Ezekiel 19.” Pages 21–35 in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender-Specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes. Edited by Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra. BibInt 18. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Begg, Christopher T. “Babylon and Judah in Chronicles.” ETL 64 (1988): 142–52.    . Josephus’ Story of the Later Monarchy (AJ 9,1–10,185). BETL 145. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.

Bibliography

211

   . “The End of King Jehoiakim: The Afterlife of a Problem.” JSem 8 (1996): 12–20.    . “The Fate of Judah’s Four Last Kings in the Book of Chronicles.” OLP 18 (1987): 79–85.    . “The Gedaliah Episode and Its Sequels in Josephus.” JSP 12 (1994): 21–46.    . “The Identity of the Princes in Ezekiel 19: Some Reflections.” ETL 65 (1989): 358–69.    . “The Reading in Ezekiel 19:7a: A Proposal.” ETL 65 (1989): 370–80.    . “The Significance of Jehoiachin’s Release: A New Proposal.” JSOT 36 (1986): 49–56.    . “Yahweh’s ‘Visitation’ of Zedekiah ( Jer 32,5).” ETL 63 (1987): 113–17. Ben Zvi, Ehud. “About Time: Observations about the Construction of Time in the Book of Chronicles.” Pages 144–57 in History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. BibleWorld. London: Equinox, 2006.    . “Introduction: Writings, Speeches and the Prophetic Books—Setting an Agenda.” Writings and Speech in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Michael H. Floyd. SBLSymS 10. Atlanta: SBL, 2000.    . “Looking at the Primary (Hi)story and the Prophetic Books as Literary/Theological Units within the Frame of the Early Second Temple: Some Considerations.” SJOT 12 (1998): 26–43.    . “Shifting the Gaze: Historiographic Constraints in Chronicles and Their Implications.” Pages 78–99 in History, Literature and Theology in the Book of Chronicles. BibleWorld. London: Equinox, 2006.    . “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.” Pages 125–56 in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Edited by James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996.    . “When the Foreign Monarch Speaks.” Pages 209–28 in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture. Edited by M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 263. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Ben-Barak, Zafrira. “The Status and Right of the Gěbîrâ.” JBL 110 (1991): 23–34. Berman, Joshua. Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and Their Equivalent Non-battle Narratives. VTSup 103. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Berridge, John MacLennan. Prophet, People and the Word of Yahweh: An Examination of Form and Content in the Proclamation of the Prophet Jeremiah. BaselST 4. Zürich: EVZ, 1970. Betlyon, John W. “Neo-Babylonian Military Operations Other Than War in Judah and Jerusalem.” Pages 263–83 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Bewer, Julius A. “Textual and Exegetical Notes on the Book of Ezekiel.” JBL 72 (1953): 158–68. Biddle, Mark E. Polyphony and Symphony in Prophetic Literature: Rereading Jeremiah 7–20. SOTI 2. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996. Bidmead, Julye. The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. GDNES 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002. Biggs, Charles R. The Book of Ezekiel. EC. London: Epworth, 1996. Billings, J. Todd. The Word of God for the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

212

Bibliography

Block, Daniel I. “Bringing Back David: Ezekiel’s Messianic Hope.” Pages 167–88 in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P. E Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995.    . Deuteronomy. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.    . “Divine Abandonment: Ezekiel’s Adaptation of an Ancient Near Eastern Motif.” Pages 15–42 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000.    . “Echo Narrative Technique in Hebrew Literature: A Study in Judges 19.” WTJ 52 (1990): 325–41.    . “Gog and Magog in Ezekiel’s Eschatological Vision.” Pages 85–116 in Eschatology in Bible and Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Edited by Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.    . “Gog in Prophetic Tradition: A New Look at Ezekiel XXXVIII:17.” VT 42 (1992): 154–72.    . Judges, Ruth. NAC 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1999.    . “My Servant David: Ancient Israel’s Vision of the Messiah.” Pages 17–56 in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by R. S. Hess and M. D. Carroll R. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.    . The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.    . The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.    . “The God Ezekiel Wants Us to Meet.” Pages 44–72 in By the River Chebar: Historical, Literary, and Theological Studies in the Book of Ezekiel. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2013.    . The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. ETSS 2. Jackson, MI: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988.    . “The Tender Cedar Sprig: Ezekiel on Jehoiachin.” HBAI 1 (2012): 173–202.    . “Transformation of Royal Ideology in Ezekiel.” Pages 208–46 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons. PrinTMS 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990.    . “The Liberation of Illegitimacy: Women and Rulers in Matthew 1–2.” BTB 21 (1991): 145–50. Blum, Erhard. “Pentateuch—Hexateuch—Enneateuch? Or: How Can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?” Pages 43–72 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. SBLAIL 8. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Boadt, Lawrence. “Ezekiel, Book of.” ABD 2:711–22.    . Ezekiel’s Oracles against Egypt: A Literary and Philological Study of Ezekiel 29–32. BibOr­37. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980.    . “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” Pages 182–200 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986.    . “The Function of the Salvation Oracles in Ezekiel 33 to 37.” HAR (1990): 1–21. Bock, Darrell L. Luke 1:1–9:50. BECNT 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Boda, Mark J. 1–2 Chronicles. CornerBC 5a. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2010.    . “From Complaint to Contrition: Peering through the Liturgical Window of Jer 14,1–15,4.” ZAW 113 (2001): 186–97.    . Haggai, Zechariah. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.    . “Oil, Crowns and Thrones: Prophet, Priest and King in Zechariah 1:7–6:15.” JHebS 3 (2001): n.p.

Bibliography

213

   . “Reading Between the Lines: Zechariah 11.4–16 in Its Literary Contexts.” Pages 277–91 in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. JSOTSup 370. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003.    . “Zechariah: Master Mason or Penitential Prophet?” Pages 49–69 in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Edited by Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking. StTR 5. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003. Boda, Mark J. and J. G. McConville., eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Bogaert, Pierre Maurice. “Les trois formes de Jérémie 52 (TM, LXX et VL).” Pages 1–17 in Tradition of the Text: Studies Offered to Dominique Barthélemy in Celebration of His 70th Birthday. Edited by Gerald J. Norton and Stephen Pisano. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1991. Böhler, Dieter. “Jesus als Davidssohn bei Lukas und Micha.” Bib 79 (1998): 532–38. Botha, P. J. “The Socio-Cultural Background of Ezekiel 19.” OTE 12 (1999): 249–65. Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by John T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–. Bracke, John M. Jeremiah 1–29. WestBC. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Braun, Roddy L. “Cyrus in Second and Third Isaiah, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.” Pages 146–64 in The Chronicler as Theologian: Essays in Honor of Ralph W. Klein. Edited by M. Patrick Graham, Steven L. McKenzie, and Gary N. Knoppers. JSOTSup 371. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Brettler, Marc Zvi. “2 Kings 24:13–14 as History.” CBQ 53 (1991): 541–552. Bright, John. Covenant and Promise: The Prophetic Understanding of the Future in Pre-Exilic Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.    . Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. AB 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973. Brown, Raymond E. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Rev. ed. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Brownlee, William Hugh. “Two Elegies on the Fall of Judah (Ezekiel 19).” Pages 93–103 in vol. 1 of Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Brueggemann, Walter. “A Second Reading of Jeremiah after the Dismantling.” ExAud 1 (1985): 156–168.    . “An Ending That Does Not End.” Pages 117–28 in Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader. Edited by A. K. M. Adam. St. Louis: Chalice, 2001.    . “Heir and Land: The Royal ‘Envelope’ of the Books of Kings.” Pages 85–100 in The Fate of King David: The Past and Present of a Biblical Icon. Edited by Tod Linafelt, Claudia V. Camp, and Timothy K. Beal. LHBOTS 500. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.    . “Jeremiah’s Use of Rhetorical Questions.” JBL 92 (1973): 358–74.    . “Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historian: Gospel for Exiles.” Int 22 (1968): 387–402.    . “Meditation upon the Abyss: The Book of Jeremiah.” WW 22 (2002): 340–50.    . “Next Steps in Jeremiah Studies?” Pages 404–22 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.    . “Old Testament Theology.” Pages 675–97 in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Edited by J. W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.    . “The ‘Baruch Connection’: Reflections on Jer 43:1–7.” JBL 113 (1994): 405–20.

214

Bibliography

   . The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.    . Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.    . To Pluck Up, to Tear Down: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah 1–25. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Bryan, Steven M. Jesus and Israel’s Traditions of Judgement and Restoration. SNTSMS 117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Burger, Christoph. Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970. Burke, David G. The Poetry of Baruch: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Original Hebrew Text of Baruch 3:9–5:9. SBLSCS 10. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Callender, Dexter E., Jr. “The Primal Human in Ezekiel and the Image of God.” Pages 175–93 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations. Translated by John Owen. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.    . Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. Translated by John Owen. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950. Caquot, André. “Le messianisme d’Ézéchiel.” Sem 149 (1964): 5–23.    . “Peut-on parler de messianisme dans l’oeuvre du chroniste?” RTP 16 (1966): 110–20. Carlson, R. A. David, the Chosen King: A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964. Carr, David M. “Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible.” Pages 22–64 in A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community in Honor of James A. Sanders. Edited by Richard D. Weis and David M. Carr. JSOTSup 225. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Carroll, Robert P. From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Crossroad, 1981.    . “Halfway through a Dark Wood: Reflections on Jeremiah 25.” Pages 73–86 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.    . Jeremiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.    . When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament. New York: Seabury, 1979. Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” Pages 1–599 in vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Carvalho, Corrine. “Putting the Mother Back in the Center: Metaphor and Multivalence in Ezekiel 19.” Pages 201–21 in Thus Says the Lord: Essays on the Former and Latter Prophets in Honor of Robert R. Wilson. Edited by John J. Ahn and Stephen L. Cook. LHBOTS 502. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. Cassuto, Umberto. “The Arrangement of the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 227–40 in Bible. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Vol. 1 of Biblical and Oriental Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. Cazelles, Henri. “Le roi Yoyakin et le serviteur du Seigneur.” Page 1:121–25 in Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Edited by Pinchas Peli. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1973. Chan, Michael J. “Joseph and Jehoiachin: On the Edge of Exodus.” ZAW 125 (2013): 566–77.

Bibliography

215

Chapman, Stephen B. “A Canonical Approach to Old Testament Theology? Deuteronomy 34:10–12 and Malachi 3:22–24 as Programmatic Conclusions.” HBT 25 (2003): 121–45. Charlesworth, J. H. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.    . Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Chisholm, Robert B. “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic.” JETS 53 (2010): 561–77. Ciampa, Roy E. “The History of Redemption.” Pages 254–308 in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Clements, Ronald E. Jeremiah. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988.    . “The Prophet and His Editors.” Pages 217–29 in Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Clines, David J. A. “Haggai’s Temple Constructed, Deconstructed, and Reconstructed.” Pages 60–87 in vol. 2 of Second Temple Studies: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. JSOTSup 175. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.    . The Theme of the Pentateuch. Rev. ed. JSOTSup 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1997.    . What Does Eve Do to Help: And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament. JSOTSup 94. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1990. Clowney, Edmund P. Preaching and Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961. Cogan, Mordechai. “The Chronicler’s Use of Chronology as Illuminated by Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Pages 197–209 in Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Edited by Jeffrey H. Tigay. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985. Cogan, Mordechai, and Hayim Tadmor. II Kings. AB 11. Garden City, NY, 1988. Cohn, Robert L. 2 Kings. BerOl. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000.    . “Convention and Creativity in the Book of Kings: The Case of the Dying Monarch.” CBQ 47 (1985): 603–16. Collins, John J. “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” Pages 1–17 in The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David Noel Freedman. BibJudS 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.    . “The Eschatology of Zechariah.” Pages 74–84 in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and Their Relationships. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert D. Haak. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Conklin, Blane. Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew. LSAWS 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Cook, John A. “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of Wayyiqtol and Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” JSS 49 (2004): 247–273. Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC. New York: Scribner, 1937. Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard. Jeremiah 1–25. WBC 26. Dallas, TX: Word, 1991. Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39. VTSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2008.    . “Solomon and the Building of the Temple.” Pages 33–49 in Text and Task: Scripture and Mission. Edited by Michael Parsons. Bletchley, UK: Paternoster, 2005. Critchlow, James R. “Looking Back for Jeconiah: Yahweh’s Cast-Out Signet.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2004.

216

Bibliography

   . Looking Back for Jehoiachin: Yahweh’s Cast Out Signet. AMS. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Dahood, Mitchell Joseph. “Ezekiel 19,10 and Relative Kî.” Bib 56 (1975): 96–99. Dandamaev, Muhammad A. Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 B.C.). De Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984. Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Darr, Katheryn Pfisterer. “Ezekiel.” Pages 1073–607 in vol. 6 of NIB. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2001.    . “Ezekiel Among the Critics.” CurBS 2 (1994): 9–24. Daube, David. “Typology in Josephus.” JJS 31 (1980): 18–36. Davidson, Richard M. Typology in Scripture: A Study of Hermeneutical Typos Structures. AUSDDS 2. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1981. Davis, Charles T. “Fulfillment of Creation: A Study of Matthew’s Genealogy.” JAAR 41 (1973): 520–35. Davis, Ellen F. Swallowing the Scroll: Textuality and the Dynamics of Discourse in Ezekiel’s Prophecy. JSOTSup 78. Sheffield: Almond, 1989. Dempster, Stephen G. “An ‘Extraordinary Fact’: Torah and Temple and the Contours of the Hebrew Canon.” TynBul 48 (1997): 23–56, 191–218.    . Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible. NSBT 15. Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2003.    . “From Many Texts to One: The Formation of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 19–56 in vol. 1 of The World of the Aramaeans: Biblical Studies in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion. Edited by P. M. Michèle Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl. JSOTSup 324. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001.    . “Geography and Genealogy, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 66–82 in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.    . “The Servant of the Lord.” Pages 128–78 in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Diamond, A. R. Pete. “Portraying Prophecy: Of Doublets, Variants and Analogies in the Narrative Representation of Jeremiah’s Oracles—Reconstructing the Hermeneutics of Prophecy.” JSOT 57 (1993): 99–119. Dillard, Raymond B. 2 Chronicles. WBC 15. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Donne, Anthony le. The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Driver, G. R. “Jehoiakin in Captivity.” ExpTim 56 (1945): 317–18. Dubbink, Joep. “Cedars Decay, a Sprout Will Blossom: Jeremiah 23:5–6, Conclusion of the Prophecies on Kingship.” Pages 157–65 in Unless Some One Guide Me . . . Festschrift for Karel A Deurloo. Maastricht: Uitgeverij Shaker, 2000. Duguid, Iain M. Ezekiel and the Leaders of Israel. VTSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Duke, Rodney K. The Persuasive Appeal of the Chronicler: A Rhetorical Analysis. JSOTSup 88. Sheffield: Almond, 1990. Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.    . “Kingship and Temple in the Post-Exilic Period.” RTR 37 (1978): 33–42.

Bibliography

217

   . “The Purpose of the Books of Chronicles.” JETS 27 (1984): 257–66. Dus, Ramón Alfredo. Las parábolas del reino de Judá: Lingüística textual y communicación (Ez 17; 19; 21). Paraná, Argentina: Pontificia Univ Católica Argentina, 2003. Dyck, Jonathan E. The Theocratic Ideology of the Chronicler. BibInt 33. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Ebeling, Erich et al., eds. Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928–. Edenburg, Cynthia. “Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations.” JSOT 35 (2010): 131–48. Eichrodt, Walther. Ezekiel: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Eisemann, Moshe. Yechezkel: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources. ATS. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah, 1988. Elat, Moshe. “The Monarchy and the Development of Trade in Ancient Israel.” Pages 527–46 in vol. 2 of State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Edward Lipiński. Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1979. Elliger, Karl and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983. Eloff, Mervyn. “Exile, Restoration and Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus O Christos.” Neot 38 (2004): 75–87. Endo, Yoshinobu. The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis. SSN. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1996. Eslinger, Lyle M. Into the Hands of the Living God. JSOTSup 84. Sheffield: Almond, 1989. Evans, Paul S. “The Function of the Chronicler’s Temple Despoliation Notices in Light of Imperial Realities in Yehud.” JBL 129 (2010): 31–47. Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus, Biblical Figures in.” EJud 1239–56.    . “Josephus’ Portrait of Jehoiachin.” PAPS 139 (1995): 11–31.    . Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Ferguson, Sinclair B. “How Does the Bible Look at Itself?” Pages 47–66 in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic: A Tradition, a Challenge, a Debate. Edited by Harvie M. Conn. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Ferrara, A. J., and S. B. Parker. “Seating Arrangements at Divine Banquets.” UF 4 (1972): 37–39. Finitsis, Antonios. Visions and Eschatology: A Socio-Historical Analysis of Zechariah 1–6. LSTS 79. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Fischer, Georg. Jeremia 1–25. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2005.    . “Jeremia 52—ein Schüssel zum Jeremiabuch.” Bib 79 (1998): 333–59. Floyd, Michael H. “Psalm LXXXIX: A Prophetic Complaint about the Fulfillment of an Oracle.” VT 42 (1992): 442–57. Foster, Raymond S. “Note on Ezekiel 17:1–10 and 22–24.” VT 8 (1958): 374–79. Foulkes, Francis. “The Acts of God: A Study of the Basis of Typology in the Old Testament.” Pages 342–71 in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New. Edited by G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994. Fowler, Jeaneane D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study. JSOTSup 49. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Fox, Michael. “Ṭôḇ as Covenant Terminology.” BASOR 209 (1973): 41–42. Fox, Nili Sacher. In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah. HUCM 23. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 2000. France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Frankemölle, Hubert. Jahwebund und Kirche Christi: Studien zur Form- und Traditionsgeschichte des Evangeliums nach Matthäus. Münster: Aschendorff, 1974. Freedman, David Noel. “The Law and the Prophets.” Pages 250–65 in Congress Volume: Bonn, 1962. VTSup 9. Leiden: Brill, 1963.

218

Bibliography

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smith & Helwys, 2002. Friedman, Richard Elliott. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Funk, Robert W. “Looking-Glass Tree Is for the Birds: Ezekiel 17:22–24; Mark 4:30–32.” Int 27 (1973): 3–9. Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology.” WTJ 38 (1976): 281–99. Galambush, Julie. Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife. SBLDS 130. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Ganzel, Tova. “The Descriptions of the Restoration of Israel in Ezekiel.” VT 60 (2010): 197–211. Garfinkel, Yosef. “The Eliakim Naʿar Yokan Seal Impressions: Sixty Years of Confusion in Biblical Archaeological Research.” BA 53 (1990): 74–79. Garsiel, Moshe. The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Revivim, 1985. Gemeren, Willem van. The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem. Grand Rapids: Academie, 1988. Genung, John Franklin. “‘This Man Coniah.’” BibW 37 (1911): 89–99. Gerhards, Meik. “Die Begnadigung Jojachins: Überlegungen zu 2.Kön 25,27–30 (mit einem Anhang zu den Nennungen Jojachins auf Zuteilungslisten aus Babylon).” BN 94 (1998): 52–67.    . “Die beiden Erzählungen aus 2. Kön 20 und 2. Kön 20,18 als Ankündigung der Begnadigung Jojachins (2. Kön 25,27–30).” BN 98 (1999): 5–12. Gibbs, James M. “Purpose and Pattern in Matthew’s Use of the Title ‘Son of David.’” NTS 10 (1964): 446–64. Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. Translated by Henrietta Szold. 6 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1909. Glassner, Jean-Jacques. Mesopotamian Chronicles. SBLWAW 19. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Goldingay, John. “Chronicler as a Theologian.” BTB 5 (1975): 99–126.    . Psalms 2: Psalms 42–89. BCOTWP. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.    . “The ‘Salvation History’ Perspective and the ‘Wisdom’ Perspective within the Context of Biblical Theology.” EvQ 51 (1979): 194–207.    . Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Goldman, Yohanan. Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: les origines littéraires de la forme Massorétique du livre de Jérémie. OBO 118. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1992. Goldsworthy, Graeme. According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Goppelt, Leonhard. Typos, the Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. Translated by Donald H. Madvig. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Gosse, Bernard. “La nouvelle alliance et les promesses d’avenir se référant à David dans les livres de Jérémie, Ezéchiel et Isaie.” VT 41 (1991): 419–28.    . “Le Psaume 80 dans le cadre du Psautier et Ezechiel 17.” SJOT 19 (2005): 48–60. Goswell, Greg. “The Fate and Future of Zerubbabel in the Prophecy of Haggai.” Bib 91 (2010): 77–90. Gottlieb, Isaac B. “Sof Davar: Biblical Endings.” Proof 11 (1991): 213–24. Goulder, M. “‘Behold My Servant Jehoiachin.’” VT 52 (2002): 175–90.

Bibliography

219

Gowan, Donald E. When Man Becomes God: Humanism and Hybris in the Old Testament. PTMS 6. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1975. Grandjean, Catherine, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion. “Introduction.” Pages 13–28 in Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique. Edited by Catherine Grandjean, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2013. Granowski, Jan Jaynes. “Jehoiachin at the King’s Table: A Reading of the Ending of the Second Book of Kings.” Pages 173–88 in Reading Between Texts. Edited by Danna Nolan Fewell. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Gray, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. Green, Alberto R. W. “The Fate of Jehoiakim.” AUSS 20 (1982): 103–9. Green, Joel B. “Rethinking ‘History’ for Theological Interpretation.” JTI 5 (2011): 159–73. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 1–20. AB 22. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.    . “Ezekiel 17 and the Policy of Psammetichus II.” JBL 76 (1957): 304–9.    . “Notes on the Influence of Tradition on Ezekiel.” JANES 22 (1993): 29–37.    . “The Design and Themes of Ezekiel’s Program of Restoration.” Int 38 (1984): 181–208.    . “The Hebrew Oath Particle Ḥay/ḥē.” JBL 76 (1957): 34–39.    . “What Are Valid Criteria for Determining Inauthentic Matter in Ezekiel?” Pages 123–35 in Ezekiel and His Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and Their Interrelation. Edited by J. Lust. BETL 74. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1986. Gurtner, Daniel M. “The ‘Twenty-Fifth Year of Jeconiah’ and the Date of 2 Baruch.” JSP 18 (2008): 23–32. Haag, Ernst. “Ez 31 und die alttestamentliche Paradiesvorstellung.” Pages 171–78 in Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift für Joseph Ziegler. Edited by Josef Schreiner­. FB 2. Würzburg: Echter, 1972. Haag, Herbert. Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja. EdF 233. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985. Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002. Halpern, Baruch. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Hammer, Wolfgang. “L’intention de la généalogie de Matthieu.” ETR 55 (1980): 305–6. Hammershaimb, Erling. “Ezekiel’s View of the Monarchy.” Pages 51–63 in Some Aspects of Old Testament Prophecy from Isaiah to Malachi. København: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1966. Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic: The Historical and Sociological Roots of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Hardmeier, Christof. “Zur schriftgestützten Expertentätigkeit Jeremias im Milieu der Jerusalemer Führungseliten ( Jeremia 36): Prophetische Literaturbildung in die Neuinterpretation älteren Expertisen in Jeremia 21–23.” Pages 105–148 in Die Textualisierung der Religion. Edited by Joachim Schaper. FAT 62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Harvey, John E. “Jehoiachin and Joseph: Hope at the Close of the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 51–61 in The Bible as a Human Witness to Divine Revelation: Hearing the Word of God through Historically Dissimilar Traditions. Edited by Randall Heskett and Brian Irwin. LHBOTS 469. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.    . Retelling the Torah: The Deuteronomistic Historian’s Use of Tetrateuchal Narratives. JSOTSup 403. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Hasel, Gerhard F. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

220

Bibliography

   . The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea From Genesis to Isaiah. AUMSR 5. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1980. Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. BTCB. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006. Haulotte, Edgar. Symbolique du vêtement selon la Bible. Théologie 65. Paris: Aubier, 1966. Hays, J. Daniel. “Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or to Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1–11.” JSOT 28 (2003): 149–74. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973. Hermisson, Hans-Jürgen. “Die »Königsspruch«-Sammlung im Jeremiabuch—von der Anfangs- zur Endgestalt.” Pages 37–58 in Studien zu Prophetie und Weisheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Edited by Jörg Barthel, Hannelore Jauss, and Klaus Koenen. FAT 23. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998.    . “Jeremias Wort über Jojachin.” Pages 252–70 in Werden und Wirken des Alten Testaments: Festschrift für Claus Westermann. Edited by Rainer Albertz. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980. Herrmann, Johannes. “Zu Jer 22:29; 7:4.” ZAW 62 (1950): 321–22. Herrmann, Siegfried. Die prophetischen Heilserwartungen im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel. BWANT 85. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1965. Heskett, Randall. Messianism within the Scriptural Scroll of Isaiah. LHBOTS 456. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Hess, Richard S. “The Genealogies of Genesis 1–11 and Comparative Literature.” Bib 70 (1989): 241–54. Hieke, Thomas. “Der Exodus in Psalm 80: Geschichtstopik in den Psalmen.” Pages 551– 58 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Hill, John. Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT. BibInt 40. Leiden: Brill, 1999.    . “‘Your Exile Will Be Long’: The Book of Jeremiah and the Unended Exile.” Pages 149–61 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Hillers, Delbert R. Lamentations: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 7A. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hirsch, Hans. “Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade.” AfO 20 (1963): 1–82. Höffken, Peter. “Josephus: Wie man mit Niederlagen umgehen kann: Zu Lebensgeschichte und Auslegung alttestamentlicher Überlieferungen im Bellum Judaicum.” Pages 23–37 in Kontexte: biografische und forschungsgeschicht­liche Schnittpunkte der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft: Festschrift für Hans Jochen Boecker zum 80. Geburtstag. Edited by Hans Jochen Boecker. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008. Hoffman, Yair. “Reflections on the Relationship between Theopolitics, Prophecy and Historiography.” Pages 85–99 in Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible and Postbiblical Literature. Edited by Henning Graf Reventlow, Yair Hoffman, and Benjamin Uffenheimer. JSOTSup 171. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Holladay, William Lee. “Covenant with the Patriarchs Overturned: Jeremiah’s Intention in ‘Terror on Every Side,’ Jer 20:1–6.” JBL 91 (1972): 305–20.    . “Indications of Jeremiah’s Psalter.” JBL 121 (2002): 245–61.    . Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Bibliography

221

   . “The Years of Jeremiah’s Preaching.” Int 37 (1983): 146–59. Holt, Else K. “Narrative Normativity in Diasporic Jeremiah—and Today.” Pages 125–35 in Jeremiah (Dis)placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman. LHBOTS 529. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.    . “The Meaning of an Inclusio: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah MT.” SJOT 17 (2003): 183–205. Hood, Jason B. The Messiah, His Brothers, and the Nations: Matthew 1.1–17. LNTS 441. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Hoop, Raymond de. “Perspective after the Exile: The King, ʿabdî, ‘My Servant’ in Jeremiah—Some Reflections on MT and LXX.” Pages 105–21 in Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria, August 2007. Edited by Bob Becking and Dirk Human. OtSt 50. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hossfeld, Frank Lothar. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches. FB 20. Würzburg: Echter, 1977. Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage, Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. VTSup 52. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Huizenga, Leroy A. The New Isaac: Tradition and Intertextuality in the Gospel of Matthew. NovTSup 131. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hutchison, John C. “Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew’s Genealogy.” BSac 158 (2001): 152–64. Hwang, Sunwoo. “The Hope for the Restoration of the Davidic Kingdom in the Light of the Davidic Covenant in Chronicles.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2011. Janzen, David. “An Ambiguous Ending: Dynastic Punishment in Kings and the Fate of the Davidides in 2 Kings 25.27–30.” JSOT 33 (2008): 39–58. Japhet, Sara. “Exile and Restoration in the Book of Chronicles.” Pages 331–41 in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.    . I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993.    . “Periodization between History and Ideology: The Neo-Babylonian Period in Biblical Historiography.” Pages 353–66 in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Jauhiainen, Marko. “Turban and Crown Lost and Regained: Ezekiel 21:29–32 and Zechariah’s Zemah.” JBL 127 (2008): 501–11. Jenks, Alan W. “Eating and Drinking in the Old Testament.” ABD 2:250–54. Jerome, Saint. Commentary on Jeremiah. Translated by Michael Graves. AChrT. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011. Joannès, Francis. “Quand le roi mange comme un dieu . . .: Les transferts entre table divine et table royale en Assyrie et en Babylonie au Ier millénaire av. J.-C.” Pages 327–42 in Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique. Edited by Catherine Grandjean, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2013. Joannès, Francis, and André Lemaire. “Trois tablettes cunéiformes à l’onomastique ouest-sémitique.” Transeu 17 (1999): 17–33. Job, John Brian. Jeremiah’s Kings: A Study of the Monarchy in Jeremiah. SOTSMS. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2006. Johnson, Marshall D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. SNTSMS 8. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

222

Bibliography

Johnstone, William. 1 and 2 Chronicles. 2 vols. JSOTSup 253–254. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997.    . “Guilt and Atonement: The Theme of 1 and 2  Chronicles.” Pages 113–38 in A Word in Season: Essays in Honour of William McKane. Edited by James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies. JSOTSup 42. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Jones, John Mark. “Subverting the Textuality of Davidic Messianism: Matthew’s Presentation of the Genealogy and the Davidic Title.” CBQ 56 (1994): 256–72. Jonker, Louis. “The Exile as Sabbath Rest: The Chronicler’s Interpretation of the Exile.” Pages 213–29 in Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria, August 2007. Edited by Bob Becking and Dirk Human. OtSt 50. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Josephus. Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray et al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991. Joyce, Paul. “King and Messiah In Ezekiel.” Pages 323–37 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by John Day. JSOTSup 270. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield, 1998. Jüngling, Hans-Winfried. “Eid und Bund in Ez 16–17.” Pages 113–48 in Der neue Bund im Alten: Studien zur Bundestheologie der beiden Testamente. Edited by Erich Zenger. QD 146. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Kalimi, Isaac, and James D. Purvis. “King Jehoiachin and the Vessels of the Lord’s House in Biblical Literature.” CBQ 56 (1994): 449–57. Kautzsch, Emil, ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by Arthur E. Cowley. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910. Keck, Leander E., ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible. 12 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2004. Kelly, Brian. “Messianic Elements in the Chronicler’s Work.” Pages 249–64 in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P. E Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995.    . Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles. JSOTSup 211. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996. Kennedy, Joel. The Recapitulation of Israel: Use of Israel’s History in Matthew 1:1–4:11. WUNT 2/257. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Kermode, Frank. The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Kessler, John. “Haggai, Book of.” DOTP 301–7.    . “Haggai, Zerubbabel, and the Political Status of Yehud: The Signet Ring in Haggai 2:23.” Pages 102–19 in Prophets, Prophecy and Prophetic Texts. Edited by Michael H. Floyd and Robert D. Haak. LHBOTS 427. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.    . “Temple Building in Haggai.” Pages 357–79 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Jamie R. Novotny. AOAT 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.    . The Book of Haggai: Prophecy and Society in Early Persian Yehud. VTSup.  Leiden: Brill, 2002.    . “Tradition, Continuity and Covenant in the Book of Haggai: An Alternative Voice from Early Persian Yehud.” Pages 1–39 in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. LHBOTS 475. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Kessler, Martin. “Jeremiah Chapters 26–45 Reconsidered.” JNES 27 (1968): 81–88. King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. LAI. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Bibliography

223

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Kissling, Paul J. Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha. JSOTSup 224. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1996. Kitchen, Merrill. “Another Exile: ‘Jesus and His Brothers’ in the Gospel of Matthew.” ABR 59 (2011): 1–12. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.    . Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1988.    . Israel in Exile: A Theological Interpretation. OBT 6. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Kline, Meredith G. Glory in Our Midst: A Biblical-Theological Reading of Zechariah’s Night Visions. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001. Knierim, Rolf P. “The Task of Old Testament Theology.” HBT 6 (1984): 25–57. Knoppers, Gary N. “‘Great Among His Brothers,’ But Who Is He? Heterogeneity in the Composition of Judah.” JHebS 3 (2001): n.p.    . I Chronicles 1–9. AB 12. New York: Doubleday, 2004.    . “Rethinking the Relationship between Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History: The Case of Kings.” CBQ 63 (2001): 393–415.    . “‘There Was None Like Him’: Incomparability in the Books of Kings.” CBQ 54 (1992): 411–31.    . “Treasures Won and Lost: Royal (Mis)appropriations in Kings and Chronicles.” Pages 181–208 in The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and Texture. Edited by M. Patrick Graham and Steven L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 263. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Kogler, Franz. Das Doppelgleichnis vom Senfkorn und vom Sauerteig in seiner traditionsgeschichtlichen Entwicklung: Zur Reich-Gottes-Vorstellung Jesu und ihren Aktualisierungen in der Urkirche. FB 59. Würzburg: Echter, 1988. Korpel, Marjo C. A. “Kryptogramme in Ezechiel 19 und im Izbet-Sarta-Ostrakon.” ZAW 121 (2009): 70–86. Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Kuyvenhoven, Rosalie. “Jeremiah 23:1–8: Shepherds in Diachronic Perspective.” Paratext and Megatext as Channels of Jewish and Christian Traditions. Edited by August Den Hollander, Ulrich Schmid, and Willem Smelik. JCPS 6. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Kynes, Will J. “Beat Your Parodies into Swords, and Your Parodied Books into Spears: A New Paradigm for Parody in the Hebrew Bible.” BibInt 19 (2011): 276–310.    . My Psalm Has Turned into Weeping: Job’s Dialogue with the Psalms. BZAW 437. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Laato, Antti. A Star Is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations. USFISFCJ 5. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997.    . Josiah and David Redivivus: The Historical Josiah and the Messianic Expectations of Exilic and Postexilic Times. ConBOT 33. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1992. Lambertz, Maximilian. “Die Toledoth in Mt 1,1–17 und Lk 3:23bff.” Pages 201–25 in Festschrift Franz Dornseiff zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Horst Kusch. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1953. Lang, Bernhard. Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: die Politik des Propheten Ezechiel. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1978. Laniak, Timothy S. Shepherds after My Own Heart: Pastoral Traditions and Leadership in the Bible. NSBT 20. Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2006.

224

Bibliography

Lapsley, Jacqueline E. “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” Pages 143–73 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Lasine, Stuart. “Fiction, Falsehood, and Reality in Hebrew Scripture.” HS 25 (1984): 24–40. Laufen, Rudolf. “Basileia und ekklēsia: Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Gleichnisses vom Senfkorn.” Pages 105–40 in Begegnung mit dem Wort: Festschr. für Heinrich Zimmermann. Edited by Josef Zmijewski and Ernst Nellessen. BBB 53. Bonn: Hanstein, 1979. Legaspi, Michael C. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies. OSHT. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Lehmann, Manfred R. “Biblical Oaths.” ZAW 81 (1969): 74–92. Leithart, Peter J. 1 & 2 Kings. BTCB. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2006.    . “Counterfeit Davids: Davidic Restoration and the Architecture of 1–2 Kings.” TynBul 56 (2005): 19–33. Lemaire, André. “Fifth- and Fourth- Century Issues: Governorship and Priesthood in Jerusalem.” Pages 406–25 in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues­and Sources. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Lemke, Werner E. “The Synoptic Problem in the Chronicler’s History.” HTR 58 (1965): 349–63. Leuchter, Mark. Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response. HBM 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006.    . The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Levenson, Jon D. Esther: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.    . “On the Promise to the Rechabites.” CBQ 38 (1976): 508–14.    . Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.    . The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993.    . Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 10. Cambridge, MA: Scholars, 1976. Levin, Christoph. “The Empty Land in Kings.” Pages 61–89 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and Its Historical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. BZAW 404. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Levitt Kohn, Risa. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile, and the Torah. JSOTSup 358. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Lilly, Ingrid E. Two Books of Ezekiel: Papyrus 967 and the Masoretic Text as Variant Literary Editions. VTSup 150. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lindblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1962. Linville, James Richard. Israel in the Book of Kings: The Past as a Project of Social Identity. JSOTSup 272. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1998. Lipiński, Edward. “Products and Brokers of Tyre According to Ezekiel 27.” Pages 213–20 in Phoenicia and Its Neighbours. StPh 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1985. Lipschits, Oded. “‘Jehoiakim Slept With His Fathers’ (II Kings 24:6): Did He?” JHebS 4 (2002): n.p.    . The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Lloyd, J. B. “The Banquet Theme in Ugaritic Narrative.” UF 22 (1991): 169–93.

Bibliography

225

Long, Burke O. “Letting Rival Gods Be Rivals: Biblical Theology in a Post­modern Age.” Pages 222–33 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.    . “Reports of Visions among the Prophets.” JBL 95 (1976): 353–65. Long, V. Philips. The Art of Biblical History. FCI 5. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994. Longacre, Robert E. “Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-Modular Approach.” Pages 50–98 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994. Longman, Tremper, III. “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings.” Pages 13–34 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. MNTS. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004.    . Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric. 2nd ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Lust, Johan. “‘And I Shall Hang Him on a Lofty Mountain’: Ezek 17:22–24 and Messianism in the Septuagint.” Pages 231–50 in IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies: Cambridge, 1995. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. SBLSCS 45. Atlanta: Scholars, 1997.    . “Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel.” Pages 99–122 in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: festschrift P.-M. Bogaert. Edited by André Wénin and J.-M. Auwers. BETL 144. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999.    . “Messianism in LXX-Ezekiel: Towards a Synthesis.” Pages 417–30 in The Septuagint and Messianism. Edited by Michael A. Knibb. BETL 195. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2006. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 2001. Lyons, Michael A. From Law to Prophecy: Ezekiel’s Use of the Holiness Code. LHBOTS 507. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. MacDonald, Nathan. Not Bread Alone: The Uses of Food in the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.    . “‘The Eyes of All Look to You’: The Generosity of the Divine King.” Pages 1–14 in Decisive Meals: Table Politics in Biblical Literature. Edited by Kathy Ehren­sperger, Nathan MacDonald, and Luzia Sutter Rehmann. LNTS 449. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Magness, J. Lee. Marking the End: Sense and Absence in the Gospel of Mark. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Malamat, Abraham. “Jeremiah and the Last Two Kings of Judah.” PEQ 83 (1951): 81–87.    . “The King’s Table and Provisioning of Messengers: The Recent Old Babylonian Texts from Tuttul and the Bible.” IEJ 53 (2003): 172–77.    . “The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical-­Chronological Study.” IEJ 18 (1968): 137–56. Marcus, David. “‘Lifting up the Head’: On the Trail of a Word Play in Genesis 40.” Proof 10 (1990): 17–27. Martens, Elmer A. “Narrative Parallelism and Message in Jeremiah 34–38.” Pages 33–49 in Early Jewish and Christian Exegesis: Studies in Memory of William Hugh Brownlee. Edited by C. Evans and W. F. Stinespring. SPHS 10. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987. Mason, Rex. “Prophets of the Restoration.” Pages 137–54 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by R. J. Coggins, Anthony Phillips, and Michael A. Knibb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

226

Bibliography

   . “Purpose of the ‘Editorial Framework’ of the Book of Haggai.” VT 27 (1977): 413–21. Masson, Jacques. Jesus, fils de David dans les généalogies de saint Mathieu et de saint Luc. Paris: Téqui, 1982. Mastin, B. A. “Note on Zechariah 6:13.” VT 26 (1976): 113–16. Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. McArthur, Harvey K. “Parable of the Mustard Seed.” CBQ 33 (1971): 198–210. McCartney, Dan G. “Ecce Homo: The Coming of the Kingdom as the Restoration of Human Vicegerency.” WTJ 56 (1994): 1–21. McComiskey, Douglas S. “Exile and Restoration from Exile in the Scriptural Quotations and Allusions of Jesus.” JETS 53 (2010): 673–96. McConville, J. G. “1 Kings VIII 46–53 and the Deuteronomic Hope.” VT 42 (1992): 67–79.    . Deuteronomy. ApOTC 5. Leicester, UK: Apollos, 2002.    . “Diversity and Obscurity in Old Testament Books: A Hermeneutical Exercise Based on Some Later Old Testament Books.” Anvil 3 (1986): 33–47.    . “Ezra-Nehemiah and the Fulfillment of Prophecy.” VT 36 (1986): 205–24.    . God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology, Genesis–Kings. LHBOTS­ 454. London: T&T Clark, 2006.    . Grace in the End: A Study of Deuteronomic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.    . “Jeremiah: Prophet and Book.” TynBul 42 (1991): 80–95.    . Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah. Leicester, UK: Apollos, 1993.    . “Restoration in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature.” Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 2001.    . “The Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship.” Them 22 (1997): 3–13.    . “Using Scripture for Theology: Unity and Diversity in Old Testament Theology.” SBEL 5 (1987): 39–57. McFall, Leslie. “The Chronology of Saul and David.” JETS 53 (2010): 475–533. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. McKenzie, Steven L. The Chronicler’s Use of the Deuteronomistic History. HSM 33. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985.    . The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. VTSup 42. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Mein, Andrew. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile. OTM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Meinhold, Arndt. “Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle I.” ZAW 87 (1975): 306–24.    . “Die Gattung der Josephsgeschichte und des Estherbuches: Diasporanovelle II.” ZAW 88 (1976): 72–93. Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield, 1999. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. London: United Bible Societies, 1994. Metzger, Martin. “Zeder, Weinstock und Weltenbaum.” Pages 197–229 in Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Dwight R. Daniels, Uwe Gleßmer, and Martin Rösel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991.

Bibliography

227

Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Haggai, Zechariah 1–8. AB 25B. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Miller, Geoffrey D. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” CBR 9 (2010): 283–309. Miller, James E. “The Mælæk of Tyre (Ezekiel 28,11–19).” ZAW 105 (1994): 497–501.    . “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1:1.” RB 99 (1992): 499–503. Miller, Patrick D., Jr. Sin and Judgment in the Prophets: A Stylistic and Theological Analysis. SBLMS 27. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Mitchell, T. C. “Judah until the Fall of Jerusalem (C. 700–586 B.C.).” Pages 371–409 in The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. Edited by John Boardman. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1991.    . “The Babylonian Exile and the Restoration of the Jews in Palestine (586–c. 500 B.C.).” Pages 410–60 in The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. Edited by John Boardman. 2nd ed. Vol. 3, pt. 2 of The Cambridge Ancient History. London: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Moberly, R. W. L. Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013. Moore, Carey A. Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions. AB 44. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. Moran, W. L. “A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefîre Stelas.” JNES 22 (1963): 173–176.    . “Gen 49:10 and Its Use in Ezek 21:32.” Bib 39 (1958): 405–25. Mosis, Rudolf. Das Buch Ezechiel: Teil 1, Kap. 1,1–20,44. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1978.    . Untersuchungen zur Theologie des chronistischen Geschichtswerkes. FTS 92. Freiburg: Herder, 1973. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. Translated by G. W. Anderson. New York: Abingdon, 1954. Muilenburg, James. “Form Criticism and Beyond.” JBL 88 (1969): 1–18. Mukenge, André Kabasele. “Les derniers rois de Juda et la lecture du ‘livre’: Josias (2 R 22–23), Joiaqim ( Jer 36) et Jékonias (Ba 1, 1–14).” RTL 30 (1999): 11–31. Murphy, Roland E. “Reflections on a Critical Biblical Theology.” Pages 265–74 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by Henry T. C. Sun and Keith L. Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Murray, Donald F. “Of All the Years the Hopes—or Fears? Jehoiachin in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27–30).” JBL 120 (2001): 245–65. Murray, John. “The Attestation of Scripture.” Pages 1–52 in The Infallible Word. Edited by Ned Bernard Stonehouse and Paul Woolley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200– 539 B.C.E. SBLAB 12. Atlanta: SBL, 2004. Nahkola, Aulikki. Double Narratives in the Old Testament: The Foundations of Method in Biblical Criticism. BZAW 290. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001. Naʾaman, Nadav. “Queen Mothers and Ancestors Cult in Judah in the First Temple Period.” Pages 479–90 in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religions­geschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Ingo Kottsieper, Rüdiger Schmitt, and Jakob Wöhrle. AOAT 350. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008. Nelson, Richard D. First and Second Kings. IBC. Atlanta: John Knox, 1987.    . “The Anatomy of the Book of Kings.” JSOT 40 (1988): 39–48.    . The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981.

228

Bibliography

Neusner, Jacob, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green, eds. The Encyclopedia of Judaism. 2nd ed. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Newsom, Carol A. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre.” Int 38 (1984): 151–64. Newsome, James D. “Toward a New Understanding of the Chronicler and His Purposes.” JBL 94 (1975): 201–17. Niccacci, Alviero. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. JSOTSup 86. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Nicholson, E. W. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Schocken, 1970. Niditch, Susan. “Ezekiel 40–48 in a Visionary Context.” CBQ 48 (1986): 208–24. Nir, Rivḳah. The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. SBLEJL 20. Atlanta: SBL, 2003. Nobile, Marco. “Les quatre pâques dans le cadre de la rédaction finale de Gen–2 Rois.” Pages 191–96 in Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies: Papers Read at the XIIIth IOSOT Congress, Leuven 1989. Edited by C. Brekelmans and J. Lust. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990. Noble, Paul R. The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs. BibInt 16. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Nolland, John. “Jechoniah and His Brothers (Matthew 1:11).” BBR 7 (1997): 169–77.    . “The Four (Five) Women and Other Annotations in Matthew’s Genealogy.” NTS 43 (1997): 527–39.    . The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. North, Christopher R. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1956. Noth, Martin. “Catastrophe de Jérusalem en l’an 587 avant Jésus-Christ et sa signification pour Israël.” RHPR 33 (1953): 80–102.    . “Die Einnahme von Jerusalem im Jahre 597 v. Chr.” ZDPV 74 (1958): 133–57.    . Die israelitischen Personennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung. BWANT 10. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1928.    . The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by J. Doull. 2nd ed. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1991.    . “The Jerusalem Catastrophe of 587 B.C. and Its Significance for Israel.” Pages 260–80 in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Translated by D. R. ApThomas. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. Nurmela, Risto. Prophets in Dialogue: Inner-Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 1–8 and 9–14. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1996. O’Connor, Kathleen M. “Terror All Around: Confusion as Meaning-Making.” Pages 67– 79 in Jeremiah (Dis)placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. P. Diamond and Louis Stulman. LHBOTS 529. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Oded, B. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979.    . “The Settlements of the Israelite and Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia in the 8th– 6th Centuries BCE.” Pages 91–103 in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zechariah Kallai. Edited by Gershon Galil and Moshe Weinfeld. VTSup 81. Leiden: Brill, 2000.    . “Where Is the ‘Myth of the Empty Land’ to Be Found? History Versus Myth.” Pages 55–74 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

Bibliography

229

Odell, Margaret S. “Genre and Persona in Ezekiel 24:15–24.” Pages 195–219 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Oeming, Manfred. Das wahre Israel: Die “genealogische Vorhalle” 1 Chronik 1–9. BWANT 128. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990. Ollenburger, Ben C. Zion, the City of the Great King: A Theological Symbol of the Jerusalem Cult. JSOTSup 41. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Overstreet, R. Larry. “Difficulties of New Testament Genealogies.” GTJ 2 (1981): 303–26. Pakkala, Juha. “Zedekiah’s Fate and the Dynastic Succession.” JBL 125 (2006): 443–452. Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy.” JNES 52 (1993): 161–208. Patrick, Frank Y. “Time and Tradition in the Book of Haggai.” Pages 40–55 in Tradition in Transition: Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 in the Trajectory of Hebrew Theology. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. LHBOTS 475. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Pearce, Laurie E. “New Evidence for Judeans in Babylonia.” Pages 399–411 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Pearce, Laurie E., and Cornelia Wunsch. Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer. CUSAS 28. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2014. Pedersén, Olof. Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 B.C. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1998. Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Petersen, David L. “A Book of the Twelve?” Pages 3–10 in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve. Edited by James D. Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney. SBLSymS 15. Atlanta: SBL, 2000.    . Haggai and Zechariah 1–8: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984. Petter, Donna Lee. The Book of Ezekiel and Mesopotamian City Laments. OBO 246. Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic, 2011. Petterson, Anthony R. Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah. LHBOTS 513. London: T&T Clark, 2009.    . “The Shape of the Davidic Hope Across the Book of the Twelve.” JSOT 35 (2010): 225–46. Pietersma, Albert and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. A New English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Plant, R. J. R. Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah. LHBOTS­ 483. New York: T&T Clark, 2008. Pohlmann, Karl-Friedrich. Studien zum Jeremiabuch: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches. FRLANT 118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978. Polak, Frank H. “The Septuagint Account of Solomon’s Reign: Revision and Ancient Recension.” Pages 139–64 in X Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor. SBLSCS 51. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. Polk, Timothy. “Paradigms, Parables, and Měšālîm: On Reading the Māšāl in Scripture.” CBQ 45 (1983): 564–83.    . The Prophetic Persona: Jeremiah and the Language of the Self. JSOTSup 32. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Polzin, Robert. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: 1 Samuel. pt. 2 of A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989.

230

Bibliography

Pomykala, Kenneth E. The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Poythress, Vern S. “Divine Meaning of Scripture.” WTJ 48 (1986): 241–79. Pratt, R. L., Jr. “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” Pages 180–203 in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by J. I. Packer and Sven K. Soderlund. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Prinsloo, G. T. M. “Lions and Vines: The Imagery of Ezekiel 19 in the Light of Ancient Near-Eastern Descriptions and Depictions.” OTE 12 (1999): 339–59. Pritchard, James B, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Prouser, Ora Horn. “Suited to the Throne: The Symbolic Use of Clothing in the David and Saul Narratives.” JSOT 71 (1996): 27–37. Provan, Iain W. 1 and 2 Kings. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.    . “Canons to the Left of Him: Brevard Childs, His Critics, and the Future of Old Testament Theology.” SJT 50 (1997): 1–38.    . “Kings.” NDBT 183–88.    . “The Messiah in the Book of Kings.” Pages 67–85 in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts. Edited by P. E Satterthwaite, Richard S. Hess, and Gordon J. Wenham. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1995. Raabe, Paul R. “Transforming the International Status Quo: Ezekiel’s Oracles against the Nations.” Pages 187–207 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons. PrinTMS 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1962.    . Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated by David Stalker. Chicago: Regnery, 1953. Rahlfs, Alfred, and Robert Hanhart. Septuaginta: Id Est Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rainey, Anson. “A Rejoinder to the Eliakim Naʿar Yokan Seal Impressions.” BA 54 (1991): n.p. Raitt, Thomas M. A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Redditt, Paul L. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Reimer, David J. “Political Prophets? Political Exegesis and Prophetic Theology.” Pages 126–42 in Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. OtSt 40. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Rendtorff, Rolf. “Canonical Interpretation: A New Approach to Biblical Texts.” ProEccl 3 (1994): 141–51.    . The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. OTS. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 76. Leiden: Brill, 1999.    . “The Use of the Zion Tradition in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 77–103 in Zion, City of Our God. Edited by Richard S. Hess and Gordon J. Wenham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Ribbens, Benjamin J. “Typology of Types: Typology in Dialogue.” JTI 5 (2011): 81–95. Ridderbos, Herman N. Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Translated by H. de Jongste. 2nd ed. BibTS. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1988. Riley, William. King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Bibliography

231

Roberts, J. J. M. “Historical-Critical Method, Theology, and Contemporary Exegesis.” Pages 131–41 in Biblical Theology: Problems and Perspectives: In Honor of J. Christiaan Beker. Edited by Steven John Kraftchick, Charles Davison Myers, and Ben C. Ollenburger. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995. Rofé, Alexander. “Not Exile But Annihilation for Zedekiah’s People: The Purport of Jeremiah 52 in the Septuagint.” Pages 165–70 in VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992. Edited by Leonard J. Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Römer, Thomas. “The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah as a Supplement to the SoCalled Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 168–83 in The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud. Edited by Diana V. Edelman and Ehud Ben Zvi. BibleWorld. London: Equinox, 2009.    . The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction. London: T&T Clark, 2005.    . “Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‘BookFinding’ and Other Literary Strategies.” ZAW 109 (1997): 1–12. Römer, Thomas, and Albert de Pury. “Deuteronomistic Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues.” Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. Edited by Albert de Pury, Thomas Römer, and JeanDaniel Macchi. JSOTSup 306. Sheffield: Sheffield, 2000. Roncace, Mark. Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem. LHBOTS 423. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Rooy, H. F. van. “Eschatology and Audience: The Eschatology of Haggai.” OTE 1 (1988): 49–63. Rose, Wolter H. “Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period.” Pages 168–85 in Yahwism after the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Edited by Rainer Albertz and Bob Becking. StTR 5. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003.    . Zemah and Zerubbabel: Messianic Expectations in the Early Postexilic Period. JSOTSup 304. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield, 2000. Rosenberg, Joel. King and Kin: Political Allegory in the Hebrew Bible. ISBL. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986. Rothstein, Johann Wilhelm. Die Genealogie des Königs Jojachin und seiner Nachkommen (1 Chron. 3, 17–24) in geschichtlicher Beleuchtung: Eine kritische Studie zur jüdischen Geschichte und Litteratur, Nebst einem Anhange, ein übersehenes Zeugnis für die messianische Auffassung des “Knechtes Jahwes.” Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1902. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremia. 2nd ed. HAT 12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1958. Sailhamer, John. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995. Saldarini, Anthony J. “The Book of Baruch: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Pages 927–82 in vol. 6 of NIB. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2001. Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. GBS. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.    . “Isaiah in Luke.” Pages 75–85 in Interpreting the Prophets. Edited by James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Sasson, Jack M. “The King’s Table: Food and Fealty in Old Babylonian Mari.” Pages 179– 215 in Food and Identity in the Ancient World. Edited by Cristiano Grottanelli and Lucio Milano. HANES 9. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N., 2004. Sauer, Georg. “Serubbabel in der Sicht Haggais und Sacharjas.” Pages 199–207 in Das Ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift Leonhard Rost. Edited by Fritz Maass. BZAW 105. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1967.

232

Bibliography

Savran, George. “1 and 2 Kings.” Pages 146–64 in The Literary Guide to the Bible. Edited by Robert Alter and Frank Kermode. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1987. Sayler, Gwendolyn B. Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch. SBLDS 72. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. Schellenberg, Ryan S. “Kingdom as Contaminant? The Role of Repertoire in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven.” CBQ 71 (2009): 527–43. Schipper, Jeremy. Disability Studies and the Hebrew Bible: Figuring Mephibosheth in the David Story. LHBOTS 441. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.    . “‘Exile Atones for Everything’: Coping with Jeremiah 22:24–30.” JSOT 31 (2007): 481–492.    . Parables and Conflict in the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.    . “‘Significant Resonances’ with Mephibosheth in 2 Kings 25:27–30: A Response to Donald F. Murray.” JBL 124 (2005): 521–29. Schmid, Konrad. Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Siphrut 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.    . “Nebukadnezars Antritt der Weltherrschaft und der Abbruch der Davidsdynastie: Innerbiblische Schriftauslegung und universalgeschichtliche Konstruktion im Jeremiabuch.” Pages 150–66 in Die Textualisierung der Religion. Edited by Joachim Schaper. FAT 62. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Schmitt, John J. “The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother.” RB 92 (1985): 557–69. Schniedewind, William M. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Schöpflin, Karin. “māšāl—ein eigentümlicher Begriff der hebräischen Literatur.” BZ 46 (2002): 1–24.    . “The Composition of Metaphorical Oracles Within the Book of Ezekiel.” VT 55 (2005): 101–20. Schultz, Richard L. “Intertextuality, Canon, and ‘Undecidability’: Understanding Isaiah’s ‘New Heavens and New Earth’ (Isaiah 65:17–25).” BBR 20 (2010): 19–38.    . The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1999.    . “Theological Diversity in the Old Testament as Burden or Divine Gift? Problems and Perspectives in the Current Debate.” Pages 133–63 in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture: Historical, Biblical, and Theoretical Perspectives. Edited by Carlos R. Bovell. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.    . “Unity or Diversity in Wisdom Theology? A Canonical and Covenantal Perspective.” TynBul 48 (1997): 271–306. Schwartz, Baruch J. “Ezekiel’s Dim View of Israel’s Restoration.” Pages 43–67 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives. Edited by Margaret S. Odell and John T. Strong. SBLSymS 9. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Schweitzer, Steven. Reading Utopia in Chronicles. LHBOTS 442. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Canonical Approach and Theological Interpretation.” Pages 58–110 in Canon and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Craig G. Bartholomew, Scott Hahn, Robin Parry, Christopher Seitz, and Al Wolters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.    . “The Crisis of Interpretation over the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A Redactional Study of Jeremiah 21–43.” VT 35 (1985): 78–97.    . “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah.” ZAW 101 (1989): 3–27.

Bibliography

233

   . Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. BZAW 176. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.    . “Two Testaments and the Failure of One Tradition History.” Pages 195–211 in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Edited by Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. Sellin, Ernst. Der Knecht Gottes bei Deuterojesaja. Vol. 1 of Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der jüdischen Gemeinde nach dem babylonischen Exil. Leipzig: Deichert, 1901. Sensenig, Melvin L. “Jehoiachin and His Oracle: The Shaphanide Literary Framework for the End of the Deuteronomistic History.” PhD diss., Temple University, 2013. Seybold, Klaus. “Die Königserwartung bei den Propheten Haggai und Sacharja.” Jud 28 (1972): 69–78. Sharon, Diane M. Patterns of Destiny: Narrative Structures of Foundation and Doom in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Sharp, Carolyn J. “Jeremiah in the Land of Aporia: Reconfiguring Redaction Criticism as Witness to Foreignness.” Pages 35–46 in Jeremiah (Dis)placed: New Directions in Writing/Reading Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond and Louis Stulman. LHBOTS­529. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.    . Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in Deutero-Jeremianic Prose. OTS. London: T&T Clark, 2003.    . “The Call of Jeremiah and Diaspora Politics.” JBL 119 (2000): 421–38. Siebeneck, Robert T. “Messianism of Aggeus and Proto-Zacharias.” CBQ 19 (1957): 312–28. Simian-Yofre, Horacio. “Ez 17:1–10 como enigma y parábola.” Bib 65 (1984): 27–43. Simon, Uriel. “Poor Man’s Ewe-Lamb.” Bib 48 (1967): 207–42. Smit, E. J. “So How Did Jehoiakim Die?” JSem 6 (1994): 46–56. Smith, Daniel L. “Jeremiah as Prophet of Nonviolent Resistance.” JSOT 43 (1989): 95–107.    . The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile. Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone, 1989. Smith, Louise Pettibone. “The Eagle(s) of Ezekiel 17.” JBL 58 (1939): 43–50. Smith-Christopher, D. L. “Reassessing the Historical and Sociological Impact of the Babylonian Exile (597/587–539 BCE).” Pages 7–36 in Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Conceptions. Edited by James M. Scott. JSJSup 56. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Soll, Will. Psalm 119: Matrix, Form, and Setting. CBQMS 23. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1991. Solomon, Ann M. Vater. “Fable.” Pages 114–25 in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Edited by George W. Coats. JSOTSup 35. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. Solvang, Elna K. A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Royal Women of Judah and Their Involvement in the House of David. JSOTSup 349. London: Sheffield Academic, 2003. Sommer, Benjamin D. “Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger.” VT 46 (1996): 479–89. Speiser, E. A. “Census and Ritual Expiation in Mari and Israel.” BASOR 149 (1958): 17–25. Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.    . “The Three Shepherds: Reading Zechariah 11 in the Light of Jeremiah.” A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday. Edited by Jamie A. Grant, Alison Lo, and Gordon J. Wenham. LHBOTS 538. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Steinmetz, David C. “Uncovering a Second Narrative: Detective Fiction and the Construction of Historical Method.” Pages 54–65 in The Art of Reading Scripture. Edited by Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985.

234

Bibliography

Stipp, Hermann-Josef. “Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Formation of a Biblical Character.” CBQ 58 (1996): 627–48. Strauss, Mark L. The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and Its Fulfillment in Lukan Christology. JSNTSupp 110. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1995. Strawn, Brent A. What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. OBO 212. Fribourg, Switzerland: Academic, 2005. Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah. WBC 31. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Stulman, Louis. Order Amid Chaos: Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry. BibSem 57. Sheffield: Sheffield, 1998.    . “The Prose Sermons as Hermeneutical Guide to Jeremiah 1–25: The Deconstruction of Judah’s Symbolic World.” Pages 34–63 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Sweeney, Marvin A. “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Royal Isaian Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context.” Pages 308–21 in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. LHBOTS 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.    . King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.    . “King Manasseh of Judah and the Problem of Theodicy in the Deuteronomistic History.” Pages 264–78 in Good Kings and Bad Kings. Edited by Lester L. Grabbe. LHBOTS 393. London: T&T Clark, 2005.    . Review of Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem, by Mark Roncace. CBQ 69 (2007): 131–32.    . “Tanak versus Old Testament: Concerning the Foundation for a Jewish Theology of the Bible.” Pages 352–72 in Problems in Biblical Theology: Essays in Honor of Rolf Knierim. Edited by H. T. C. Sun and K. L. Eades. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.    . The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. BerOl. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000. Talshir, Zipora. I Esdras: A Text Critical Commentary. SBLSCS 50. Atlanta: SBL, 2001. Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Tollington, Janet E. Tradition and Innovation in Haggai and Zechariah 1–8. JSOTSup 150. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Tooman, William A. “Transformation of Israel’s Hope: The Reuse of Scripture in the Gog Oracles.” Pages 50–110 in Transforming Visions: Transformations of Text, Tradition, and Theology in Ezekiel. Edited by William A. Tooman and Michael A. Lyons. PrinTMS 127. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2010. Toorn, Karel van der. “Judges 16:21 in the Light of the Akkadian Sources.” VT 36 (1986): 248–53.    . “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study.” Pages 331–44 in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989. Edited by J. A. Emerton. VTSup 43. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Torgovnick, Marianna. Closure in the Novel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. Tov, Emanuel. “The Septuagint as a Source for the Literary Analysis of Hebrew Scripture.” Pages 31–56 in Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov. ASBT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Treier, Daniel J. “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis? Sic et Non.” TJ 24 (2003): 77–103. Troeltsch, Ernst. “Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology.” Pages 11–32 in Religion in History. Translated by James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense. FTMT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.

Bibliography

235

Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Vassal Oaths and the Prophet Ezekiel.” JBL 78 (1959): 199–204.    . “Studies in the Book of Samuel III: The Steadfast House: What Was David Promised in II Sam. 7:11b–16?” HUCA 34 (1963): 71–82. Tuckett, Christopher M. “The Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 87–101 in The Book of Ezekiel and Its Influence. Edited by H. J. de Jonge and Johannes Tromp. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007. Tuell, Steven S. The Law of the Temple in Ezekiel 40–48. HSM 49. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1992. Turner, Kenneth J. Death of Deaths in the Death of Israel: Deuteronomy’s Theology of Exile. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Unterman, Jeremiah. From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah’s Thought in Transition. JSOTSup 54. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Ussishkin, David. “Royal Judean Storage Jars and Private Seal Impressions.” BASOR 223 (1976): 1–14. Vanderhooft, David. “Babylonian Strategies of Imperial Control in the West: Royal Practice and Rhetoric.” Pages 235–62 in Judah and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Joseph Blenkinsopp.  Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.    . Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.    . “The Apostolic Discourse and Its Developments.” Pages 197–207 in Scripture’s Doctrine and Theology’s Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics. Edited by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Varughese, Alex. “The Royal Family in the Jeremiah Tradition.” Pages 319–328 in Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon. Edited by John Kaltner and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 378. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Veen, Peter van der. “Sixth-Century Issues: The Fall of Jerusalem, the Exile, and the Return.” Pages 383–405 in Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources. Edited by Bill T. Arnold and Richard S. Hess. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014. Verhoef, Pieter A. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Villard, Pierre. “Les commonsaux des rois néo-assyriens.” Pages 215–30 in Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique. Edited by Catherine Grandjean, Christophe Hugoniot, and Brigitte Lion. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2013. Vogelzang, M. E., and W. J. van Bekkum. “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts.” Pages 265–284 in Scripta Signa Vocis. Groningen, Netherlands: E. Forsten, 1986. Vögtle, Anton. “Josias zeugte den Jechonias und seine Brüder (Mt 1:11).” Pages 307–13 in Lex Tua Veritas: Festschrift für Hubert Junker zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 8. August 1961. Edited by Heinrich Gross and Franz Mussner. Trier: Paulinus, 1961. Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1948.    . “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline.” Pages 3–24 in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos. Edited by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980.

236

Bibliography

Vries, Simon J. de. From Old Revelation to New: A Tradition-Historical and Redaction-Critical Study of Temporal Transitions in Prophetic Prediction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.    . “Futurism in the Pre-Exilic Minor Prophets Compared with that of the Postexilic Minor Prophets.” Pages 252–72 in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Waetjen, Herman C. “Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew.” JBL 95 (1976): 205–30. Wallace, Howard N. “Harvesting the Vineyard: The Development of Vineyard Imagery in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 117–29 in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis. Edited by Mark A O’Brien and Howard N. Wallace. JSNTSup 415. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Waltke, Bruce K. and Michael O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Ward, Timothy. Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. “The Biblical Idea of Inspiration.” Pages 131–66 in The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948. Warhurst, Amber K. “The Chronicler’s Use of the Prophets.” Pages 165–81 in What Was Authoritative for Chronicles? Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Watson, Francis. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.    . Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective. London: T&T Clark, 1994. Watson, Wilfred G. E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. JSOTSup 26. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984. Watts, Rikki E. “Consolation or Confrontation: Isaiah 40–55 and the Delay of the New Exodus.” TynBul 41 (1990): 31–59. Webb, Barry G. Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. NSBT 10. Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, 2000.    . The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come. BST. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Webster, John. “The Dogmatic Location of the Canon.” NZSTR 43 (2001): 17–43. Weidner, E. F. “Jojachin, König von Juda, in Babylonischen Keilschrifttexten.” Pages 923–935 in Mélanges Syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud: Secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1939. Weinfeld, Moshe. “Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West.” JAOS 93 (1973): 190–99.    . Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.    . “Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel.” ZAW 88 (1976): 17–56.    . Social Justice in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995. Wells, Roy D. “Indications of Late Reinterpretation of the Jeremianic Tradition from the LXX of Jer 21,1–23,8.” ZAW 96 (1984): 405–20. Wénin, André. “Y a-t-il un ‘livre de Baruch’?: A propos du livre récent d’André Kabasele Mukenge.” Pages 231–43 in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert. Edited by André Wénin and J.-M. Auwers. BETL 144. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1999. Wessels, W. J. “Bridging the Gap: Haggai’s Use of Tradition to Secure the Future.” OTE 18 (2005): 426–43.    . “Jeremiah 22, 24–30: A Proposed Ideological Reading.” ZAW 101 (1989): 232–49.

Bibliography

237

Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Translated by Hugh Clayton White. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991.    . Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? TB 87. Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1994. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Widengren, Geo. The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion. UUA 4. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1951. Williamson, H. G. M. “The Dynastic Oracle in the Books of Chronicles.” Pages 305–18 in vol. 3 of Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World. Edited by Alexander Rofé and Yair Zakovitch. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983. Wilson, J. V. Kinnier. The Nimrud Wine Lists: A Study of Men and Administration at the Assyrian Capital in the Eighth Century, B.C. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1972. Wilson, Robert R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. YNER 7. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.    . Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Wolff, Hans Walter. Haggai: A Commentary. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988.    . “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work.” Pages 83–100 in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. Edited by Walter Brueggemann and Hans Walter Wolff, Translated by Frederick C. Prussner. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. Wong, Ka Leung. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel. VTSup 87. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Woźniak, Jerzy. “Bedeutung und Belege der Schwurformel ḥaj Jahwe.” BZ 28 (1984): 245–49. Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992. Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Wyatt, Nicolas. “The Hollow Crown: Ambivalent Elements in West Semitic Royal Ideology.” UF 18 (1986): 421–36. Yamauchi, Edwin. “The Eastern Jewish Diaspora under the Babylonians.” Pages 356–77 in Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations. Edited by Mark W. Cha­ valas and K. Lawson Younger. JSOTSup 341. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Yates, Gary. “Ishmael’s Assassination of Gedaliah: Echoes of the Saul-David Story in Jeremiah 40:7–41:18.” WTJ 67 (2005): 103–12.    . “Narrative Parallelism and the ‘Jehoiakim Frame’: A Reading Strategy for Jeremiah 26–45.” JETS 48 (2005): 263–281.    . “New Exodus and No Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45: Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon.” TynBul 57 (2006): 1–22. Yee, Gale A. “A Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1–7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable.” CBQ 43 (1981): 30–40.    . “The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14.” CBQ 50 (1988): 565–586. Young, Edward J. My Servants, the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. Young, Frances. “Typology.” Pages 30–48 in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder. Edited by Stanley E. Porter, Paul Joyce, and David E. Orton. BibInt 8. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

238

Bibliography

Zeelander, Susan. Closure in Biblical Narrative. BibInt 111. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Zenger, Erich. “Die deuteronomistische Interpretation der Rehabilitierung Jojachins.” BZ 12 (1968): 16–30. Ziegler, Joseph. Ieremias-Baruch-Threni-Epistula Ieremiae. Vol. 15 of Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24. Translated by R. E. Clements. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.    . “Knowledge of God According to the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 29–98 in I Am Yahweh. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

Index of Authors Abadie, P.  162 Ackerman, S.  14 Ackroyd, P. R.  80, 137 Albertz, R.  3, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 124 Albright, A. F.  16 Albright, W. F.  7, 15 Alexander, T. D.  18 Allen, L. C.  62, 65, 97, 99, 105, 106, 135 Allison, D. C.  163 Alter, R.  5, 9, 34, 162 Amsler, S.  138, 141, 146 Anderson, J. C.  163 Andreasen, N. E. A.  14 Applegate, J.  61, 72, 83 Aristotle 29 Auwers, J.-M.  155 Baker, D. L.  182, 195 Baldwin, J. G.  141, 143, 145, 146 Baltzer, K.  39 Barstad, H. M.  35 Bartholomew, C. G.  29, 183 Barton, J.  5, 7, 183, 184 Bauckham, R.  164, 174, 175, 176, 181, 197 Bauer, D. R.  165, 167, 170 Bea, A.  15 Beale, G. K.  182, 195 Bechtel, C. M.  193 Becking, B.  18, 26, 27, 36, 88, 96, 25 Bedford, P. R.  14, 139, 142, 144 Beentjes, P. C.  96, 97, 100, 105 Begg, C. T.  12, 21, 36, 42, 47, 48, 83, 97, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 105, 134, 136, 137, 157, 158, 159, 102 Bekkum, W. J. van  27 Ben-Barak, Z.  14 Ben Zvi, E.  30, 67, 129, 134, 137, 138 Berman, J.  32 Berridge, J. M.  63, 64, 65, 75 Betlyon, J. W.  13 Bewer, J. A.  99, 102 Biddle, M. E.  53 Bidmead, J.  18 Biggs, C. R.  106

239

Billings, J. T.  179, 184 Blenkinsopp, J.  138 Block, D. I.  17, 31, 46, 61, 71, 78, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 146, 147, 154, 102 Blomberg, C. L.  170, 177, 178 Blum, E.  29 Boadt, L.  92, 107, 108, 109, 112, 119 Bock, D. L.  175 Boda, M. J.  37, 65, 130, 137, 138, 145, 146, 147, 149, 190 Bogaert, P. M.  155 Böhler, D.  174 Botha, P. J.  100, 105, 115 Bovell, C. R.  183 Bracke, J. M.  66 Braun, R. L.  132 Brettler, M. Z.  23 Bright, J.  55, 56, 61 Brownlee, W. H.  83, 101, 103 Brown, R. E.  167, 169, 170 Brueggemann, W.  4, 21, 45, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 63, 66, 76, 81, 180, 184, 191, 194 Bryan, S. M.  171 Burger, C.  162, 168, 170, 173 Burke, D. G.  155, 180 Callender, D. E.  59, 109 Calvin, J.  61, 148 Caquot, A.  90, 95, 100, 103, 105, 111, 125, 132 Carlson, R. A.  48 Carr, D. M.  6 Carroll, R. P.  52, 54, 55, 58, 61, 66, 80, 81, 85, 142, 146 Carson, D. A.  162 Carvalho, C.  97 Cassuto, U.  95, 110 Cazelles, H.  191 Chan, M. J.  41 Chapman, S. B.  6 Childs, B. S.  7, 104, 181, 183

240

Index of Authors

Chisholm, R. B.  69, 202 Ciampa, R. E.  128 Clements, R. E.  55, 85, 93 Clines, D. J. A.  30, 31, 141 Clowney, E. P.  180 Cogan, M.  40, 25 Cohn, R. L.  31, 40 Collins, J. J.  146, 184, 195 Conklin, B.  60 Cooke, G. A.  105 Cook, J. A.  27 Craigie, P. C.  63, 67, 85 Crane, A. S.  38, 123, 153, 154 Critchlow, J. R.  4, 7 Cross, F. M.  29 Dahood, M. J.  102 Dandamaev, M. A.  18 Darr, K. P.  105, 113, 208 Daube, D.  159 Davidson, R. M.  195, 196, 197 Davis, C. T.  168, 169 Davis, E. F.  93, 94, 98, 99, 112, 206 Dempster, S. G.  3, 4, 6, 49, 183, 192, 193 De Vries, S. J.  139 Diamond, A. R. P.  83 Dillard, R. B.  137 Donne, A. Le  175 Drinkard, J. F.  63, 67, 85 Driver, G. R.  15 Dubbink, J.  56 Duguid, I. M.  98, 109, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124, 125 Duke, R. K.  137 Dumbrell, W. J.  117, 121, 132, 144 Dus, R. A.  98, 206 Dyck, J. E.  134 Edenburg, C.  32 Eichrodt, W.  97, 98, 99 Eikhenbaum, B.  24 Eisemann, M.  104 Elat, M.  113 Eloff, M.  162, 170 Endo, Yoshinobu  27 Eslinger, L. M.  39 Evans, P. S.  134, 135 Fabry, H.-J.  26 Feldman, L. H.  157, 158, 159, 160

Ferguson, S. B.  179 Ferrara, A. J.  20 Finitsis, A.  141, 143 Fischer, G.  25 Floyd, M. H.  190, 191 Foster, R. S.  92 Foulkes, F.  195 Fowler, J. D.  61 Fox, M.  26 Fox, N. S.  11 France, R. T.  167 Frankemölle, C. H.  165, 167, 168, 171 Freedman, D. N.  25, 30 Frei, H.  195 Frei, H. W.  9 Fretheim, T. E.  80 Friedman, R. E.  29, 47 Funk, R. W.  177 Gaffin, R. B.  180, 181 Galambush, J.  105, 206, 207 Ganzel, T.  109 Garfinkel, Y.  7 Garsiel, M.  32 Genung, J. F.  192 Gerhard, M.  24 Gerhards, M.  15 Gibbs, J. M.  172 Glassner, J.-J.  11, 12, 13, 18 Goheen, M. W.  29 Goldingay, J.  9, 107, 136, 181 Goldman, Y.  87, 153 Goldsworthy, G.  181 Goppelt, L.  197 Gosse, B.  85, 106, 120 Goswell, G.  144 Gottlieb, I. B.  47 Goulder, M.  191, 192 Gowan, D. E.  91, 118 Granowski, J. J.  33, 41, 42, 48, 187 Gray, J.  30 Green, A. R. W.  12 Greenberg, M.  5, 8, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 106, 107, 112, 114, 119, 125, 126 Green, J. B.  9, 182 Gurtner, D. M.  156, 157 Haag, E.  109 Haag, H.  67, 192 Halpern, B.  43 Hammershaimb, E.  98, 105, 111, 121

Index of Authors Hammer, W.  173 Hanson, P. D.  143 Hardmeier, C.  58, 66, 67 Harvey, J. E.  31, 32, 41, 42 Hasel, G. F.  8, 89 Hauerwas, S.  173 Haulotte, E.  27 Hays, J. D.  39 Hays, R. B.  32, 33, 181, 182, 190, 196, 197 Hendriksen, W.  170 Hermisson, H.-J.  63, 70, 85 Herrmann, S.  55, 66 Heskett, R.  192 Hieke, T.  106 Hillers, D. R.  191 Hill, J.  36, 54, 56, 61, 65, 76, 78, 79, 81, 84, 112 Hirsch, H.  18 Höffken, P.  159 Hoffman, Y.  142 Holladay, W. L.  58, 63, 64, 65, 66 Holt, E. K.  52, 57, 80 Hood, J. B.  159, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 181 Hoop, R. de  153 Hossfeld, F. L.  117, 118, 120 Hugenberger, G. P.  88 Huizenga, L. A.  163, 173 Hutchison, J. C.  162 Hwang, S.  132 Janzen, D.  21, 22, 30, 42 Japhet, S.  130, 134, 135 Jauhiainen, M.  146, 147, 148 Joannès, F.  16, 20 Job, J. B.  58 Johnson, M. D.  161, 174 Johnstone, W.  135 Jones, J. M.  171 Jonker, L.  134, 135 Joyce, P.  111, 121 Jüngling, H.-W.  95, 110 Kalimi, I.  75, 133, 137 Kedar-Kopfstein, B.  24 Kelley, P. H.  63, 67, 85 Kelly, B.  132, 135, 136 Kelly, J.  132, 136 Kennedy, J.  162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 173 Kermode, F.  29, 49

241

Kessler, J.  59, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 Kessler, M.  74 King, P. J.  19 Kingsbury, J. D.  163, 171 Kissling, P. J.  30, 31 Kitchen, M.  164 Klein, R. K.  98 Klein, R. W.  85, 98, 104, 109, 130, 102 Kline, M. G.  146, 147 Knierim, R. P.  9 Knoppers, G. N.  34, 39, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 137 Kogler, F.  176 Kohn, R. L.  107 Korpel, M. C. A.  98 Krentz, E.  195 Kruger, M. J.  7 Kuyvenhoven, R.  86 Kynes, W. J.  32, 96 Laato, A.  3, 5, 35, 63, 68, 70, 71, 72, 79, 84, 85, 86, 90, 95, 97, 108, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 143, 146 Lambertz, M.  174 Lang, B.  90, 92, 94, 96, 97 Laniak, T. S.  109 Lapsley, J. E.  91 Lasine, S.  6 Laufen, R.  177 Legaspi, M. C.  182 Leithart, P. J.  31, 36, 40, 41, 44, 49 Lemaire, A.  16, 17 Lemke, W. E.  133 Leuchter, M.  52, 55, 62, 75, 79, 80, 82, 83 Levenson, J. D.  42, 117, 121, 124, 125, 126, 129, 131, 180, 182, 184 Levin, C.  35 Lilly, I. E.  123 Lindblom, J.  140 Linville, J. R.  29, 39, 40, 43 Lipiński, E.  114 Lipschits, O.  11, 12, 13, 15 Lloyd, J. B.  20 Longacre, R. A.  27 Long, B. O.  75, 180 Longman, T.  7 Long, V. P.  181 Lundbom, J. R.  58, 59, 60, 61, 67, 75, 85, 86

242

Index of Authors

Lust, J.  123, 154, 168 Luz, U.  177 Lyons, M. A.  94, 107, 115 MacDonald, N.  19, 20 Magness, J. L.  47 Malamat, A.  12, 18, 56 Marcus, D.  25 Martens, E. A.  83 Mason, R.  138, 140, 141 Masson, J.  174 Mastin, B. A.  147 Mayes, A. D. H.  45 McArthur, H. K.  176, 177 McCartney, D. G.  189 McComiskey, D. S.  171 McConville, J. G.  30, 31, 42, 46, 50, 53, 56, 62, 65, 74, 75, 76, 128, 144, 180, 189 McFall, L.  171 McKane, W.  59, 64, 67, 68 McKenzie, S. L.  132, 133 Mein, A.  15, 16, 94, 95, 103, 117, 121, 125 Meinhold, A.  193 Metzger, B. M.  166 Metzger, M.  107, 109, 110, 119, 120 Meyers, C. L.  138 Meyers, E. M.  138 Miller, G. D.  32 Miller, J. E.  109 Miller, P. D., Jr.  54 Mitchell, T. C.  11, 16 Moberly, R. W. L.  44 Moore, C. A.  201 Moran, W. L.  26, 105 Mosis, R.  98, 99, 137 Mowinckel, S.  140 Muilenburg, J.  28 Mukenge, A. K.  155, 156 Murphy, R. E.  180 Murray, D. F.  21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 37, 38, 41, 45, 47, 48, 50 Murray, J.  179 Mykytiuk, L. J.  11 Nahkola, A.  32 Naʾaman, N.  14 Nelson, R. D.  37, 38, 43 Newsom, C. A.  109, 115 Niccacci, A.  23 Nicholson, E. W.  75

Nir, R.  156 Noble, P. R.  181 Nolland, J.  162, 166, 167, 168 North, C. R.  192 Noth, M.  2, 12, 56, 61 Nurmela, R.  149 O’Connor, K. M.  52, 53, 54, 80 Oded, B.  16, 35 Odell, M. S.  91, 116, 117, 123, 126 Oeming, M.  130 Ollenburger, B. C.  119 Pakkala, J.  40 Parker, S. B.  20 Patrick, F. Y.  132, 134, 135, 142 Pearce, L. E.  16 Perdue, L. G.  29 Petersen, D. L.  138, 139, 144, 147 Peterson, E.  29 Petter, D. L.  122 Petterson, A. R.  129, 139, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 191 Plant, R. J. R.  76 Pohlmann, K.-F.  54, 75, 117 Polak, F. H.  43 Polk, T.  64, 206, 207 Polzin, R.  37 Pomykala, K. E.  124 Powell, M. A.  8 Poythress, V. S.  180 Pratt, R. L., Jr.  69 Preuss, H. D.  123, 143 Prinsloo, G. T. M.  98, 115 Prouser, O. H.  27 Provan, I. W.  7, 24, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 99 Purvis, J. D.  75, 133, 137 Pury, A. de  29 Raabe, P. R.  110 Rad, G. von  21, 45, 48, 140, 183 Rainey, A.  11 Raitt, T. M.  76, 80, 144 Redditt, P. L.  139, 141, 143 Reimer, D. J.  54, 84, 85 Rendtorff, R.  8, 122 Renz, T.  90, 97, 119, 124, 126 Ribbens, B. J.  196, 197 Ridderbos, H. N.  7 Riley, C. W.  132, 136

Index of Authors Roberts, J. J. M.  181 Rofé, A.  153 Römer, T.  29, 34, 36, 51, 81, 193 Roncace, M.  83 Rooy, H. F. van  140 Rose, A.  59, 60 Rose, W.  140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150 Rothstein, J. W.  131 Rudolph, W.  66, 68 Sailhamer, J.  181 Saldarini, A. J.  155 Sanders, J. A.  6, 194 Sasson, J. M.  19 Sauer, G.  138, 144 Savran, G.  29 Sayler, G. B.  156 Schellenberg, R. S.  177 Schipper, J.  28, 36, 37, 60, 67, 68, 73, 99, 130, 206, 207 Schmid, K.  30, 31, 72 Schmitt, J. J.  105 Schniedewind, W. M.  3, 5, 87 Schöpflin, K.  100, 104, 107 Schultz, R. L.  106, 181, 183, 190, 194 Schwartz, C. B. J.  126 Schweitzer, S.  137 Seitz, C. R.  2, 3, 5, 7, 54, 75, 84, 98, 105, 115, 116, 125, 183 Sellin, E.  191 Sensenig, M. L.  4, 5, 7, 58 Seybold, K.  139, 148 Sharon, D. M.  32 Sharp, C. J.  29, 53, 54, 57, 75 Siebeneck, R. T.  138, 141, 145 Simian-Yofre, H.  207 Simon, U.  207, 208 Smit, F. J.  12 Smith-Christopher, D. L.  17 Smith, D. L.  14, 15, 16, 74, 78, 193 Smith, L.  92 Soll, W.  191 Solomon, A. M. V.  208 Solvang, E. K.  14 Sommer, B. D.  190 Speiser, E. A.  25 Stager, L. E.  19 Stead, M. R.  71, 129, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149 Steinmetz, D. C.  182

243

Sternberg, M.  6, 9, 179 Stipp, H.-J.  56, 83 Strauss, M. L.  175 Strawn, B. A.  115 Stuart, D.  62 Stulman, L.  52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 65, 74, 78, 84, 89, 144 Sweeney, M. A.  6, 43, 83, 85, 87, 138, 146 Tadmor, H.  25, 40 Talshir, Z.  155 Thiselton, A. C.  8, 184 Tollington, J. E.  140, 142 Tooman, W. A.  102, 107, 121 Toorn, K. van der  17, 18 Torgovnick, M.  24 Tov, E.  73, 74 Treier, D. J.  179 Troeltsch, E.  195 Tsevat, M.  42, 43, 95 Tuckett, C. M.  177 Tuell, S. S.  124 Turner, K. J.  46 Unterman, J.  65, 79, 80 Ussishkin, D.  11 Vanderhooft, D.  13, 35 VanGemeren, W.  181 Vanhoozer, K. J.  8, 180, 182, 184 Vanoni, G.  93 Varughese, A.  55 Veen, P. van der  35 Verhoef, P. A.  131, 139, 141 Villard, P.  19 Vogelzang, M. E.  27 Vögtle, A.  166, 167 Vos, G.  180, 181 Waard, H. de  72 Waetjen, H. C.  170 Wallace, H. N.  106, 114 Ward, T.  180 Warfield, B. B.  179 Warhurst, A. K.  134 Watson, F.  9, 182 Watson, W. G. E.  101 Watts, R. E.  192 Webb, B. G.  138, 141, 193 Webster, J.  9

244

Index of Authors

Weidner, E. F.  15, 16 Weinfeld, M.  18, 26, 30, 80, 88, 144 Wells, R. D.  153 Wénin, A.  155 Wessels, W. J.  58, 63, 65, 66, 139 Westermann, C.  30, 58, 71 Whybray, R. N.  5, 29 Widengren, G.  101, 107 Williamson, H. G. M.  132 Willoughby, B. F.  25 Wilson, R. R.  130, 161, 162 Wiseman, D. J.  12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19 Wolff, H. W.  21, 46, 139, 144 Wong, K. L.  95, 124

Wright, C. J. H.  162 Wright, N. T.  171 Wunsch, C.  16 Wyatt, N.  107 Yamauchi, E.  16 Yates, G.  54, 71, 72, 78, 80, 83 Yee, G. A.  96, 106, 208 Young, E. J.  54 Young, F.  195 Zeelander, S.  24, 49 Zenger, E.  22, 26 Zimmerli, W.  93, 94, 98, 105, 112, 118

Index of Scripture Genesis 1–11  162, 31 1:1–11 187 3:15 4 5 170 9:8–17 202 12:1–3 164 13:12 113 15:2 67 15:5 68 15:6 76 15:7–21 202 22:16 202 24:7 202 26:3 202 37:34 27 40 25 40:13  25, 26, 41 41:14  27, 41 41:25 42 41:40 42 41:42 27 41:45 23 42 27 44:14 167 45:5 42 45:7 42 48:21 146 49  105, 106 49:8–12  105, 108, 111 49:9–10 115 49:10 105 49:11–12 115 50:20 42 50:24 202 Exodus 6:4 113 6:8 202 6:24 130 13:5 202 13:11 202 17:14 67

Exodus (cont.) 17:16 203 19:9 107 23:31 107 30:12 25 32:13 202 32:32 67 33:1 202 Leviticus 8:9 149 8:33 112 20:20 67 23:40 107 26:14–39 128 26:27–33 45 26:33 115 26:40–45 45 26:42 46 Numbers 1:2 25 1:51 125 4:3 112 11:12 202 12:7 87 14  62, 73, 84 14:21–24 203 14:23 202 14:28–35 203 14:30 202 16:3 96 20:5 92 23–24 206 24:7 121 24:18 146 25:6 145 32:10 203 32:11 202 Deuteronomy 1:1–4:43 30 1:8 202

245

Deuteronomy (cont.) 1:34 203 2:14  84, 203 4:25–28 45 4:25–31 46 4:29–31 45 4:30 188 4:31 46 4:40 36 5:16 36 6:3 36 6:5 79 6:10 202 6:10–12 188 6:18 202 6:23 202 7:8 202 7:12 202 7:13 202 8:1 202 8:10–20 188 9:5 202 10:11 202 11:9 202 11:21 202 11:24 107 13:17 202 17:14–20  44, 89, 126 17:16 95 17:16–17 39 17:17 166 19:8 202 20:1 23 21:13 27 26:3 202 26:15 202 28:9 202 28:11 202 28:15–68 128 28:23–24 48 28:30–33 24 28:36 62 28:37 206

246 Deuteronomy (cont.) 28:46 68 28:63–64 35 28:68  35, 47 29 62 29:13 202 29:28  62, 73, 116 30  46, 47, 57, 76 30:1  45, 46 30:1–10  46, 47, 48, 73 30:5 46 30:6  79, 46 30:7 46 30:11–14 65 30:20 202 31:7 202 31:19 67 31:20  50, 188 31:21 202 31:23 202 31:29 45 32:15  50, 188 32:15–25 45 32:36 46 32:36–43  45, 46 32:40 203 34:4 202 34:10–12 6 Joshua 1:6 202 1:14 23 2:1 164 5:6  202, 203 5:13 145 8:3 23 10:7 23 21:43–44 202 24:19 45 Judges 1:7 40 2:1 202 7:13 145 8:28 26 9:8–15 206 9:15 106 14:12–19 206 14:14 206 16:21 17

Index of Scripture Judges (cont.) 18:30 168 19:16 145 19:22 145 Ruth 1:4 164 1 Samuel 1:9 149 2:4–10 91 2:30  42, 43 3:14 203 6:19 201 10:12 206 15:28 203 17:23 145 20:5–6 18 20:18–34 18 24:13 206 2 Samuel 1:2 145 3:9 203 5:14 174 7  43, 65, 87, 88, 90, 149 7:1–17 87 7:8 87 7:12  61, 121, 143 7:12–13 65 7:13  89, 37, 75 7:13–16 66 7:14  43, 44 7:14–16  43, 44 7:15 44 7:15–16 45 7:16  37, 42, 65 7:28  37, 102 9:1 37 9:7  28, 36 9:7–13 18 9:10 19 11:1 133 11:3 166 11:26 166 12:1–4 207 12:1–14 207 12:4 99 12:5–6 207

2 Samuel (cont.) 12:7 207 12:9 166 12:10 166 12:15 166 12:20 27 12:24 166 14:1–20 207 15–20 191 18:24 145 18:26 145 19:1 66 19:24 27 19:28 37 19:33–39 18 20:19 105 23:5 145 1 Kings 1–2 37 1:5 96 1:11 166 1:15 166 1:18–19 102 1:37 26 2:3–4 44 2:7  18, 28 2:12 37 2:24 37 2:45 37 3:13 39 4:21  36, 38, 107 4:22–23 38 4:24 38 5:2–3 18 5:7 18 8  46, 47 8:19 75 8:23–25 44 8:46–53  45, 46, 48, 50 8:47 46 8:47–50 48 8:48 46 8:50  47, 48 9:1–9 24 9:3 48 9:4–5 44 9:7 206 10:1 206

Index of Scripture 1 Kings (cont.) 10:5 18 10:10 38 10:18–20 37 10:23 38 10:25 38 11 39 11:11–13 43 11:31–39 44 11:34 38 13:1 145 13:25 145 14:25–26 25 15:5–6 38 15:13 14 15:29 40 17:1 48 18:19 18 20:22 133 20:35–43 207 20:39 145 21:8 59 21:29 33 22:23 102 24:8–17 28 25:28–29 18 2 Kings 2:29 27 5:13 38 9:27 40 10:7 40 12:4–16 41 14:9  99, 119, 206 14:13–14 27 15:20 23 16:18 147 17 47 17:4 40 17:6 205 17:15–17 30 18:7 34 18:9 25 19:20–34 94 20:16–18 24 20:17 24 20:18 24 21:3 34 21:3–4 27 21:4 147

2 Kings (cont.) 21:11 22 21:12–15 35 22:8–13 30 22:15–20 33 22:16–17  35, 186 23:4 27 23:8 27 23:12 27 23:15 27 23:25–26 33 23:26  35, 22 23:27–28 27 23:29–30 34 23:30 100 23:31–35 38 23:32 99 23:34  77, 40, 201 23:35 201 23:36 157 24  3, 21, 22, 134 24–25  28, 29, 31, 92, 95, 133 24:1  35, 186, 201 24:2 38 24:3  22, 35, 186 24:4 185 24:5 201 24:6  12, 72, 73, 12, 200 24:7  22, 36 24:8  200, 13 24:8–17  22, 151, 198 24:9  1, 22, 28, 40, 73, 148, 115, 185 24:10–16 158 24:11  95, 151 24:12  13, 34, 36, 39, 79, 80, 95, 151, 203 24:12–16  75, 149 24:13–14 23 24:14  24, 35, 158 24:14–16 39 24:15  13, 69, 95, 200 24:16 95 24:17  95, 130, 151 24:19 22 24:20  24, 35, 95 25  24, 18, 45, 47, 106 25:1  25, 36

247 2 Kings (cont.) 25:1–21 204 25:2 39 25:6 39 25:7  39, 137 25:8 36 25:8–17 203 25:12 35 25:18–21 39 25:21  24, 47 25:22–26  36, 47, 193 25:24 36 25:25 25 25:27  17, 18, 39, 40, 41, 25, 18 25:27–30  1, 4, 21, 22, 24, 28, 32, 36, 37, 38, 41, 45, 47, 81, 48, 49, 50, 150, 151 25:28  19, 37 25:28–29 18 25:29  27, 36, 40 25:29–30 38 25:30 38 1 Chronicles 1–9 131 2:10 131 3 130 3:10 130 3:10–14  130, 169 3:10–24  131, 176 3:15  130, 166, 201 3:15–24 130 3:16  130, 166, 200 3:16–17  10, 129, 130 3:17  18, 134, 154, 200 3:17–18 189 3:17–19 176 3:17–24 1 4:22 201 5:6 131 5:12 131 5:18–22 131 5:22 168 5:26 131 6:7 130 6:8 130 6:15 131 6:22 130

248 1 Chronicles (cont.) 9 136 9:1 131 9:17 131 9:22 131 10:9 25 10:13 136 14:10 134 16:16 202 20:1 133 29:25 146 2 Chronicles 7:14 136 33:4 147 33:11 137 34:1 133 35 131 35:20–21 134 35:20–24 186 35:22  35, 136 36  131, 132, 133, 136, 200 36:4 201 36:5 157 36:6  137, 169 36:6–7 12 36:7 133 36:8  200, 201 36:8–10  10, 129, 132 36:9  12, 154, 185, 186 36:9–10 168 36:10  75, 130, 132, 133, 149, 154 36:12–16 136 36:13 95 36:17 134 36:18 133 36:21 134 36:23  134, 135 Ezra 1:1 141 5:12 78 9:8  50, 128 10:2 201 Nehemiah 5:17–18 18 8:15 107

Index of Scripture Nehemiah (cont.) 9:15 202 9:28–30 78 12:10 201 12:12 201 12:26 201 Esther 2:6  129, 200 3:1 26 4:4 27 8:15 27 Job 8:16 118 10:15  25, 26 14:7 118 20:6 107 22:14 107 27–29 206 40:30 113 Psalms 1  93, 94, 111 1:3 93 2  65, 144 2:9 65 18 191 18:11 107 18:27 92 21:5 146 24:7 25 24:9 25 42–89 107 49:4 206 69:29 67 72 66 75:7 92 78:2 206 78:70 144 80  106, 107, 108, 111, 114, 120 80:10 106 80:11 118 83:2  25, 26 89 44 89:3  43, 88, 203 89:35 203 89:38–49 191 89:43 43

Psalms (cont.) 89:49  43, 203 95:11 203 104:3 107 104:12 176 105:9–10 202 106:26 203 110:2 106 110:4  69, 203 113:7 26 119 191 132 75 132:11  43, 88, 203 132:17  121, 145 137 17 139:16 67 142:7 24 Proverbs 1:6 206 4:9 70 10:1 206 15:17 28 30:32 96 31:24 113 Song of Songs 8:6 59 Isaiah 2:9–22 91 5:1–7  207, 208 6:3 66 8:8 146 10:17 146 11:1 174 11:1–10 118 11:5 146 14:14 107 14:24–25 203 19:1 107 23:8 113 23:18 146 24:22 24 30:8 67 30:26 146 30:32 146 32:15 146 32:17 146 40–55 192

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 42:7  24, 192 44:28–45 142 45:23–25 203 49:14–18 105 49:18–20 203 51:14 192 52:13–53 191 52:14 192 53  82, 191, 192 53:2 118 53:5 192 53:7 192 53:8 192 53:9 192 54:9 202 54:9–10 203 55:3 87 62:3 70 62:8–9 203 65:17–25 190 Jeremiah 1–25  66, 67, 85 1–29 66 1:1–3 75 1:3 201 1:4–7 75 1:4–10  54, 75 1:8 82 1:8–10 75 1:10  56, 57, 78, 88 1:11–12 75 1:11–19 75 1:13–19 75 1:15 81 1:18–19 82 2:4–37 186 2:18 77 3:1–5 207 3:5 64 3:10 186 4 144 4:2 163 4:19 66 5:9 83 5:29 83 6:14 74 6:15 83 7 55

Jeremiah (cont.) 7:1–10:16 57 7:3–11 186 7:4 66 7:8–15 57 7:15 68 8:8 186 8:11 74 8:19 64 9:9 83 9:16 86 9:17 58 9:25 83 10:17 58 10:18 68 11:1 62 11:1–13 187 11:1–17:27 57 11:5 202 11:22 83 12:6 26 12:14–17 56 12:16 78 13:13  71, 72 13:14 68 13:15–27 76 13:18  13, 14, 62, 69, 70, 81, 149, 152 13:18–19  57, 69, 70, 89 13:24 86 14 64 14:1–15:4 63 14:10 83 14:13 74 14:17 86 14:19 64 14:22 64 15:1–4  64, 65 15:3–4 63 15:4 186 16:5 74 16:13 68 16:31 70 17 94 17:4 68 17:5–8 94 17:13 67 17:24 72 17:24–27 85 17:25 153

249 Jeremiah (cont.) 18 69 18:1–10  69, 202 18:1–11 56 18:1–20:18 57 18:17 86 19 68 20:3 82 20:4 61 20:5 61 21 153 21–22 187 21–36  58, 59, 67 21–43 2 21:1–10  65, 76, 86 21:1–24:10 57 21:3–7 69 21:3–10 186 21:7 86 21:8–10 79 21:9 76 21:10 76 21:11 67 21:11–22:10 58 21:11–22:30 56 21:12 89, 21:27 66 22  58, 63, 65, 66, 103, 142 22:2  67, 72 22:3 89 22:3–4 70 22:3–7 58 22:4 72 22:5  59, 203 22:6 114 22:10–12  77, 83, 99 22:10–23 103 22:10–30 86 22:11–12 58 22:12 84 22:13 58 22:13–17 115 22:13–19 58 22:15 86 22:17 68 22:18 146 22:18–19 72 22:19 12 22:20–23 58

250 Jeremiah (cont.) 22:24  69, 142, 144, 200 22:24–26 187 22:24–27  62, 86, 153, 187, 198, 203 22:24–30  1, 5, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 69, 72, 73, 74, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 103, 138, 139, 142, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153, 185 22:25 61 22:25–26 142 22:26  13, 62, 70, 74, 84 22:27 69 22:28  63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 153, 185, 200 22:29 66 22:29–30  64, 65 22:30  3, 52, 56, 69, 72, 81, 84, 87, 88, 143, 148, 152, 188, 198 23  86, 121 23:1–2 71 23:1–8  58, 85, 86 23:2 148 23:4 148 23:5  86, 153 23:5–6  56, 85, 86, 88, 148, 149 23:5–8 85 23:6  58, 61, 69, 85, 86, 87 23:7–8 86 23:14 78 23:17 74 23:18 54 23:22 54 24  75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 153 24:1  24, 200 24:1–7 1 24:4–7  56, 57, 88, 89, 186 24:6  75, 78 24:7  79, 187 24:8–10 79 24:9 77

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 24:10 76 24:28–29 1 25 52 25:1  72, 201 25:9 87 25:11–12 74 25:13 67 25:18–26 84 25:34 63 26–45  52, 71, 79, 83 26:1 201 26:21 201 26:22 22 27:1–22 73 27:2 61 27:5–7 72 27:6  68, 87 27:7 36 27:16 73 27:16–22  57, 73, 74, 75, 88 27:16–28 73 27:19–22 74 27:20 200 27:21–22 152 27:22 83 28 2 28:1–17  57, 73 28:2–4  76, 78 28:4  62, 84, 200 28:6  74, 149 28:14 86 29 77 29:1–14  57, 78, 88 29:2  13, 24, 61, 62, 69, 70, 153, 200 29:4–9  78, 82 29:4–14 89 29:5  56, 78 29:7 74 29:10  74, 77 29:11  74, 77 29:13  77, 79 29:14 79 29:15–29 77 29:16 72 29:17  77, 78 29:20 77 29:28 56

Jeremiah (cont.) 30–33 79 30:1–10 68 30:8 86 30:8–9 85 30:8–11 85 30:10 87 30:12–17 86 30:21 85 31:10 86 31:27–30 56 31:28  57, 78, 186 31:29–30 79 31:30 71 31:31–34 85 31:33 187 31:35–36 88 31:35–37  87, 88 31:40 56 32 83 32:2–3 82 32:4 61 32:5 83 32:10 67 32:12 67 32:20–26 88 32:22 202 32:24 61 32:25 61 32:28 68 32:36 61 32:43 61 33:6 74 33:9 74 33:14–26  85, 86, 87, 88, 146, 149, 152 33:15 145 33:17 72 33:22  67, 87 34 187 34–38 83 34:4–5 83 34:21 61 35:1 201 36  71, 155 36:1  72, 201 36:2 153 36:9 201 36:24 70 36:25 22

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 36:28  67, 201 36:30  72, 201 36:30–31  57, 58, 63, 71, 72, 84, 186 36:31  70, 73, 115 36:32 201 37:1  60, 200 37:9 153 37:15 82 37:21 82 38:21–23 106 39:14 82 40–41 72 40:5 28 40:7–41 72 40:9 80 40:10 80 42:10 56 42:10–12 80 43–44 77 43:10 87 44:24–30 77 44:26 204 45:1 201 45:4 56 46:2 201 46:18–19 204 46:24 61 46:27–28 87 48:38 68 49:13 204 51:14 204 51:59 174 51:60 67 51:64 53 52  81, 152, 153 52:1 70 52:9–11 204 52:11  82, 83, 84 52:28–30 79 52:29 158 52:31  25, 82, 152, 200 52:31–34  1, 4, 32, 56, 57, 79, 81, 88, 89, 150, 153 52:32 81 52:32–33 18 52:33 36 52:34  82, 84, 187, 203

Lamentations 1:1 97 1:7 168 4 191 4:20 191 Ezekiel 1–19  97, 105 1–20  98, 112, 119 1–24  92, 93, 97, 103, 104, 111, 113 1:1 112 1:1–3  111, 112 1:2  112, 127, 200 1:2–3 112 1:3 112 1:4–28 112 1:18 91 3:14 130 3:15 112 3:24 130 5:4 106 5:11–12 204 6:8–10 120 6:13 107 7:27 109 8:2 109 10:33 92 11:1–13 105 11:3 110 11:14–21  76, 120 11:15 110 12–24 110 12:1–16 92 12:11 168 12:13 103 12:22 206 14:8 206 14:16 204 14:18 204 14:20 204 15 114 15:3 103 15:4 93 16  105, 206 16:12 70 16:29  113, 114 16:48 202 16:50 91 16:59 95

251 Ezekiel (cont.) 16:60 118 16:60–63 120 17  1, 92, 93, 94, 95, 106, 108, 111, 113, 120, 176, 206, 207, 208 17:2 207 17:3 113 17:3–4  113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 127, 153, 154 17:3–8 207 17:3–10 118 17:4  113, 116, 192 17:5 92 17:5–21 92 17:6  93, 96, 118 17:7  93, 95 17:7–21 92 17:8  92, 93, 116, 118 17:9  93, 96 17:9–10  93, 207 17:10  93, 96 17:11–21  119, 95 17:12  95, 113, 114 17:13  94, 95 17:13–21 94 17:14  94, 95, 96 17:15  93, 94, 95, 96 17:15–16 94 17:16  94, 95, 204 17:16–21 96 17:17  93, 96 17:18  94, 95 17:18–19 94 17:19  94, 95, 204 17:20  94, 95, 103, 104 17:22  91, 118, 154 17:22–24  2, 118, 120, 121, 126, 127, 153, 154 17:23  118, 120, 161, 176 17:24  90, 91 18 108 18:3 204 19  14, 96, 97, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 115, 119, 120, 153, 208 19:1 96 19:2–9  100, 101, 104

252 Ezekiel (cont.) 19:3  14, 99 19:3b–d 100 19:4–6 106 19:5  99, 100, 105 19:5–7 126 19:5–9  106, 114 19:6 100 19:6–9 100 19:6b–d 100 19:7  98, 100, 106, 115 19:8 103 19:8–9  106, 127 19:9 104 19:10  92, 102, 106, 116 19:10–11 106 19:10–12 106 19:10–14  92, 96, 98, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 108 19:11  102, 103 19:11–12 99 19:11–21 95 19:12  102, 109 19:12–13 106 19:12–14 104 19:12 102 19:13  102, 116 19:14  96, 99, 102, 103, 106, 109, 115 19:14–19 106 20:3 204 20:5 202 20:6 202 20:15 203 20:23 204 20:28 107 20:31 204 20:33–38 204 20:40 126 20:40–44 120 20:42 202 21:24–27 147 21:25 126 21:25–27  92, 95, 115 21:26  91, 96, 117, 186 21:32 105 22:6 109 22:25 109 23  105, 206

Index of Scripture Ezekiel (cont.) 23:11–21 95 23:42 70 24:3 206 24:15–24 116 24:17 117 25–48  107, 109 26:23 115 27 114 27:5 114 28 109 28:2  91, 109, 123 28:3–5 109 28:5 91 28:7–10 109 28:11–19 109 28:17  91, 109 28:18 109 28:25–26 120 29–32 107 29:15 96 29:17–20 112 29:21  120, 121, 145 31  108, 109, 113, 118, 119, 120, 177 31:2–9 109 31:3  107, 114 31:5  92, 119 31:6  118, 119, 176 31:7 92 31:8 114 31:9 109 31:10  91, 107, 109 31:10–17 110 31:14 91 31:16–17 110 31:18  109, 119 33 92 33:11 202 33:21 112 33:27 204 34  120, 121, 122, 123 34:1–10 109 34:2–6 126 34:8–10 204 34:11–16 120 34:11–19 120 34:13–16 122 34:17–21 126 34:23  121, 122 34:23–24  120, 122, 127

Ezekiel (cont.) 34:23–31 122 34:23–24 122 34:24  117, 121, 125 34–39 121 35:6 204 36:7–8 204 36:8 119 36:22–26 115 36:29 107 36:31 91 37 121 37:1–14  117, 122 37:15–20 122 37:21–28  122, 123 37:22 123 37:24  123, 124, 154 37:25  123, 125 37:26 123 37:26–27 123 37:27 146 38–39  110, 121 38:2–9 110 38:4 110 38:9 110 38:17–23 110 39:9–10 110 39:11–16 110 40–48  117, 119, 124, 125, 126 40:1 112 40:2  91, 119 40:3 145 41:6 113 43–48 121 43:6–9 124 43:7–9  109, 124, 126 44:12 204 45:7 117 45:7–8 124 45:8–9 109 45:8b–12 124 45:17 124 45:22 124 46:2  124, 125 46:16–18 124 46:17–18 124 46:18  109, 125 47:9 146 47:14 202 48:3 124

Index of Scripture Daniel 1:1  104, 201 1:2 201 1:3–20 15 1:5 18 1:8–21 193 4  176, 177, 178 4:12 176 4:21 176 9 156 10:5 145 11:21 146 Hosea 8:8 68 14:6 118 Amos 4:2 205 6:8 205 8:7 205 Obadiah 1:20 168 Jonah 3:4 202 Micah 5:2 174 5:7 146 7:20 202 Nahum 1:2 66

Nahum (cont.) 1:30 168 2:10–12 115 Habakkuk 2:6 206 Zephaniah 2:9 205 3:3–5 115 Haggai 1:1 140 1:1–15 139 1:4 142 1:12 144 1:14 144 1:15 140 2 142 2:1–9 139 2:3 141 2:6  139, 140 2:7 140 2:9  140, 141 2:10–19 139 2:20–21a  139, 140 2:20–23  10, 129, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 150 2:21b 139 2:21b–22  139, 140 2:22 139 2:23  1, 139, 144, 171, 176, 188, 189, 142, 144, 148

253 Haggai (cont.) 2:30 143 Zechariah 1–8  139, 140, 143, 147, 149 1:8 145 1:13 26 1:21  25, 26 2:1 145 3:4 27 3:8 148 3:10 148 4:9  146, 147 6 148 6:8a 147 6:9 145 6:9–15  10, 129, 138, 145, 149, 150 6:10 149 6:10–11 145 6:11 149 6:12–13  145, 146, 147, 148 6:12 145 6:13  145, 146, 149 6:14 147 6:15 147 9:8–9 147 11 190 11:8 129 12:12 174 Malachi 3:22–24 6

Deuterocanonical Literature 1 Baruch 1:1–4 155 1:3 201 1:7 201 1:9 201 2 Baruch 1 156 1:1  156, 157, 157 1:3 157 6:1–8:5 156

Susanna 1:1 201 1:4 201 1:6 201 1:7 201 1:28 201 1:29 201 1:63 201 1 Esdras 1:9 201 1:22 157 1:32  157, 201

1 Esdras (cont.) 1:37  167, 201 1:38 201 1:41 201 1:43 167 5:5 201 8:92 201 Judith 4:6 201 4:8 201 4:14 201 15:8 201

254

Index of Scripture

New Testament Matthew 1 159 1:1  161, 162, 163, 169 1:1–4 173 1:1–17  163, 131 1:1–4:16 163 1:2  164, 165, 166, 167, 169 1:2–3 167 1:2–6a  161, 164 1:3 164 1:6  164, 165, 170, 173 1:6b 172 1:11  165, 166, 167, 201 1:11–12  1, 10, 161, 168, 199 1:12  168, 170, 201 1:15 169 1:15–24 169 1:16  162, 164, 171, 172 1:17  161, 162, 168 1:18–4:11 163 1:18–25 172 1:20 171 1:21 166 1:22 175 1:31 174 1:32 175 1:32–35 175 1:35 175 1:38 174 1:69 175 1:78 175 2:1 164 2:1–4 163 2:2 165 2:3 164 2:4 175 2:9 164 3:27  174, 176 4:1–11 173 4:1–13 175 5:35 165 6:12–16 161 10:18 164

Matthew (cont.) 11:8 164 13:31–32 176 13:32 177 14:9 164 16:21 173 17:6 164 17:12 173 17:25 165 18:23 165 20:28 173 20:41–44 175 21:5 165 21:9 171 21:15 171 22:2 165 22:7 165 22:11 165 22:13 165 22:21 197 25:34 165 25:40 165 26:28 173 26:39 197 27:11 165 27:29 165 27:37 165 27:42 165 Mark 4:30–32 176 4:32 177 10:45 198 Luke 1:33 198 1:73 202 1:78 176 3 174 3:23 174 13:18–19 176 23:47 198 24:26  197, 198, 199 24:26–27  182, 196

John 3:14 197 12:32–33 197 19:11 197 Acts 2:30 203 2:31–36 203 2:34–36 175 3:18 182 17:3 182 26:22–23 182 Romans 1:1–4 182 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 182 Philippians 2:6–11 197 2:7–8 197 Hebrews 1:1–4 182 2:8 189 3:11 203 4:3 203 6:13–18 202 6:17–18 69 7:20–22 203 7:28 203 8:7 196 9:8–9a 196 9:25–26 196 10:1–4 196 10:11–14 196 12:2 197 12:26–29 189 1 Peter 1:10–12  182, 196 1:11 198