Studies in Old Testament History

by Jesse Lyman Hurlbut

2. Jehoiachin's captivity. (B. C. 598.) Jehoiachin was the son of Jehoiakim (called Jeconiah, 1 Chron 3. 16; Jer. 24. 1; and Coniah, Jer. 22. 24). He reigned only three months, and was then deposed by Nebuchadnezzar and carried to Babylon. With the young king and the royal family were taken thousands of the people of the middle classes, whom the land could ill spare (2 Kings 24. 8-16). Among these captives was Ezekiel, the prophet-priest (Ezek. 1. 1-3).

3. Zedekiah's captivity. (B. C. 587.) He was the uncle of Jehoiachin, and the son of the good Josiah (2 Kings 24. 17), and had been made king by Nebuchadnezzar. But he too rebelled against his master, to whom he had taken a solemn oath of fidelity (2 Chron. 36. 13). The Chaldeans were greatly incensed by these frequent insurrections, and determined upon a final destruction of the rebellious city. After a long siege Jerusalem was taken, and the king was captured while attempting flight. He was blinded and carried away to Babylon, the city was destroyed, and nearly all the people left alive were also taken to the land of Chaldea (2 Kings 25. 1-11). After this captivity the city lay desolate for fifty years, until the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus (B. C. 536).

III. Let us ascertain the CAUSES OF THE CAPTIVITY; why the Jews were taken up bodily from their own land and deported to a distant country.

1. Such deportations were a frequent policy of Oriental conquerors. The Orientals had three ways of dealing with a conquered people: that of extermination or wholesale butchery, which is frequently described upon the Assyrian monuments; that of leaving them in the land under tribute, as subjects of the conqueror; and that of deporting them en masse to a distant land. Frequently, when the interests of the empire would be served by changing the population of a province, this plan was carried out. Thus the ten tribes were carried to a land near the Caspian Sea, and other people were brought to Samaria in their place (2 Kings 17. 6, 24). A similar plan with respect to Judah was proposed by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18. 31, 32), but was thwarted by the destruction of the Assyrian host.

2. We have already noticed another cause of the captivity in the frequent rebellions of the kings of Judah against the authority of Babylon. The old spirit of independence, which had made Judah the leader of the twelve tribes, was still strong, and it was fostered by the hope of universal rule, which had been predicted through centuries, even while the kingdom was declining. The prophets, however, favored submission to Babylon; but the nobles urged rebellion and independence. Their policy was pursued, and the unequal strife was taken up more than once. The rebellions always failed; but after several attempts the patience of Nebuchadnezzar was exhausted, and the destruction of the rebellious city and the deportation of the population was ordered.

3. But underneath was another and a deeper cause—in the rivalry of Egypt and Babylon. Whenever in history one nation has been dominant there has been another nation, next in strength, as its rival to check its supremacy. Thus Greece stood in the way of Persia, Carthage in the way of republican Rome, and Parthia in the way of imperial Rome. In the earlier days Assyria (and after Assyria Babylon) was the controlling power in the East; but it was always opposed by Egypt, which, though less powerful, was yet strong enough to be dangerous to Assyrian or Chaldean supremacy. Palestine stood on the border of the Assyrian Empire toward Egypt; and in Palestine there were two parties, the Assyrian and the Egyptian; one counseling submission to Assyria, the other seeking alliance with Egypt against Assyria (Isa. 31. 1-3; 37. 6). After Babylon took the place of Nineveh the Chaldean party took the place of the Assyrian, as the Chaldean Empire was the successor of the Assyrian Empire. The prophets, led by Jeremiah, always counseled submission to Babylon, and warned against trusting to Egypt, which had never given any thing more than promises; but the nobles were of the Egyptian party, and constantly influenced the kings to renounce the yoke of Babylon, and to strike for independence by the aid of Egypt. Under Egyptian influence the later kings of Judah made attempt after attempt to rebel against the Chaldean Empire. But the expected help from Egypt never came, and Judah was left again and again to suffer the wrath of Babylon (Jer. 37. 5-9). The necessity of making the frontier of the Chaldean Empire safe on the side toward Egypt was the political cause for the deportation of the tribe of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar dared not to leave a people on the soil who would constantly endanger the entrance to his dominions by plotting with the Egyptians. He therefore took up the Jews bodily, placed them in the center of his empire, and turned the land of Judah into a desolation.

4. There was underlying all these political reasons a moral cause in the divine purpose to discipline the nation. The captivity was a weeding-out process, to separate the precious from the vile, the false from the true, the "remnant" from the mass. There had always been two distinct elements in Israel and Judah—the spiritual, God-fearing few, and the worldly, idol-worshiping many. The worldly and irreligious took part in the resistance to the King of Babylon; and the worshipers of Jehovah, led by the prophets, urged submission. As a result, the nobles and the warriors, for the most part, perished; while the better part, the strength and hope of the nation, were carried away captive. Notice that the captives were mainly of the middle class, the working element (2 Kings 24. 14-16). Those who had submitted to the Chaldeans were also taken away (2 Kings 25. 11). The prophet expressed greater hope for those taken away than for those left behind (Jer. 24. 1-10). The captives were the root of Judah, out of which in due time a new nation should rise.

IV. THE CONDITION OF THE CAPTIVES IN CHALDEA was far better than we are apt to suppose.

1. They received kind treatment; were regarded not as slaves or prisoners, but as colonists. At a later captivity by the Romans the Jews were sold as slaves and dispersed throughout the empire. Such wholesale enslavement was common after a conquest. For some reason the Chaldeans did not enslave the Jews at the time of their conquest, but colonized them as free people. This may have been because the captives as a class were of the "Chaldean party" among the Jews, and hence were treated in a measure as friends. The letter of Jeremiah to the exiles (Jer. 29. 1-7) shows that they were kindly dealt with in Chaldea. Some of them were received at the court and rose to high station in the realm (Dan. 1. 1-6).

2. Their organization was maintained. The exiles were not merged into the mass of the people where they were living, but retained their own system, and were recognized as a separate colony. Their dethroned kings had a semi-royal state, and at death an honorable burial (Jer. 52. 31-34; 34. 4, 5). The captives were governed by elders, rulers of their own nation (Ezek. 8. 1; 14. 1; 20. 1). Such a system is still pursued in the East, where the government is according to race as well as according to locality; that is, the different races in one province will each have separate rulers. There was a "prince of Judah" at the close of the captivity (Ezra 1. 8). This fact of a national organization was a fortunate one for the exiles. If they had been dispersed as slaves throughout the empire, or even had been scattered as individuals, they would soon have been merged among the Gentiles, and would have lost their identity as a people. But maintaining as a separate race, and in Jewish communities, they were readily gathered for a return to their own land when the opportunity came.