Original Meaning

THIS SECTION OF JEREMIAH contains several oracles directed to (against!) the royal family and its administration of affairs in Jerusalem. These prophecies are collected together because they share a common topic, not because they come from the same period in Jeremiah’s ministry. Both the dynasty of David itself (21:12; 22:1, 6) and three of its kings are addressed (22:10–30): Shallum (also known as Jehoahaz),1 Jehoiakim,2 and Jehoiachin (“Coniah” in the Heb. of 22:24, 28).3 Josiah, the father of Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim as well as the grandfather of Jehoiachin, is referred to by way of contrast in 22:15–16. With the mention of Zedekiah4 in 21:1, readers have contextual references to all the kings of Judah who reigned during Jeremiah’s ministry.

In the critical evaluation of the kings in this section, readers encounter an emphasis on royal social responsibilities. The king and his administration should “administer justice” (21:12) and “do what is just and right” (22:3).5 The Hebrew words for “just/justice” (mišpaṭ) and “right” (ṣ^edaqa) are recognized terms to describe social rectitude and a healthy communal life. They overlap much in their meaning and often occur together as a word pair in the Old Testament.

These two terms are derived from a social vision where institutions such as the monarchy and court system are responsible to curb oppression and to protect the more vulnerable members of society.6 Justice is primarily associated with administration. In doing justice one works through social institutions (e.g., court, state agencies). Righteousness is more a relational term. One is considered righteous when acting faithfully toward those with whom one is related in community.7 A monarchy and its administrative agents who do not act in accord with these standards face judgment in the historical process (21:12; 22:4–9). The failures of the royal administration are also attributed to rejection of the covenant with God and the worship of other deities (22:9).

21:11–14. These verses can be read as further commentary on Jeremiah’s word to Zedekiah in 21:1–10. The NIV translation of verse 11, which begins with “moreover,” implies this connection. The grammar and syntax of the verse do not require this translation, however, and the four verses in this section are more like the general assessment of the monarchy in 22:1–9, the next oracle in the section.8 This suggests that they are meant for any and all members of the house of David who live in the palace and assist in carrying out the affairs of state. In verse 13 comes a bitter criticism of those who live above the valley floors that surround Jerusalem. These persons would be royalty and other influential inhabitants who can afford the safer location of height in times of siege.

The command in Jer. 21:12 to “administer justice every morning” and to “rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one … robbed” has a close parallel in Micah’s critique preserved in Micah 2:1–2. Micah was from the Judean countryside, and his second chapter is a devastating critique of oppression that stems from Jerusalem. Early morning was the time when people in towns and villages rose and met one another on their way to perform daily tasks. When they met at the gate of the city or village, they also worked out administrative-judicial affairs and witnessed agreements. Micah complains about those who rise early and seize property because they have the “power” (’el; lit., God) in their hand. Jeremiah’s charge to the royal house, therefore, is to be a court of appeal for the oppressed “every morning.”

22:1–9. God commands the prophet to “go down to the palace of the king” to proclaim a message. Readers should not overlook the verb “go down.” Since the palace of the king is located at one of the highest points of Jerusalem, about the only place from which Jeremiah can “go down” is from the temple mount. This incidental comment tells us much about one important place where Jeremiah receives his prompting from God. Readers learn from another incidental comment in verse 2 that the royal palace had gates. Since some matters of state and cult were carried out at the royal palace (likely located near the temple), the gates would be those entry points to a public courtyard or hall.

Monarchs and their servants should prevent the shedding of “innocent blood in this place” (22:3). The prophet offered a similar charge in his temple sermon (7:6; cf. 19:4), and it is a topic to which he comes again in the context of a critique of royalty (22:17). This is a foreboding topic since “innocent blood” required atonement and other ceremonies to deal with its expiation; otherwise, responsibility for the shedding of innocent blood fell on the whole community.9 Part of the duty of the royal house in doing justice and righteousness was to vindicate an innocent victim and to punish the murderers, even if the latter were from the elite strata of society.

Something of the “two-way” preaching is preserved in 22:4–5. In essence, the two ways set before the royal house are the same as those set before the people.

22:10–12. Of the three kings addressed directly, the briefest prophecy concerns Shallum, that is, Jehoahaz, the son and immediate successor to Josiah. He was placed on the throne after the death of his father but was subsequently removed by the Egyptian pharaoh after a brief reign. Jeremiah calls for bitter weeping (mourning) on his behalf, although his personal evaluation of Jehoahaz is not clear (cf. 2 Kings 23:32). The fate of this king foreshadows that of the people. The call in Jeremiah 22:10 not to mourn the death of Josiah is intended only to call attention to the sad fate of Jehoahaz. According to 2 Chronicles 35:25, Jeremiah offered a lamentation for Josiah, which became a pattern for singers in Israel.

22:13–23. Jeremiah pronounces a judgmental “woe” on Jehoiakim, the older brother of Jehoahaz, who succeeded his younger brother on the throne (23:13–23). Apparently the people of the land (Judean property owners?) recognized Jehoiakim’s unsuitability for rule when they initially bypassed him for Jehoahaz. They were loyal to the dynasty of David but did not want the eldest son to follow Josiah. The Egyptians, however, placed Jehoiakim on the throne, perhaps for the same reason that the people of the land had passed him over. Most certainly the Egyptians wanted someone from the royal family whom they could control. The Judeans would have preferred someone of a more independent nature.

Verse 13 describes Jehoiakim’s activities as “unrighteous” and as examples of “injustice.” These terms, of course, are the negative counterparts to justice and righteousness (cf. 22:3). Jehoiakim’s arrogant building project is described as “his palace.” Almost certainly this is not a primary residence, since the royal palace in Jerusalem had been in existence as long as the temple. According to 36:22 Jehoiakim had a winter house.10 Whether this is the house that Jeremiah describes in 22:13–14 cannot be known without further information.

By contrast with Jehoiakim, his father Josiah is described as one who lived the life of a king (he ate and drank), but who also did what was “right and just” (ṣ^edaqa and mišpaṭ, v. 15), defending the cause of the poor and needy. Jeremiah describes this activity as an example of what it means to “know” the Lord. Josiah is the only one of the monarchs from his day whom Jeremiah praises.

The fate of the arrogant and selfish king is that he will not be mourned at his death and will not receive a proper burial. Extant sources do not give details of Jehoiakim’s burial or the precise circumstances of his death. The latter came apparently during the time of the Babylonians’ siege of Jerusalem in 598/597 B.C.

22:24–30. This address to Jehoiachin has several grammatical complexities. The gist of the message is that he too falls under the judgment of the historical hour. His personal failings are not listed, and it may be that the query in verse 28 recognizes the incongruence of his circumstances. More precisely he and his family will go into Babylonian exile, and the young king will be reckoned as childless—although he has descendants—since his sons11 will not sit on the throne of David and rule as kings in Judah.

Bridging Contexts

JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. This criticism of the Davidic dynasty and the enumeration of social crimes is but a part of a larger biblical concern to advocate justice and to oppose injustice. Several of the prophets before and during Jeremiah’s day announced judgment on their contemporaries because of injustice and oppression.12 Amos, for example, castigated Israel for failing to uphold God’s standards of justice and righteousness (Amos 5:7, 14–15, 21–24; 6:12). Leading citizens of Samaria oppressed weaker members of society (4:1; cf. 2:7–8), and a destructive greed was rampant (8:4–6). Amos declared God’s judgment on Israel; subsequently the nation was overrun by the Assyrians, Samaria was destroyed, and many inhabitants were taken into exile.13 As noted above, Micah’s social criticism of Judah has several things in common with Jeremiah. In his attitude toward the responsibilities of the royal house and their servants, Jeremiah stands in good prophetic company.

As with the other prophets, Jeremiah was not a political reformer in the modern sense of that term. His many harsh words of denunciation are not followed by a detailed blueprint for social reforms. There are at least three reasons for this. (1) Jeremiah was not a social architect or theorist; he was a prophet who spoke under the conviction that he lived in the historical hour of judgment.

(2) There is no indication that Jeremiah believed a new political philosophy or platform should be put in place. His terminology of justice and righteousness comes directly from the normative traditions of Israel. It was not a new plan that needed implementation but the application of covenant ethics as known in the Sinai revelation or in the claim of prerogative for David’s family as guardian of the social order (Ps. 72).

(3) Jeremiah came to believe that Judah would be unable on its own to reconstitute itself as a just and compassionate society simply by changing a few programs. His preaching of repentance (where it is preserved in the book) seems to have convinced him that only God could reform Judah, which in turn would require a complete transformation of the people. Nor did Jeremiah have a secular ideal on which to draw for his concerns, since the “old paths” sufficed for instruction (Jer. 6:16), but he did not concentrate on the “old paths” of the covenant ethics known to him. His work was essentially a theological critique, based on God’s revealed character as righteous and just and shaped by the conviction that historical judgment was irrevocable.

The New Testament also voices concerns for justice and righteousness in the church. Since the tiny church of the apostolic age had no privilege in society or institutional political influence, the emphasis of the New Testament letters is on the internal ethics of the Christian community. Nevertheless, the various writers there concur that both the church body and its leaders should reflect a gospel-oriented holiness in its administrative structures and in the witness of the church’s common life.14

As part of his criticism of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah also recognizes that a king can be a king with all the trappings and symbolism of the office and yet reflect the required covenantal ethics. Josiah ate and drank, but he also did justice and righteousness. Jeremiah’s assessment is not unlike that given in 2 Kings, where the ruler is described as one who turned to the Lord with all his heart (2 Kings 23:25). The prophet asks rhetorically if such activity is what it means to “know God” (Jer. 22:16). The answer, of course, is “yes!” Here is an intertextual echo with 9:23–24. The wise person is one who knows the Lord as the God who exercises loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness and the God who delights when others do these things. What God wants from the Davidic rulers or from any truly “wise” person is someone who knows him and who shares his delight in these attributes.

Jeremiah’s prophecies concerning the royal house and its administration underscore the importance of leadership for God’s people. As 1 and 2 Kings make clear, as the leadership of the people goes, so go the people. This is an important bridge between then and now. With great privilege comes great responsibility. In Judah there was no “separation of church and state,” as is common in modern Western societies. Kings were responsible to use their position of influence as servants of the Lord. Christians today may hear these words and be instructed first that the church (the current generation of God’s people) has responsibilities to nurture and to support those among us who are weak and mistreated. Moreover, it is incumbent particularly on the leadership to demonstrate this concern and encourage it among the people.

Christians today may also hear these words as a call to support humanitarian policies and those institutions in their society that are concerned with justice and righteousness. In this way God, the Lord of all creation, is honored, and his gifts of common grace for all peoples are acknowledged by his people.

The royal line. The sad words about Jehoiachin are a somber commentary that comes in the context of judgment on Judah as a whole. These words, however, should be heard in the larger biblical context of additional revelation about his family. Jehoiachin and his family represent the generation judged and sent into exile. The Babylonians cut short his brief reign as king, and he spent the rest of his life in Babylon. Since the monarchical rule of the Davidic house ceased with the destruction of Jerusalem, none of Jehoiachin’s sons ever sat on the throne so briefly occupied by him. Nevertheless, the fact that Jehoiachin survived in captivity is recorded as a sign of hope (2 Kings 25:27–30; Jer. 52:31–34). Moreover, his grandson Zerubbabel was appointed governor of the early postexilic community in Jerusalem (Hag. 1:1; Ezra 3:1–13).

Jehoiachin is part of the Davidic line that continues through Zerubbabel and leads to the birth of Christ (Matt. 1:1–17). When Zerubbabel is addressed by the prophet Haggai, he is told that he is a servant and a signet ring to the Lord (Hag. 2:20–23). This oracle likely reflects the judgmental prophecy against his grandfather in Jeremiah 22:24 (“if … Jehoiachin … were a signet ring …”) and shows, furthermore, that the historical word of judgment can be set in a larger framework of God’s transhistorical intent to preserve and transform his people through the promises made to the Davidic house. Christians should see in these details the unfolding drama of the royal office into which Christ was born (“as to his human nature … a descendant of David,” Rom. 1:3). The great promises to and failures of the royal office provide the background to Jesus’ fulfillment of it as the resurrected head of the church.15

Contemporary Significance

MORAL COMMITMENTS. A maxim among modern Christians is that “truth is first in order to goodness.” The truth of who God is and the truth of what God has called the church to be entail a commitment to moral character and social ethics in the church. Moral commitments start with its leadership.

Three kings in Jeremiah’s time (Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin) are addressed as failures and as examples of the corporate failure of Judah. The flip side of a commitment to moral character and social rectitude is the disintegration of communal life when these qualities are absent. As the kings failed, so failed Judah. In current North American society, one can cite any number of statistics and trends that do not bode well for communal life (e.g., crime, family disintegration, etc.). Will they lead to a larger collapse of society? If so, are the churches immune from the fallout?

One should be careful in comparing the political leadership of a modern Western nation with the fate of Judah’s leadership during Jeremiah’s day. The president of the United States, for example, does not stand in the line of Davidic kings, nor is the president elected the head of the people of God (= the church). Christians may well argue the link between moral values and the health of a nation, but the first application of God’s Word to ancient Judah concerning justice and righteousness is to the current generation of God’s people.

Knowing God. The harsh word to Jehoiakim also contains an affirmation of what it means to know God. In his case, the contrast with his father, Josiah, is telling. The test of knowing God is the commitment of the person to the things of God—justice and righteousness for God’s people. “If you love me,” said Jesus, “you will obey what I command” (John 14:15). To know God is to be committed to his revealed will in the places of responsibility (ministry) where one lives and works. Of course, to know God means also to be rightly and personally related to him.

The affirmation that Josiah “turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul” (2 Kings 23:25) is testimony to this truth, but Jeremiah’s particular word relates to the practice of one’s faith. Such an emphasis can be easily avoided by Christians claiming a cheap grace, but its truth cannot be evaded indefinitely. An orthodox theology leads to orthopraxis. Truth is first in order to goodness, not for self-justification but as service to the Lord.

God’s faithfulness. The harsh words about Jehoiachin are a lesson about judgment and providence and a profound illustration of the “ups and downs” of the royal office ultimately fulfilled in Christ. As a young man and king for only three months, Jehoiachin was swept away into exile in 597. He spent the rest of his life in exile. He embodied the fate of his people. There was no escape from responsibility for failure. God’s word of judgment to him in the historical hour came in service to God’s larger intent to use the judgment of exile to chasten and redeem his people. God had bound himself by covenant oath to David’s family as ruler over his people (2 Sam. 7; 23:5). Jehoiachin would see the discipline that God hands out to recalcitrant children (Jer. 7:12–16), and his own sons were included.

Nevertheless, God would remain true to his promise and through Jehoiachin’s line would again raise up leaders for his people. His grandson Zerubbabel would play a crucial role in the early postexilic period, serving as governor in Jerusalem. From this family of many failures came the ultimate child of promise, Christ the Lord (Matt. 1:1–17). God’s historical “no” to the sins of Jehoiachin and his generation was tempered by his great “yes” in Jesus Christ. In his wrath God had marked Jehoiachin down as childless—none of his sons would ever sit on the throne; nevertheless, one of his descendants has ascended the throne of rule over God’s people in a far grander way than Jehoiachin would ever realize.

The word of judgment to Jehoiachin is a sobering prophecy. There are situations where historical ruin comes about or where one’s hopes are never realized. His uncle Jehoahaz died in Egypt, he in Babylon. Christ, his descendant according to the flesh, died on the cross. But he was raised to new life, and Christ now demonstrates God’s resolve to save that which is lost. As the Lord of the church, Christ rules now as King of kings and Lord of lords.