A verse by verse commentary on Jeremiah 39 dealing with the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. King Zedekiah was captured and taken to Babylon, but Jeremiah was allowed to remain with his people.

1. JEREMIAH 39 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
1 In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in
the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his
whole army and laid siege to it.
BARNES, "“The Capture of Jerusalem” - The majority of the particulars given in Jer_
39:1-14 occur again (marginal reference); and are by some regarded as an interpolation.
The external evidence (that of the versions) is, however, in favor of their authenticity.
Jer_39:14 is to be reconciled with Jer_40:1-4 by remembering that Gedaliah had left
Jerusalem and gone to Mizpah Jer_40:6, a city in the immediate neighborhood; and as
he was not at home to protect the prophet, nothing is more probable than that Jeremiah
in company with the main body of captives was brought to Ramah in chains.
CLARKE, "In the ninth year of Zedekiah - in the tenth month - This month
is called Tebeth in Est_2:16. It began with the first new moon of our January, and it was
on the tenth day of this month that Nebuchadnezzar invested the city.
GILL, "In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month,....
The month Tebet, which answers to part of our December, and part of January; so that it
was in the winter season the siege of Jerusalem began:
came Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and all his army against Jerusalem,
and they besieged it; provoked by Zedekiah's breaking covenant with him, and
rebelling against him, who had set him upon his throne, in the room of his nephew; so
that here was a mixture of perfidy and ingratitude, which he was determined to revenge;
and being impatient of it, came at such an unseasonable time of the year for a long
march and a siege. The king of Babylon came in person at first; but having begun the
siege, and given proper orders to his generals for the carrying of it on, and supposing it
would be a long one, retired to Riblah in Syria, either for pleasure or for business. The
time of beginning the siege exactly agrees with the account in 2Ki_25:1; only there it is
1

2. more particular, expressing the day of the month, which was the tenth of it; and so in
Jer_52:4. The reason of inserting the account of the siege and taking of the city, in this
place, is both to show the exact accomplishment of Jeremiah's prophecies about it, and
to lead on to some facts and predictions that followed it.
HENRY 1-2, "We were told, in the close of the foregoing chapter, that Jeremiah
abode patiently in the court of the prison, until the day that Jerusalem was taken. He
gave the princ es no further disturbance by his prophesying, nor they him by their
persecutions; for he had no more to say than what he had said, and, the siege being
carried on briskly, God found them other work to do. See here what it came to.
I. The city is at length taken by storm; for how could it hold out when God himself
fought against it? Nebuchadnezzar's army sat down before it in the ninth year of
Zedekiah, in the tenth month (Jer_39:1), in the depth of winter. Nebuchadnezzar
himself soon after retired to take his pleasure, and left his generals to carry on the siege:
they intermitted it awhile, but soon renewed it with redoubled force and vigour. At
length, in the eleventh year, in the fourth month, about midsummer, they entered the
city, the soldiers being so weakened by famine, and all their provisions being now spent,
that they were not able to make any resistance, Jer_39:2. Jerusalem was so strong a
place that nobody would have believed the enemy could ever enter its gates, Lam_4:12.
But sin had provoked God to withdraw his protection, and then, like Samson when his
hair was cut, it was weak as other cities.
JAMISON, "Jer_39:1-18. Jerusalem taken. Zedekiah’s fate. Jeremiah cared for.
Ebed-melech assured.
This chapter consists of two parts: the first describes the capture of Jerusalem, the
removal of the people to Babylon, and the fate of Zedekiah, and that of Jeremiah. The
second tells of the assurance of safety to Ebed-melech.
ninth year ... tenth month — and on the tenth day of it (Jer_52:4; 2Ki_25:1-4).
From Jer_39:2, “eleventh year ... fourth month ... ninth day,” we know the siege lasted
one and a half years, excepting the suspension of it caused by Pharaoh. Nebuchadnezzar
was present in the beginning of the siege, but was at Riblah at its close (Jer_39:3, Jer_
39:6; compare Jer_38:17).
K&D, "In Jer_39:1-14 the events which took place at the taking of Jerusalem are
summarily related, for the purpose of showing how the announcements of Jeremiah the
prophet have been fulfilled.
(Note: The greater portion of the section Jer_39:1-14 is set down by Movers,
Hitzig, Ewald, and Graf as the interpolation of a later glosser, compiled either out of
Jer_52:4-16, or from 2 Kings 25. Jer_39:3, Jer_39:11, Jer_39:12, and Jer_39:14 are
supposed by Hitzig to be all that are genuine, on the ground that these are the only
portions containing independent statements, not derived from any other source.
They treat simply of the person of the prophet, and state how, at the command of
Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, the captain of the body-guard, brought Jeremiah
out of the court of the prison and delivered him over to the care of Gedaliah. If we
gather together the verses that are left as genuine, we find, of course, that the subject
treated of in them is what occurred when Jeremiah was liberated from his
2

3. confinement in the court of the prison. But neither is the difference between Jer_
39:14 and Jer_40:1. thereby settled, nor the difficulty removed, that Nebuzaradan,
the captain of the body-guard, was not present with the army when Jerusalem was
taken; according to Jer_52:12, it was not till a month after that event that he was
sent to Jerusalem from Riblah by the king, who was staying there. Jer_39:11 and
Jer_39:12, too, retain the appearance of being interpolations. Ewald and Graf,
accordingly, consider these two verses also as later insertions. But even this view
does not settle the differences and difficulties that have been raised, but only
increases them; for it would represent Jeremiah as being set at liberty, not by
Nebuzaradan, as is related Jer_40:1., but by the Chaldean generals named in Jer_
39:3. - When, however, we inquire into the grounds taken as the foundation of this
hypothesis, the fact that the lxx have omitted Jer_39:4, Jer_39:10, and Jer_39:13
can prove nothing, since Jer_39:1 and Jer_39:2 are found in the lxx, although these
also are supposed to be spurious. The only argument adduced for the attempted
excision, viz., that Jer_39:1, Jer_39:2, Jer_39:4-10 break the connection, proves
absolutely nothing in itself, but merely receives importance on the supposition that
the present section could only treat of the liberation of Jeremiah, and must contain
nothing that is mentioned elsewhere regarding the taking of Jerusalem. But this
supposition is quite unwarranted. That Jer_39:1 and Jer_39:2 are inserted
parenthetically cannot afford any ground of suspicion as regards their genuineness;
and that, in Jer_39:4-10, mention is briefly made of Zedekiah's being seized and
condemned, of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the carrying away of the people,
except the very meanest, - this also cannot throw suspicion on the genuineness of
these verses; fore these statements obviously aim at showing how the word of the
Lord, which Jeremiah had proclaimed repeatedly, and once more a short time before
the storming of the city, had been fulfilled. Finally, it follows from this that these
statements agree with those given in Jer 52 and in 2 Kings regarding the capture and
destruction of Jerusalem; but it does not follow that they have been derived from the
latter as their source. The language in the disputed verses is peculiarly that of
Jeremiah. The expression ‫י‬ ֵ‫ֹר‬‫ח‬‫ל־‬ָ‫כּ‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫הוּד‬ְ‫י‬ is found in Jer_27:20; while in Jer_52:10,
instead of it, we find ‫י‬ ֵ‫ר‬ָ‫ל־שׂ‬ָ‫,כּ‬ and in 2 Kings the whole sentence is wanting. So, also,
‫ר‬ ֶ‫בּ‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ט‬ָ‫פּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ Jer_39:5 and Jer_52:9, is an expression peculiar to Jeremiah (see on
Jer_1:16); in 2Ki_25:6 it is changed to ‫ר‬ ֶ‫בּ‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ‫ט‬ָ‫פּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫.מ‬ Thus we must set down as
groundless and erroneous the allegation made by Hitzig and Graf, that these verses
of our chapter have been derived from 2 Kings; for the form of the name
Nebuchadnezzar (with n) in Jer_39:5 instead of Nebuchadrezzar, which agrees with
2 Kings, and which has been brought to bear on this question, can prove nothing,
just because not only in Jer_39:11 but also in Jer_39:1 (which also is said to be taken
from 2 Kings) we find Nebuchadrezzar.)
Jer_39:1-3
"And it came to pass, when Jerusalem had been taken (in the ninth year of Zedekiah
the king of Judah, in the tenth month, Nebuchadrezzar and all his army had come
against Jerusalem and besieged it; in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth
month, on the ninth of the month, was the city broken into), then came all the princes of
the king of Babylon and sat down at the middle gate, - Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo,
Sarsechim, chief chamberlain, Nergal-sharezer, chief magician, and all the rest of the
princes of the king of Babylon." These three verses, to which the last clause of Jer_38:28
belongs, form one period, broken up by a pretty long piece inserted in it, on the
3

4. beginning and duration of the siege of Jerusalem; so that, after the introductory clause
‫ָה‬‫י‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫ו‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ַ‫(כּ‬ = ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬ as in Jer_37:11), Jer_38:28, the conclusion does not come till the
word ‫אוּ‬ֹ‫ב‬ָ‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬, Jer_39:3. In the parenthesis, the length of the siege, as stated, substantially
agrees with Jer_52:4-7 and 2Ki_25:1-4, only that in these passages the time when the
siege began is further determined by the mention of the day of the month, ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫ֹד‬‫ח‬ַ‫ל‬ be
‫ר‬ ‫שׂ‬ָ‫ע‬ ֶ‫,בּ‬ which words are omitted here. The siege, then, lasted eighteen months, all but
one day. After the besiegers had penetrated into the city through the breaches made in
the wall, the princes, i.e., the chief generals, took up their position at "the gate of the
midst." ‫בוּ‬ ְ‫ֽשׁ‬ֵ‫,י‬ "they sat down," i.e., took up a position, fixed their quarters. "The gate of
the midst," which is mentioned only in this passage, is supposed, and perhaps rightly, to
have been a gate in the wall which divided the city of Zion from the lower city; from this
point, the two portions of the city, the upper and the lower city, could most easily be
commanded.
With regard to the names of the Babylonian princes, it is remarkable (1) that the name
Nergal-sharezer occurs twice, the first time without any designation, the second time
with the official title of chief magician; (2) that the name Samgar-nebo has the name of
God (Nebo or Nebu) in the second half, whereas in all other compounds of this kind that
are known to us, Nebu forms the first portion of the name, as in Nebuchadnezzar,
Nebuzaradan, Nebushasban (Jer_39:13), Naboned, Nabonassar, Nabopolassar, etc.; (3)
from this name, too, is omitted the title of office, while we find one with the following
name. Moreover (4) in Jer_39:13, where the Babylonian grandees are again spoken of,
instead of the four names, only three are given, but every one of them with a title of
office; and only the third of these, Nergal-sharezer, the chief magician, is identical with
the one who is named last in Jer_39:3; while Nebushasban is mentioned instead of the
Sarsechim of Jer_39:3 as ‫יס‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ב־ס‬ ַ‫,ר‬ chief of the eunuchs (high chamberlain); and in
place of Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo, we find Nebuzaradan as the commander of the
body-guards (‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ח‬ ָ‫בּ‬ ַ‫.)ט‬ On these four grounds, Hitzig infers that Jer_39:3, in the
passage before us, has been corrupted, and that it contained originally only the names of
three persons, with their official titles. Moreover, he supposes that ‫ַר‬‫גּ‬ ְ‫מ‬ ַ‫ס‬ is formed from
the Persian jâm and the derivation-syllable kr, Pers. war, and means "he who has or
holds the cup," the cup-bearer; thus corresponding to ‫ה‬ ֶ‫ק‬ָ‫שׁ‬ ‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ ot gnidnop, Rab-shakeh,
"chief cup-bearer," 2Ki_18:17; Isa_36:2. He also considers ‫ים‬ ִ‫כ‬ ְ‫ס‬ ְ‫ר‬ַ‫שׂ‬ a Hebraizing form of
‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ ‫יס‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫;ס‬ ‫סכה‬ or ‫ה‬ָ‫כ‬ָ‫,שׂ‬ "to cut," by transposition from ‫ה‬ָ‫צ‬ ָ‫,ח‬ Arab. chtṣy, from which
comes chatṣiyun, "a eunuch," = ‫י‬ ִ‫כ‬ ָ‫,ס‬ plur. ‫ים‬ ִ‫כ‬ ָ‫;ס‬ hence ‫ים‬ ִ‫כ‬ ְ‫ס‬ ְ‫ר‬ַ‫שׂ‬ = ‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ ‫יס‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫,ס‬ of which the
former has been a marginal gloss, afterwards received into the text. This complicated
combination, however, by which Hitzig certainly makes out two official titles, though he
retains no more than the divine name Nebu as that of Rabsaris, is founded upon two
very hazardous conjectures. Nor do these conjectures gain much support from the
renewal of the attempt, made about fifty years since by the late P. von Bohlen, to explain
from the Neo-Persian the names of persons and titles occurring in the Assyrian and Old-
Babylonian languages, an attempt which has long since been looked upon as
scientifically unwarranted. Strange as it may seem that the two persons first named are
not further specified by the addition of an official title, yet the supposition that the
persons named in Isa_36:3 are identical with those mentioned in Isa_36:13 is
erroneous, since it stands in contradiction with Jer_52:12, which even Hitzig recognises
4

5. as historically reliable. According to Jer_52:12, Nebuzaradan, who is the first mentioned
in Jer_39:13, was not present at the taking of Jerusalem, and did not reach the city till
four weeks afterwards; he was ordered by Nebuchadnezzar to superintend arrangements
for the destruction of Jerusalem, and also to make arrangements for the transportation
of the captives to Babylon, and for the administration of the country now being laid
waste. But in Jer_39:3 are named the generals who, when the city had bee taken by
storm, took up their position within it. - Nor do the other difficulties, mentioned above,
compel us to make such harsh conjectures. If Nergal-sharezer be the name of a person,
compounded of two words, the divine name, Nergal (2Ki_17:30), and Sharezer,
probably dominator tuebitur (see Delitzsch on Isa_37:38), then Samgar-Nebu-
Sarsechim may possibly be a proper name compounded of three words. So long as we
are unable with certainty to explain the words ‫ַר‬‫גּ‬ ְ‫מ‬ ַ‫ס‬ and ‫ים‬ ִ‫כ‬ ְ‫ס‬ ְ‫ר‬ַ‫שׂ‬ out of the Assyrian, we
can form no decisive judgment regarding them. But not even does the hypothesis of
Hitzig account for the occurrence twice over of the name Nergal-sharezer. The Nergal-
sharezer mentioned in the first passage was, no doubt, the commander-in-chief of the
besieging army; but it could hardly be maintained, with anything like convincing power,
that this officer could not bear the same name as that of the chief magician. And if it be
conceded that there are really errors in the strange words ‫בוּ‬ְ‫ַר־נ‬‫גּ‬ ְ‫מ‬ ַ‫ס‬ and ‫ים‬ ִ‫כ‬ ְ‫ס‬ ְ‫ר‬ַ‫,שׂ‬ we are
as yet without the necessary means of correcting them, and obtaining the proper text.
CALVIN, "Jeremiah seems here indeed to undertake the office of an historian
rather than that of a Prophet; but he seals his previous prophecies, and at the same
time shews that he had brought forward nothing rashly or thoughtlessly. There is,
then, here a proof of all his former doctrine; he brings before us the reality, and
shews that whatever he had predicted was accomplished by God’s hand, and in a
manner almost incredible. We now understand what this chapter contains.
he says that King Nebuchadnezzar came, though he soon departed from the siege,
for, as we shall presently see, he went to Riblah, which, as some think, was the
Antioch of Syria; but of this we shall speak in its proper place. When, therefore, the
king came with his army, he soon departed, and his purpose was to live at leisure,
and in the enjoyment of pleasures as long as the city was besieged, he was not
disposed to undertake the trouble and weariness of a long warfare; but yet, in order
to spread more terror, he came himself to the City and gave instructions to his army.
We must notice the time: he came in the ninth year, in the tenth month, that is about
the end of the year. Zedekiah, no doubt, entertained a good hope, though reports
were flying as to the coming of the Chaldean army; for the king had not so soon
prepared for the war as he ought to have done. he thought that his revolt from the
king of Babylon would be passed by unpunished. But the Prophet here reminds us
that it was a false confidence; for though God spared him for a time and suspended
his judgment, he yet at length punished the impiety of his revolt, to which was also
added ingratitude, as it has been before stated. Thus much as to the ninth year and
the tenth month
COFFMAN, "Then he says, that he would be safe, because the Lord would deliver
5

6. him in that day And, again, he confirms the same thing, For delivering I will deliver
thee, and thou shalt not fall by the sword The Prophet again calls the attention of
Ebedmelech to God himself; for we know how all things are in a confusion when
cities are taken by storm. Except then Ebedmelech had his mind fixed on God, he
could never have retained any hope of deliverance. Hence the Prophet assures him
again, that God would be his deliverer. And he adds, Thy soul shall be for a prey
This mode of expression has been elsewhere explained. The comparison is taken
from those who deem that a great gain which is yet but small, if they get it beyond
their expectation, as when a man finds a prey which he had by no means hoped for:
he becomes suddenly rich, or increased in his goods; and though the gain may not
be great, he yet greatly rejoices. So they who escape alive from present death, have
no small reason to be joyful, because their life has been preserved. In the meantime
God alludes to those who regard it enough to escape from death, though they may
be deprived of all other things. As those who, in shipwreck, cast forth their mer-
chandize, and their money, and all they have, deem it enough if they can reach the
harbor, and they prefer to beg their bread all their life rather than to sink in the
midst of the sea, so he who escapes with his life; though poverty is bitter, yet the
horror of death is so great, that he deems his life a great, gain, though stripped of all
that he had.
The reason follows, because he trusted in God. Another reason might have been
assigned, even because he had not been wanting in his kindness to a holy man, but
had extended his hand to him in his extreme misery; but as that office of humanity
proceeded from faith and piety, God does here express the chief cause. As then the
mercy which Ebedmelech exercised towards the Prophet was an evidence of his
piety and faith, here is found the fruit in its own tree, or in its root: and certain it is,
that Ebedmelech would have never been so humane towards the Prophet, had he not
relied on God and his aid; for unbelief is always timid. There is then no doubt but
that the vigor which appeared in Ebedmelech, when he regarded his life in bringing
aid to the Prophet, made manifest that faith which is now commended: because then
thou hast trusted in me, therefore delivering I will deliver thee, says God. There is
now then no doubt but that Ebedmelech had some of the elements of faith and piety.
If then God has allowed us to make farther progress, we may feel the more assured
that he will be our deliverer; for his grace and his power will ever exceed our faith,
how much so ever it may be. Now follows —
COKE, "Introduction
Jerusalem is taken. Zedekiah is made blind, and sent to Babylon. The city ruined.
The people made captive. Nebuchadrezzar's charge for the good usage of Jeremiah.
God's promise to Ebed-melech.
Before Christ 588.
THIS chapter begins with an account of the taking of Jerusalem, and relates the
flight of Zedekiah, and the particulars of his punishment, after that he was taken
6

7. and brought before the king of Babylon; and also the burning of the city, and
removal of the people, a few of the poorest only excepted, to Babylon, Jeremiah
5:1-10. Jeremiah is released, and kindly treated in consequence of a special charge
from Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah 5:11-14.
ELLICOTT, "(1) In the ninth year of Zedekiah . . .—The great crisis came at last,
as Jeremiah had long ago predicted. A fuller narrative of the siege and capture is
given in Jeremiah 52. The two verses which open the chapter seem to have been
inserted here by the editor of the prophecies in their present form, as explaining the
fact with which Jeremiah 38 had closed. The siege had lasted eighteen months,
beginning in B.C. 590 and ending B.C. 588. It came to an end, as we learn from
Jeremiah 52:6, through the pressure of the famine, of which we have seen traces in
Jeremiah 37:21.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 39:1 In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth
month, came Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and all his army against Jerusalem,
and they besieged it.
Ver. 1. In the ninth year of Zedekiah.] See on 2 Kings 25:1.
Came Nebuchadnezzar.] He came to the siege in person, but soon after retired
himself to Riblah, i.e., to Antioch in Syria, there to take his pleasure, and therehence
to send supplies to his forces as need required.
MACLAREN, "THE LAST AGONY
Jeremiah 39:1 - Jeremiah 39:10.
Two characteristics of this account of the fall of Jerusalem are striking,-its minute
particularity, giving step by step the details of the tragedy, and its entire
suppression of emotion. The passionless record tells the tale without a tear or a sob.
For these we must go to the Book of Lamentations. This is the history of God’s
judgment, and here emotion would be misplaced. But there is a world of repressed
feeling in the long-drawn narrative, as well as in the fact that three versions of the
story are given here [Jeremiah 52:1 - Jeremiah 52:34, 2 Kings 25:1 - 2 Kings 25:30].
Sorrow curbed by submission, and steadily gazing on God’s judicial act, is the
temper of the narrative. It should be the temper of all sufferers. ‘I was dumb, I
opened not my mouth; because thou didst it.’ But we may note the three stages in
the final agony which this section distinguishes.
I. There is the entrance of the enemy. Jerusalem fell not by assault, but by famine.
The siege lasted eighteen months, and ended when ‘all the bread in the city was
spent.’ The pitiful pictures in Lamentations fill in the details of misery, telling how
high-born women picked garbage from dung-heaps, and mothers made a ghastly
meal of their infants, while the nobles were wasted to skeletons, and the little
children piteously cried for bread. At length a breach was made in the northern wall
7

8. {as Josephus tells us, ‘at midnight’}, and through it, on the ninth day of the fourth
month {corresponding to July}, swarmed the conquerors, unresisted. The
commanders of the Babylonians planted themselves at ‘the middle gate,’ probably a
gate in the wall between the upper and lower city, so securing for them the control
of both.
How many of these fierce soldiers are named in Jeremiah 39:3? At first sight there
seem to be six, but that number must be reduced by at least two, for Rab-saris and
Rab-mag are official titles, and designate the offices {chief eunuch and chief
magician} of the two persons whose names they respectively follow. Possibly
Samgar-Nebo is also to be deducted, for it has been suggested that, as that name
stands, it is anomalous, and it has been proposed to render its first element, Samgar,
as meaning cup-bearer, and being the official title attached to the name preceding it;
while its second part, Nebo, is regarded as the first element in a new name obtained
by reading shashban instead of Sarsechim, and attaching that reading to Nebo. This
change would bring Jeremiah 39:3 into accord with Jeremiah 39:13, for in both
places we should then have Nebo-shashban designated as chief of the eunuchs.
However the number of the commanders is settled, and whatever their names, the
point which the historian emphasises is their presence there. Had it come to this,
that men whose very names were invocations of false gods {‘Nergal protect the
king,’ ‘Nebo delivers me’ if we read ‘Nebo-shashban,’ or ‘Be gracious, Nebo,’ if
Samgar-nebo} should sit close by the temple, and have their talons fixed in the Holy
City?
These intruders were all unconscious of the meaning of their victory, and the
tragedy of their presence there. They thought that they were Nebuchadnezzar’s
servants, and had captured for him, at last, an obstinate little city, which had given
more trouble than it was worth. Its conquest was but a drop in the bucket of his
victories. How little they knew that they were serving that Jehovah whom they
thought that Nebo had conquered in their persons! How little they knew that they
were the instruments of the most solemn act of judgment in the world’s history till
then!
The causes which led to the fall of Jerusalem could be reasonably set forth as purely
political without a single reference to Israel’s sins or God’s judgment; but none the
less was its capture the divine punishment of its departure from Him, and none the
less were Nergal-sharezer and his fellows God’s tools, the axes with which He hewed
down the barren tree. So does He work still, in national and individual history. You
may, in a fashion, account for both without bringing Him in at all; but your
philosophy of either will be partial, unless you recognise that ‘the history of the
world is the judgment of the world.’ It was the same hand which set these harsh
conquerors at the middle gate of Jerusalem that sent the German armies to encamp
in the Place de la Concorde in Paris; and in neither case does the recognition of God
in the crash of a falling throne absolve the victors from the responsibility of their
deeds.
8

9. II. We have the flight and fate of Zedekiah and his evil advisers [Jeremiah 39:4 -
Jeremiah 39:7]. His weakness of character shows itself to the end. Why was there no
resistance? It would have better beseemed him to have died on his palace threshold
than to have skulked away in the dark between the shelter of the ‘two walls.’ But he
was a poor weakling, and the curse of God sat heavy on his soul, though he had
tried to put it away. Conscience made a coward of him; for he, at all events, knew
who had set the strangers by the middle gate. Men who harden heart and conscience
against threatened judgments are very apt to collapse, when the threats are fulfilled.
The frost breaks up with a rapid thaw.
Ezekiel [Ezekiel 12:12] prophesied the very details of the flight. It was to be ‘in the
dark,’ the king himself was to ‘carry’ some of his valuables, they were to ‘dig
through’ the earthen ramparts; and all appears to have been literally fulfilled. The
flight was taken in the opposite direction from the entrance of the besiegers; two
walls, which probably ran down the valley between Zion and the temple mount,
afforded cover to the fugitives as far as to the south city wall, and there some
postern let them out to the king’s garden. That is a tragic touch. It was no time then
to gather flowers. The forlorn and frightened company seems to have scattered
when once outside the city; for there is a marked contrast in Jeremiah 39:4 between
‘they fled’ and ‘he went.’ In the description of his flight Zedekiah is still called, as in
Jeremiah 39:1 - Jeremiah 39:2, the king; but after his capture he is only ‘Zedekiah.’
Down the rocky valley of the Kedron he hurried, and had a long enough start of his
pursuers to get to Jericho. Another hour would have seen him safe across Jordan,
but the prospect of escape was only dangled before his eyes to make capture more
bitter. Probably he was too much absorbed with his misery and fear to feel any
additional humiliation from the mighty memories of the scene of his capture; but
how solemnly fitting it was that the place which had seen Israel’s first triumph,
when ‘by faith the walls of Jericho fell down,’ should witness the lowest shame of the
king who had cast away his kingdom by unbelief! The conquering dead might have
gathered in shadowy shapes to reproach the weakling and sluggard who had sinned
away the heritage which they had won. The scene of the capture underscores the
lesson of the capture itself; namely, the victorious power of faith, and the defeat and
shame which, in the long-run, are the fruits of an ‘evil heart of unbelief, departing
from the living God.’
That would be a sad march through all the length of the fair land that had slipped
from his slack fingers, up to far-off Riblah, in the great valley between the Lebanon
and the anti-Lebanon. Observe how, in Jeremiah 39:5 - Jeremiah 39:6, the king of
Babylon has his royal title, and Zedekiah has not. The crown has fallen from his
head, and there is no more a king in Judah. He who had been king now stands
chained before the cruel conqueror. Well might the victor think that Nebo had
overcome Jehovah, but better did the vanquished know that Jehovah had kept his
word.
Cruelty and expediency dictated the savage massacre and mutilation which
9

10. followed. The death of Zedekiah’s sons, and of the nobles who had scoffed at
Jeremiah’s warnings, and the blinding of Zedekiah, were all measures of precaution
as well as of savagery. They diminished the danger of revolt; and a blind, childless
prisoner, without counsellors or friends, was harmless. But to make the sight of his
slaughtered sons the poor wretch’s last sight, was a refinement of gratuitous delight
in torturing. Thus singularly was Ezekiel’s enigma solved and harmonised with its
apparent contradictions in Jeremiah’s prophecies: ‘Yet shall he not see it, though he
shall die there’ [Ezekiel 12:13].
Zedekiah is one more instance of the evil which may come from a weak character,
and of the evil which may fall on it. He had good impulses, but he could not hold his
own against the bad men round him, and so he stumbled on, not without misgivings,
which only needed to be attended to with resolute determination, in order to have
reversed his conduct and fate. Feeble hands can pull down venerable structures
built in happier times. It takes a David and a Solomon to rear a temple, but a
Zedekiah can overthrow it.
III. We have the completion of the conquest [Jeremiah 39:8 - Jeremiah 39:10]. The
first care of the victors was, of course, to secure themselves, and fires and crowbars
were the readiest way to that end. But the wail in the last chapter of Lamentations
hints at the usual atrocities of the sack of a city, when brutal lust and as brutal
ferocity are let loose. Jeremiah 52:1 - Jeremiah 52:34 shows that the final step in our
narrative was separated from the capture of the city by a month, which was, no
doubt, a month of nameless agonies, horrors, and shame. Then the last drop was
added to the bitter cup, in the deportation of the bulk of the inhabitants, according
to the politic custom of these old military monarchies. What rending of ties, what
weariness and years of long-drawn-out yearning, that meant, can easily be
imagined. The residue left behind to keep the country from relapsing into waste
land was too weak to be dangerous, and too cowed to dare anything. One knows not
who had the sadder lot, the exiles, or the handful of peasants left to till the fields
that had once been their own, and to lament their brethren gone captives to the far-
off land.
Surely the fall of Jerusalem, though all the agony is calmed ages ago, still remains as
a solemn beacon-warning that the wages of sin is death, both for nations and
individuals; that the threatenings of God’s Word are not idle, but will be
accomplished to the utmost tittle; and that His patience stretches from generation to
generation, and His judgments tarry because He is not willing that any should
perish, but that for all the long-suffering there comes a time when even divine love
sees that it is needful to say ‘Now!? and the bolt falls. The solemn word addressed to
Israel has application as real to all Christian churches and individual souls: ‘You
only have I known of all the inhabitants of the earth; therefore I will punish you for
your iniquities.’
BI 1-10, "In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, came
10

11. Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon.
The downfall of Judah
The siege and sacking of Jerusalem under Nebuchadrezzar is the most tragic story in
history. The second destruction of the city under Titus, the Roman general, was
analogous, but did not equal the first in horror of detail. The siege was more prolonged
under the king of Babylon, the resistance by the Jews more desperate, and the
determination with which the people held out more stubborn, preferring starvation to
surrender. During those eighteen months the city presented an awful spectacle;
delicately reared princesses were seen clawing over dung-heaps and street refuse to find
a morsel of food; the once snow-clad Nazarites walked the streets in filthy garments; the
fairest and best-looking of the people were reduced to the merest skeletons; desperation
of hunger forced fond mothers to boil and eat their own children. The horrors depicted
even in outline by the sacred writers almost beggar the imagination. The king of Judah
was the vassal of the king of Babylon, but being deceived by false prophets he rebelled
against his foreign sovereign, and sought, through an alliance with the king of Egypt, to
throw off the Chaldean yoke. Hearing of this attempt at rebellion, the Chaldeans had
sent a strong detachment of their army to reduce Zedekiah to obedience, when an
Egyptian army making its appearance forced them to raise the siege. Subsequently the
Egyptian army was defeated, and then, with his entire army, Nebuchadrezzar came up
and besieged Jerusalem for eighteen months, and took it. Jeremiah had persistently
warned the king that it was folly to contend with Babylon, for the Lord had determined
upon their captivity. So the king and the princes not only rebelled against the king of
Babylon, but set themselves in defiance against God Himself.
I. Jerusalem taken and sacked. The prophet does not dwell on the details of the siege, as
it was no part of his plan to detail the military processes by which the holy city was at
last put into the hands of the Chaldeans. His purpose was simply to record the fact, and
thus mark the fulfilment of God’s word. After eighteen months, in which the city had
been completely invested, a breach in the walls was effected, and the Babylonian army
was in full possession. The princes of the Chaldean king entered the city and took up
their headquarters in the middle gate. This was probably the gate through an inner wall
within the city which surrounded the citadel. At any rate, the presence of these
Babylonian princes in that place showed that the city was entirely in their hands. For
further details, compare 2Ki_25:1-30. with our present text, and Jer_52:1-34. These
three accounts are substantially the same. For details of the horrors and sufferings of the
inhabitants of Jerusalem during the siege, compare Lamentations (especially chap. 4.),
in which the heartbroken prophet pours forth his sorrow over the downfall of the city,
and especially over the woes which had come upon his people. See also Eze_4:5; Eze_
4:12; Eze_21:1-32., where minute prophecies of the downfall of the city are recorded.
After the subjugation of the city, and the flight, capture, judgment, and imprisonment of
the king, under the command of Nebuzar-adan, the captain of the guard, the Babylonian
soldiers burned the city, including the Temple, king’s palace, and all the houses of the
princes and chief men; the walls were razed; the whole city was turned into a waste and
ruinous heap (verse 8; 52:13, 14). Jeremiah laments the destruction of the glorious city
of God in these sad and pathetic words: “How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of
people; how is she become a widow, she that was great among the nations . . . She
weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks; among all her lovers she hath
none to comfort her; all her friends have dealt treacherously with her; they are become
her enemies . . . And from the daughter of Zion all her beauty is departed . . . How is the
11

12. gold become dim; how is the most fine gold changed; the stones of the sanctuary are
poured out in the top of every street. The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold,
how are they esteemed as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter” (Lam_
1:1-2; Lam_1:6; Lam_4:1-2). The great lesson to be deeply pondered from this awful
judgment upon Jerusalem is the certain retribution of God upon persistent sin. No
honest and thoughtful man can read these prophetic and historic records without being
profoundly impressed with the longsuffering mercy of God toward sinners, and the
certainty of retribution following upon unrepented and persistent sin. God’s judgment
may be slow in coming, but it is as sure as it is slow. How long He had borne with Judah
and Jerusalem before He began to pour out His fury upon them! Long God postpones
His judgment, when once it sets in, it goes on to the end, though the mills of God grind
slowly, yet they grind exceeding small. What a culmination of calamities at the last!
There is no stopping or turning them back. All the skill, the courage, and the endurance
which Jerusalem brought to bear in order to avert this awful judgment, availed nothing.
When the time for judgment comes it is too late for prayer and entreaty. When will men
learn this lesson? We have not to do with the judgment upon Judah and Jerusalem, but
with that which is coming upon all men who, like this apostate people, despise God’s
Word, and believe not His prophets. No amount of theory or argument will prevent the
doom of the persistent sinner. Men may say that death ends all; but the resurrection of
Jesus proves that it does not; men may say that God is too merciful to punish sinners
according to the declaration of the Scriptures; but is He? Let the story of the flood; the
overwhelming fate of Pharaoh; the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; the terrible
calamities that came upon Israel and Judah, be our answer. After God’s mercy has been
ruthlessly trampled under foot, then His righteous retribution comes, and proceeds to
the bitter end.
II. The flight and capture of the king. When the king saw the city in the possession of the
enemy, he hastily gathered his army and family, and by night fled from the city by a
secret way through his garden, and between two walls which concealed his movements
(verse 4, 52:7; 2Ki_25:4). His flight, however, was of no avail; for though he nearly
effected his escape, having reached the borders of the Jordan, his absence was
discovered, and the Chaldeans pursued after him; and, while his army was scattered
abroad, probably on a foraging expedition, the king and his family and the princes that
were with him were captured. Too late the king sought safety in flight. It was not to be.
God had decreed his capture, and no precaution could prevent it. Had he heeded the
warning of Jeremiah, who brought him the word of God, and surrendered to the king of
Babylon, his own life would have been spared, his children’s lives would have been
spared, his princes’ lives would have been spared, and the glorious City of God would
have been spared (Jer_28:17-17). The king was a weak man, and hesitated to do the
word of God because he was afraid of being taunted with cowardice by his nobles and the
people. How many men are cowards before their fellow-men, and yet bravo before God!
They fear the reproach of weak, feeble, and sinful men, but fear not the Word of God.
Surely the sorry flight of the wretched king from his ruined city, a fugitive from God and
the king of Babylon, was infinitely more humiliating than an honourable surrender to
Nebuchadrezzar. How many will seek salvation wildly when it is too late! Let it be
remembered again that, when once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut
the door, then flight or petition is of none avail. When once Jesus ceases to be the
Advocate of sinners, and becomes their Judge, then repentance is too late, and no man
may flee the judgment. What unutterable miseries are added to the main consequences
of our sins, when we think of what “might have been,” had we not been too late!
12

13. 1. Prophecy and its fulfilment. In connection with the flight, arrest, condemnation,
and punishment of the king, we have a most remarkable series of prophetic
fulfilments. Ezekiel, under the command of God, had before this final calamity, by
means of pantomime, as well as by clear and unmistakable words, depicted every
detail of the king’s flight, capture, and punishment. Read Eze_12:1-13. Thus have we
seen the king laden with his valuables, fleeing at night, digging through a wall to
escape the Chaldeans; we have seen God spreading His net, catching and delivering
him over, to be first blinded, then loaded with chains, carried to Babylon and thrust
into prison; there we have seen him die. How impossible to have understood
Ezekiel’s prophecy until it was fulfilled; how then does it appear to have been the
very letter of subsequent fact!
2. Arrested, condemned, and punished. The details are briefly but graphically told.
When the soldiers arrested the flying king, they brought him to the king of Babylon,
who
(1) “gave judgment upon him.” Zedekiah was, according to the law of nations, a
traitor to the king of Babylon, who had set him upon the throne of Judah as his
vassal, and against whom Zedekiah had rebelled. So while the Chaldean king was
carrying out God’s decree against Zedekiah for his persistent sin and equity, he
was also executing his own law upon him as a rebel. God’s providence ever fits in
with the ordinary workings of human history.
(2) The first part of the judgment was that the sons of the king should be
butchered before his eyes. What a horrible thing this was! Alas for that poor king!
He had brought this upon them. What may be the agonies of a sinful father who,
through precept and example, has encouraged his own sons to infidelity, and the
final loss of their souls! Then followed the slaughter of the nobles before his face;
this too was in part his doing; for, though the king s action in holding out against
the king of Babylon, contrary to the counsel and entreaty of Jeremiah, was due to
his fear of the nobles, yet as king it was his duty to have asserted his authority
and saved them and the city in spite of their mockeries of God’s word.
(3) Finally the king of Babylon ordered Zedekiah’s eyes to be put out, then
loaded him with chains, sent him to Babylon, and there cast him into prison,
until death released him into the other world. Let us hope that a gate of
repentance was opened for him before he passed thither. But what an awful
punishment for a king and a father! The last impression on his brain from this
world was the awful sight of his butchered sons and nobles. Who can tell the
horrors of his lonely confinement, shut up with these memories for ever haunting
his dark soul? Men choose the ways of sin in this life, counting them to be “good
things,” but they forget that in the hereafter the “evil things” which they
contemptuously denied will be their portion, soured with memory’s poisoned
sting.
III. The blessed poor. Only one ray of light penetrated the dark cloud of doom that hung
over and burst on Jerusalem. The city burned with fire, the Temple destroyed, her fair
stones scattered, the king and his family, the princes and nobles, and all the city’s
inhabitants carried away, slain, or held in a wretched captivity, which brought them
nought but sighs and tears; what exception was there in all this misery? Just this; and it
is not unsuggestive. The wretchedly and miserably poor were left behind; and more; for
the captain of the guard, acting for the king of Babylon, gave them fields and vineyards.
13

14. In the general judgment that overwhelmed Jerusalem, the sparing of these poor people
and the gift to them of fields and vineyards suggest to us the blessings that are in reserve
for those on earth who, though “poor in this world, are rich in faith, and heirs of the
kingdom which He has promised to them that love Him” (Jas_2:5). It also suggests the
beatitude of Jesus: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Mat_5:3; Mat_5:5). God will not
forget such. Here is seen God’s reversal. The rich and great of Jerusalem, who had grown
so by grinding oppression of the poor, are carried away captive, slain with the sword and
cast into prison, while those whom they oppressed are now inheriting their lands and
vineyards (Isa_57:15; Isa_66:2). Till the captivity the poor were only a portion of the
people, but now they were the whole. This event, therefore, would seem to indicate that
the poor, meek, and contrite in spirit are the whole sum of those who shall constitute the
people of God in the day of judgment. (G. F. Pentecost, D. D.)
He put out Zedekiah’s eyes.
Non-acceptance of chastisement
We sometimes act as though we thought that dispensations of light and joy were made to
draw us to God; those of darkness and sorrow the reverse; but that is our mistake; our
thought must be “God in all.” And here God makes the announcement of the
chastisement in a manner worthy of Himself—in the midst of judgment He remembers
mercy. He commissions Jeremiah to promise circumstances of alleviation and gracious
dealing; even though the trouble remain. The trouble and its alleviations were to exist
side by side. But now, what are the speakings of this “moreover” to us?
1. It says to us, Reject not bounded chastisement or trial, for you know not how wide
God may remove those bounds, when it comes upon you as something rejected by
you, but inflicted, whether you will or no, by Him.
2. It says, Be sure that God will carry His own way. Look upon all resistance of His
will as madness, as full of mischief for yourself.
3. If we reject what God thus ordains, we may rest assured that we are laying up for
ourselves a long period of sad thought, peopled with sad memories.
4. Though the chastisement or the trial God announces be heavy, still let us be
assured that it is the lightest possible under the circumstances.
5. Let us believe that God has terrible reserves of chastening dealings. We think that
each trial, as it comes, is the worst that can be; sometimes a man in folly and
desperation feels as though God could do no more to him; but the reserves of the
Lord in this way, as in blessing, are illimitable—take care, “lest a worse thing come
upon thee.”
6. We may, and must leave it to God to take care of us, when leading us into either
discipline or chastisement.
7. Instead of fretting and troubling ourselves unduly, and setting our minds upon
finding out fresh and fresh elements in our trial, let us count up some of the
“moreovers” of what might have come upon us; some of the “moreovers” of the
mercies which are bestowed.
14

15. 8. Let us be careful to keep ourselves well within the line of God’s action with us, and
not to subject ourselves to man’s. It is not God’s purpose to make a full end of us; He
means to deal wisely and admeasuredly with us; He means us to taste that He is
gracious; to have reason to believe that He is so. (P. B. Power, M. A.)
2 And on the ninth day of the fourth month of
Zedekiah’s eleventh year, the city wall was broken
through.
CLARKE, "The eleventh year - in the fourth month - This month in the
Hebrew calendar is called Thammuz, and commences with the first new moon of our
July. The siege had lasted just eighteen months.
The city was broken up - A breach was made in the wall by which the Chaldeans
entered.
GILL, "And in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month,.... The
month Tammuz, which answers to part of June, and part of July:
the ninth day of the month, the city was broken up; or taken by storm; the walls
of it were broken by engines and battering rams, so that the Chaldeans could enter it,
and take it. This was just a year and a half after it had been besieged, not being able to
hold out any longer, because of the famine; see Jer_52:6.
CALVIN, "It then follows, In the eleventh year, in the fourth month, the city was
broken up We hence see that the city was besieged for a year and half; for there was
the whole of the tenth year, and then added must be two months of the ninth year
and four months of the eleventh year; and thus a year and half was the whole time.
Here also we must remember how much the Jews must have suffered; for were a
city at this day to bear a siege for a few months, it would appear a rare instance of
valor; but Jerusalem was besieged for a year and half. Let us now consider what
number of people must have been there, and we have seen that the Prophet
threatened them with famine. And how much scarcity there was in the city, the
Prophet has not only testified elsewhere, but in the book of Lamentations he has
shewed most fully. (Lamentations 4:10.) And there was not only famine, but it was
followed by pestilence. We hence learn how ferocious must have been the character
of the king, that he could see miserable men perishing by scores, and yet persist in
his obstinacy. Nor is there a doubt but that the people were also on their part
15

16. obstinate, and became at length stupefied through their sufferings; for there was
hardly one, from the least to the greatest, who did not despise what the Prophet
taught; and thus they were all blinded by madness and stupidity.
It ought to be noticed that they bore a siege for a year and six months, and that they
were not even then persuaded to surrender themselves, until the city was broken up,
that is, until the walls were beaten down by battering-rams and other warlike
engines; for the city was broken when the wall, beaten by the engines, fell down. In
short, the city was gained by storm; this is what is meant, and will hereafter be more
fully expressed. But I cannot proceed further now.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 39:2 [And] in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth
month, the ninth [day] of the month, the city was broken up.
Ver. 2. And in the eleventh year.] See on 2 Kings 25:2. The sacking of Jerusalem
occured four hundred and nineteen years after the building of the temple, (1004 to
588 BC) in the forty-seventh Olympiad, and when Tarquinius Priseus was king of
Rome.
The city was broken up.] See on 2 Kings 25:4.
3 Then all the officials of the king of Babylon
came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-
Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief
officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the
other officials of the king of Babylon.
BARNES, "These princes were four:
(1) Nergal, Sharezer, i. e., Nirgal-sar-usur (May Nergal protect the king);
(2) Samgar-Nebo (Be gracious, O Nebo);
(3) Sarsechim. No explanation is given at present of this name. He was Rab-saris, i. e.,
chief of the eunuchs (2Ki_18:17 note).
(4) another Nergal-sharezer, who was Rab-mag, i. e., chief of the Magians. He is
known in history as Neriglissar, the son-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar, and probably his
vicegerent during his seven years of madness. Two years after his death Neriglissar
murdered Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadnezzars son, and seized the crown, but after a reign
16

17. of four years was slain in battle against Cyrus, when disputing with him the crown of
Media. See Dan_5:1 note.
The middle gate - Probably that which separated the city of Zion from the lower
town.
CLARKE, "Sat in the middle gate - The city of Jerusalem stood upon two hills,
Sion to the south, and Acra to the north, with a deep valley between them. The gate of
the center, as the term seems plainly to import, was a gate of communication in the
middle of the valley, between the two parts of the city, sometimes called the higher and
the lower city. The Chaldeans entered the city on the north side by a breach in the walls,
and rushing forward and posting themselves in this gate, in the very heart or center of
the city, became thereby masters at will of the whole. Zedekiah with his troop, perceiving
this, fled out of the opposite gate on the south side. See Blayney. This is likely; but we
know nothing positively on this subject.
Nergal-sharezer - These were the principal commanders; but Dr. Blayney thinks
that instead of six persons, we have in reality but three, as the name that follows each is
a title of office. Thus, Nergal-sharezer, who was Samgar; Nebusarsechim, who was Rab-
saris; and Nergal-sharezer, who was Rab-mag. As Nergal-sharezer occurs twice here,
and we know that Nebuzaradan was general-in-chief, the first Nergal-sharezer is
probably a mistake for Nebuzar-adan, or some other of the commanders. But these
things are as uncertain as they are unimportant.
GILL, "And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in,.... Into the city: a
breach being made in the walls to take possession of it:
and sat in the middle gate; according to Jarchi, this was a gate of the temple; the
gate Nicanor, the eastern gate, which was between the gate of the court of the women
and the gate of the temple; who observes, that their Rabbins say, the middle gate was the
gate in which the wise men made their decrees and constitutions: so that, in "the place of
judgment, wickedness was there"; as in Ecc_3:16; and Josephus (g) says, that the city
was taken in the middle of the night, when the enemies' generals went into the temple;
but rather, according to Kimchi, it was one of the gates of the city of Jerusalem;
according to Abarbinel, Jerusalem had three walls, and this was the gate of the middle
wall; but others take it to be the gate in the middle wall, between the upper and lower
city; perhaps it is the same called the second gate, Zep_1:10; and might be the chief and
principal gate where these princes placed their seats in triumph as victors, and so
fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jer_1:15; though they might have another reason for
it, their own safety; here they sat till the city was well searched and cleared, lest there
should be any ambush laid for them, and cut them off as they entered. The names of
some of them were as follow:
even Nergalsharezer: according to Kimchi, these are two names of two distinct
persons; but generally thought to be one name of the same person; so Josephus, who
calls him Nergelearus. The first part of the name "Nergal" was the name of an idol with
the Cushites, 2Ki_17:30; and it was usual with the Heathens to give the names of their
idols to their kings, princes, and great men. The other part, "Sharezer", is a name of one
17

18. of Sennacherib's sons; and seems to be an Assyrian name, Isa_37:38. The next is called
Samgarnebo; though, according to Hillerus (h), this is a surname of the former, to
distinguish him from another Nergalsharezer after mentioned, taken from his office: this
name signifying the "strict keeper of Nebo", the temple of the idol Nebo; see Isa_46:1.
The next is
Sarsechim Rabsaris; for these are not two names of different persons, but of the
same person. The first is his proper name, which signifies the "prince of the Scythians";
the other his name of office, and signifies the "chief eunuch", or the "chief of the
eunuchs". The last name is
Nergalsharezer Rabmag; these names belong to the same person, who is called from
his office "Rabmag", the "chief magician", or the "chief of the magicians", to distinguish
him from the other Nergalsharezer before mentioned: these,
with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon, entered the city and
took it.
HENRY, "II. The princes of the king of Babylon take possession of the middle gate,
Jer_39:3. Some think that this was the same with that which is called the second gate
(Zep_1:10), which is supposed to be in the middle wall that divided between one part of
the city and the other. Here they cautiously made a half, and durst not go forward into so
large a city, among men that perhaps would sell their lives as dearly as they could, until
they had given directions for the searching of all places, that they might not be surprised
by any ambush. They sat in the middle gate, thence to take a view of the city and give
orders. The princes are here named, rough and uncouth names they are, to intimate
what a sad change sin had made; there, where Eliakim and Hilkiah, who bore the name
of the God of Israel, used to sit, now sit Nergal-sharezer, and Samgar-nebo, etc., who
bore the names of the heathen gods. Rab-saris and Rab-mag are supposed to be not the
names of distinct persons, but the titles of those whose names go before. Sarsechim was
Rab-saris, that is, captain of the guard; and Nergal-sharezer, to distinguish him from
the other of the same name that is put first, is called Ram-mag - camp-master, either
muster-master or quarter-master: these and the other great generals sat in the gate. And
now was fulfilled what Jeremiah prophesied long since (Jer_1:15), that the families of
the kingdoms of the north should set every one his throne at the entering of the gates of
Jerusalem. Justly do the princes of the heathen set up themselves there, where the gods
of the heathen had been so often set up.
JAMISON, "sat — expressing military occupation or encampment.
middle gate — the gate from the upper city (comprehending Mount Zion) to the
lower city (north of the former and much lower); it was into the latter (the north side)
that the Chaldeans forced an entry and took up their position opposite the gate of the
“middle” wall, between the lower and upper city. Zedekiah fled in the opposite, that is,
the south direction (Jer_39:4).
Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo — proper names formed from those of the idols,
Nergal and Nebo (2Ki_17:30; Isa_46:1).
Rab-saris — meaning “chief of the eunuchs.”
18

19. Rab-mag — chief of the magi; brought with the expedition in order that its issue
might be foreknown through his astrological skill. Mag is a Persian word, meaning
“great,” “powerful.” The magi were a sacerdotal caste among the Medes, and supported
the Zoroastrian religion.
CALVIN, "IT is proved here that the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled; so that it
became really evident that he had not spoken unadvisedly, but from the mouth of
God. And thus was fulfilled also what is said as a common proverb, that fools
become wise too late; for they never obey good and wise counsels while they may,
but at length they are made to know by their own miseries and their teacher,
experience, that what they despised is true, but without any benefit. This happened
to Zedekiah, who had been often exhorted by the Prophet to surrender himself to
King Nebuchadnezzar. As, then, he had obstinately refused the yoke, he was at
length constrained to reap the fruit of his obstinacy.
Now Jeremiah says, that the princes of King Nebuchadnezzar, that is, those he had
set over his forces, entered the city, the wall being broken down, and sat in the
middle gate; for it was necessary for them to be wary, lest there should be
ambushes; and even conquerors do not immediately penetrate into every part when
a city is taken, but search whether all the places be free from enemies. This then was
done by the leaders of the army, for they stood in the middle gate, that they might
exercise authority over the city, and yet be safe from all ambushes. Jeremiah
mentions some of them by name, but it is uncertain whether he adds a surname to
some of them. But as this is doubtful and is of no great moment, it is enough for us
that the chief of the leaders are named, in order to accredit the narrative.
COKE, "Jeremiah 39:3. The princes—came in, and sat in the middle gate— The
gate between the wall which encompassed the city, and that which inclosed the
temple. It was customary among the Chaldeans to give the names of their idols, as
an additional title or mark of honour to persons of distinction. We may render the
names thus: Nergal-Sharezer, keeper of the temple of Nebo; Sarsechim, prince of
the eunuchs; Nergal-Sharezer, prince of the Magi, &c.
ELLICOTT, " (3) In the middle gate.—The term indicates a position in the line of
walls between the citadel of Zion—the “upper city” of Josephus (Ant. v. 20. 2),
which as yet was not surrendered (Jeremiah 39:4)—and the lower city, in the walls
of which a breach had been effected. Here an open space, originally used as a forum,
or place of judgment, now gave the Chaldæan generals a central encampment, from
which they could command both quarters of the city, and by taking their place in
the heart of its life, formally assert their mastery. Each of the names that follow has
a meaning and history of its own.
Nergal-sharezer.—The first half of the name appears in 2 Kings 17:30 as that of a
Cuthite, or Assyrian deity, and means the “great hero.” It occurs frequently in the
inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser and Assur-banipal (e.g., Records of the Past, i. 77,
103). The whole name appears in Assyrian monuments as Nergal-shar-uzur. Two of
19

20. the generals mentioned here bore the same name, and each apparently was
distinguished by a special title.
Samgar–nebo.—Here the second half is the name of a Babylonian deity (Isaiah 46:1;
Jeremiah 48:1), possibly connected with the Hebrew Nabi (= prophet), and so
answering to the Egyptian Thoth and the Greek Hermes. The great temple at
Borsippa, known as Birs Nimroud, was dedicated to him (Records of the Past, vii.
77). The first half has been explained by some scholars as meaning “warrior,” by
others as “cupbearer,” and so equivalent to Rabshakeh (Isaiah 36:2), and as such is
attached to the foregoing name of Nergal-sharezer. As a rule, the name of Nebo
appears always in the beginning of compound words, as in Nebuchadnezzar,
Nebuzar-adan, &c.; and probably we should connect it here with the name that
follows.
Sarsechim, Rab-saris.—Probably, as indicated in the previous Note, the name
should stand as Nebo-sarsechim. The two names go together, the first as a proper
name, the second as a title, meaning “the chief eunuch.” In Jeremiah 39:13,
Nebushasban appears as bearing the same title. In 2 Kings 18:17 it appears simply
as a title, as in Rabshakeh we have “the chief cupbearer.”
Nergal-sharezer, Rab-mag.—Here also the second name is the title of office,
meaning probably “chief of the Magi,” or “chief of the priests.” The man thus
named, who appears on the Assyrian monuments as Nergal-shar-uzur Rubu-emga,
played a prominent part afterwards as murdering Evil-merodach, the son of
Nebuchadnezzar, whose sister he had married. He reigned for three or four years,
and appears in Berosus (Joseph. 100 Apion, i. 20) under the name of Neriglissar.
The older name is found on the bricks of a palace at Babylon, on the right bank of
the Euphrates (Smith’s Dict. of Bible. Art. Nergal-sharezer).
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 39:3 And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat
in the middle gate, [even] Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris,
Nergalsharezer, Rabmag, with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon.
Ver. 3. In the middle gate.] Called the second gate (Zephaniah 2:10; see Jeremiah
1:15). Jeremiah lived to see many of his prophecies fulfilled. Jerusalem was taken in
or about the fortieth year of his prophesying, as it was afterwards by the Romans, in
or about the fortieth year after our Saviour’s ministry started.
Even Nergalsharezer, Shamgarnebo.] Here we have a list of the Babylonian princes
who first broke into the city. Their names are harsh and barbarous (such as are now
to our ears the Turkish Bashaws, Beglerbegs, Sanzacks, &c.), but good enough for
such to hear as would not yield to the sweet name and counsel of a gracious God.
Those names that have Sar or Rab in them are deemed to be names of office; as
Sarezer, master of the treasures; Rabinag, master of the magicians, &c.
WHEDON, " 3. All the princes, etc. — As above intimated, (Jeremiah 38:17,) the
20

21. king of Babylon was absent at Riblah, and hence the attacking army was under the
command of these “princes.” As to their names, certain difficulties have been
pointed out by the expositors, such as: 1) One name is repeated. 2) Another has the
name of the god Nebo at the end, while all other known compounds of this name
place it at the beginning, as Nebuchadnezzar, etc. 3) From this name, too, is omitted
the title of office, though it is used with the following. 4) In Jeremiah 39:13 the
Babylonian grandees are again spoken of, but there are three and not four. For such
reasons as these, all of which are really very inconclusive, some have conjectured
that the text here is corrupt. But this harsh conjecture is totally unwarranted. Two
princes of a name are certainly by no means impossible, as history has abundantly
illustrated.
Middle gate — The conjecture is, that this was a gate in the wall which divided Zion
from the lower city.
From this point both divisions could be most easily commanded. FAITH OF
ZEDEKIAH AND Jeremiah , 4-14.
4 When Zedekiah king of Judah and all the
soldiers saw them, they fled; they left the city at
night by way of the king’s garden, through the
gate between the two walls, and headed toward
the Arabah.[a]
BARNES, "Compare the marginal reference. The differences between the two
accounts are slight.
CLARKE, "Went forth out of the city by night - Probably there was a private
passage under ground, leading without the walls, by which Zedekiah and his followers
might escape unperceived, till they had got some way from the city.
The way of the plain - There were two roads from Jerusalem to Jericho. One passed
over the mount of Olives; but, as this might have retarded his flight, he chose the way of
the plain, and was overtaken near Jericho, perhaps about sixteen or eighteen miles from
Jerusalem. He had probably intended to have passed the Jordan, in order to escape to
21

22. Egypt, as the Egyptians were then his professed allies.
GILL, "And it came to pass, that when Zedekiah the king of Judah saw
them, and all the men of war,.... That is, when Zedekiah and his soldiers saw the
princes and generals of the Chaldean army enter the city through a breach made in the
wall, and take possession of the middle gate; which they might see from some high tower
where they were for safety, and to make their observation of the enemy:
then they fled; finding they were not able to keep their posts and resist the enemy:
and went forth out of the city by night; it being the middle of the night, as before
observed out of Josephus, that the city was taken; and they took the advantage of the
darkness of the night to make their escape: this they chose rather to do than to surrender
to the Chaldeans, and lie at their mercy: and they went
by the way of the king's garden, by the gate betwixt the two walls; which lay
either between the wall of the city and the outworks, as some; or between the old wall
and the new one Hezekiah built, 2Ch_32:5; as others; or rather between the wall of the
city and the wall of the king's garden; this being a private way, they took it. The Jews
have a fable, and which is related both by Jarchi and Kimchi, that there was a cave or
vault underground, from the king's house to the plains of Jericho; and by this way the
king went that he might not be seen; but God prepared a hind, which the Chaldean army
saw, and pursued, and which went into the cave, add they after it; and when they were at
the mouth of the cave they saw Zedekiah coming out of it, and took him:
and he went out the way of the plain; on the south side of the which led to Jericho;
and on which side the kings garden was; not that he went alone, but his wives, and
children, and princes, and men of war with him; see Jer_52:7.
HENRY 4-7, "III. Zedekiah, having in disguise perhaps seen the princes of the king of
Babylon take possession of one of the gates of the city, thought it high time to shift for
his own safety, and, loaded with guilt and fear, he went out of the city, under no other
protection but that of the night (Jer_39:4), which soon failed him, for he was
discovered, pursued, and overtaken. Though he made the best of his way, he could make
nothing of it, could not get forward, but in the plains of Jericho fell into the hands of the
pursuers, Jer_39:5. Thence he was brought prisoner to Riblah, where the king of
Babylon passed sentence upon him as a rebel, not sentence of death, but, one many
almost say, a worse thing. For, 1. He slew his sons before his eyes, and they must all be
little, some of them infants, for Zedekiah himself was now but thirty-two years of age.
The death of these sweet babes must needs be so many deaths to himself, especially
when he considered that his own obstinacy was the cause of it, for he was particularly
told of this thing: They shall bring forth thy wives and children to the Chaldeans, Jer_
38:23. 2. He slew all the nobles of Judah (Jer_39:6), probably not those princes of
Jerusalem who had advised him to this desperate course (it would be a satisfaction to
him to see them cut off), but the great men of the country, who were innocent of the
matter. 3. He ordered Zedekiah to have his eyes put out (Jer_39:7), so condemning him
to darkness for life who had shut his eyes against the clear light of God's word, and was
of those princes who will not understand, but walk on in darkness, Psa_82:5. 4. He
22

23. bound him with two brazen chains or fetters (so the margin reads it), to carry him away
to Babylon, there to spend the rest of his days in misery. All this sad story we had before,
2Ki_25:4, etc.
JAMISON, "the king’s garden — The “gate” to it from the upper, city above was
appropriated to the kings alone; stairs” led down from Mount Zion and the palace to the
king’s garden below (Neh_3:15).
two walls — Zedekiah might have held the upper city longer, but want of provisions
drove him to flee by the double wall south of Zion, towards the plains of Jericho (Jer_
39:5), in order to escape beyond Jordan to Arabia-Deserta. He broke an opening in the
wall to get out (Eze_12:12).
K&D, "Jer_39:4-7
In Jer_39:4-7 are narrated the flight of Zedekiah, his capture, and his condemnation,
like what we find in Jer_52:7-11 and 2Ki_25:4-7. "When Zedekiah the king of Judah and
all the men of war saw them (the Chaldean generals who had taken up their position at
the mid-gate), they fled by night out of the city, by the way of the king's garden, by a
gate between the walls, and he went out by the way to the Arabah. Jer_39:5. But the
army of the Chaldeans pursued after them, and overtook Zedekiah in the steppes of
Jericho, and captured him, and brought him to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, to
Riblah, in the land of Hamath; and he pronounced judgment on him." Hitzig and Graf
consider that the connection of these events, made by ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ַ‫כּ‬ ‫ם‬ ָ‫א‬ ָ‫,ר‬ is awkward, and say
that the king would not have waited till the Chaldean generals took up their position at
the mid-gate, nor could he see these in the night-time; that, moreover, he would hardly
have waited till the city was taken before he fled. These objections are utterly worthless.
If the city of Zion, in which the royal palace stood, was separated from the lower city by a
wall, then the king might still be quite at ease, with his men of war, in the upper city or
city of Zion, so long as the enemy, who were pushing into the lower city from the north,
remained at the separating wall, near the middle gate in it; and only when he saw that
the city of Zion, too, could no longer be held, did he need to betake himself to flight with
the men of war around him. In actual fact, then, he might have been able to see the
Chaldean generals with his own eyes, although we need not press ‫ם‬ ָ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ so much as to
extract this meaning from it. Even at this juncture, flight was still possible through the
south gate, at the king's garden, between the two walls. Thenius, on 2Ki_25:4, takes
‫ם‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ת‬ֹ‫מ‬ֹ‫ח‬ to mean a double wall, which at the southern end of Ophel closed up the ravine
between Ophel and Zion. But a double wall must also have had two gates, and Thenius,
indeed, has exhibited them in his plan of Jerusalem; but the text speaks of but one gate
(‫ר‬ַ‫ע‬ַ‫.)שׁ‬ "The two walls" are rather the walls which ran along the eastern border of Zion
and the western border of Ophel. The gate between these was situated in the wall which
ran across the Tyropoean valley, and united the wall of Zion and that of Ophel; it was
called the horse-gate (Neh_3:28), and occupied the position of the modern "dung-gate"
(Bab-el Moghâribeh); see on Neh_3:27-28. It was not the "gate of the fountain," as
Thenius (Bücher der Kön. S. 456), Nägelsbach, and others imagine, founding on the
supposed existence of the double wall at the south end of Ophel. Outside this gate, where
the valley of the Tyropoeon joined with the valley of the Kidron, lay the king's garden, in
the vicinity of the pool of Siloam; see on Neh_3:15. The words '‫א‬ֵ‫ֵצ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬ ‫וגו‬ introduce further
23

24. details as to the king's flight. In spite of the preceding plurals ‫חוּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ְ‫ב‬ִ‫ַיּ‬‫ו‬ , the sing. ‫א‬ֵ‫ֵצ‬‫י‬ is
quite suitable here, since the narrator wishes to give further details with regard to the
flight of the king alone, without bringing into consideration the warriors who fled along
with him. Nor does the following ‫ם‬ ֶ‫יה‬ ֵ‫חֲר‬ ַ‫א‬ militate against this view; for the Chaldean
warriors pursued the king and his followers, not to capture these followers, but the king.
Escaped from the city, the king took the direction of the ‫ה‬ ָ‫ב‬ ָ‫ֲר‬‫ע‬, the plain of the Jordan,
in order to escape over Jordan to Gilead. But the pursuing enemy overtook him in the
steppes of Jericho (see Comm. on Joshua on Jos_4:13), and thus before he had crossed
the Jordan; they led him, bound, to Riblah, before the king of Babylon. "Riblah in the
land of Hamath" is still called Ribleh, a wretched village about 20 miles S.S.W. from
Hums (Emesa) on the river el Ahsy (Orontes), in a large fertile plain in the northern
portion of the Bekâa, on the great caravan-track which passes from Palestine through
Damascus, Emesa, and Hamath to Thapsacus and Carchemish on the Euphrates; see
Robinson's Bibl. Res. iii. 545, and on Comm. on Kings at 2Ki_23:33. - On ‫ר‬ ֶ‫בּ‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫ט‬ָ‫פּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫,מ‬
to speak judgment, pronounce sentence of punishment, see on Jer_1:16.
Nebuchadnezzar caused the sons of Zedekiah and all the princes of Judah (‫ים‬ ִ‫ֹר‬‫ח‬, nobles,
lords, as in 27:30) to be slain before the eyes of the Jewish king; then he put out his eyes
and bound him with brazen fetters, to carry him away to Babylon (‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ָ‫ל‬ for ‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫,)ל‬
where, according to Jer_52:11, he remained in confinement till his death.
CALVIN, "he then adds, After Zedekiah saw them, etc. ; not that he came to that
part, but after he understood that that part of the city was occupied by the enemies;
for matters then had come to an extremity. Then he fled with his men of war. And
here is set before us a sad spectacle: men in no way trained up for war were left in
the city, women also and children were left there, while the men of war fled,
inasmuch as their condition was worse, because they had delayed the taking of the
city. It was then according to what is commonly done, that they fled. We yet see that
ungodly men, after having long despised heavenly truth, flee in time of danger, and
are so filled with terror, that they cast themselves headlong into many perils. This is
a just reward to those who are not terrified by the threatenings of God, but become
so hardened, that they too late acknowledge that they ought to have feared; and
being, as it were, stunned, they see not what is expedient, and cannot follow any
fixed course.
The Prophet adds, that they fled in the night, and that they went out by the way of
the king’s garden, and lastly, that they came to the gate which was between the two
walls There is in this passage nothing superfluous; for he meant to shew us, that
though the king thought that he could escape from the hands of his enemies, he was
yet taken, as God had predicted. For, if after the city was taken, he had come as a
suppliant, of his own accord, he might probably have obtained mercy; and this
counsel, we know, was given while the state of things was not yet desperate; but he
put no faith in God’s word. In the meantime he thought that he could disappoint his
enemies, if he quickly fled through some secret way. Some think that there was a
subterranean passage, which had a door in the middle of the garden, and had also
an egress at the other end in the plain of Jericho, as we shall hereafter see. And that
24

25. region was barren, and therefore solitary. Hence the king entertained confidence;
but he found, at length, how certain was prophetic truth; for it is said afterwards,
that the Chaldeans followed and took him. But this circumstance, as I have said,
ought to be carefully observed, that the king, as the Prophet tells us, fled. through a
secret way, during the darkness of the night, and escaped. It now follows —
COFFMAN. "Verse 4
THE CAPTURE OF ZEDEKIAH
"And it came to pass that, when Zedekiah, the king of Judah and all the men of war
saw them, then they fled, and went forth out of the city by night, by the way of the
king's garden, through the gate betwixt the two walls: and he went out toward the
Arabah. But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after them, and overtook Zedekiah
in the plains of Jericho: and when they had taken him, they brought him up to
Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon to Riblab in the land of Hamath; and he gave
judgment upon him."
"When the king ... and the men of war ... saw them ..." (Jeremiah 39:4). The word
"saw" in this passage simply means, "when they perceived, or understood, what
had happened." One often hears a blind person say, "we went and saw" this or that.
A similar usage is found here. We may be certain that the king fled the city as soon
as he definitely knew that Nebuchadrezzar's army had entered it. Nothing certain is
known about the exact location of the king's garden, or the gate by which he
escaped, nor can we trace the route of his departure.
"Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah in the land of Hamath ..." (Jeremiah 39:5). "This place
was a stronghold on the Orontes river, 35 miles north-east of Baalbeck, in an area
that provided an abundant supply of fuel and food. Pharaoh-Necho II made it his
headquarters at the time of the defeat of Jehoahaz; and Nebuchadnezzar made it the
base of his operations in the final campaign to destroy Jerusalem in 588-587
B.C."[6] This place was about 200 miles north and east of Jerusalem; but
Nebuchadnezzar remained there and entrusted the siege of Jerusalem to his military
subordinates.
At Riblah, Nebuchadnezzar was fully equipped for his murderous business of
executing all of his enemies. Here he gave judgment against Zedekiah.
ELLICOTT, "(4) When Zedekiah the king of Judah saw them . . .—The hasty flight
is narrated again in Jeremiah 52:7. The gate between the two walls was one
apparently that opened from the park-like garden of the palace, near the pool of
Siloah (Nehemiah 3:15); probably identical with the garden of Uzza, which was used
as a burial-place for Manasseh and Amon (2 Kings 21:18-26); and led to the
Arabah, the plain (always known by this distinctive name) of the valley of the
Jordan (Deuteronomy 1:1; Deuteronomy 3:17; Deuteronomy 4:49; Joshua 12:1, and
elsewhere). The “two walls” appear as part of the defence of the city in Isaiah 22:11,
25

26. and connected Zion with the fortress known as Ophel (2 Chronicles 27:3; 2
Chronicles 33:14).
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 39:4 And it came to pass, [that] when Zedekiah the king of
Judah saw them, and all the men of war, then they fled, and went forth out of the
city by night, by the way of the king’s garden, by the gate betwixt the two walls: and
he went out the way of the plain.
Ver. 4. When Zedekiah the king saw them.] Not entered, but ready to enter. See 2
Kings 25:4.
He went out the way of the plain.] Intending likely for Egypt; but his journey was
shortened. So was Muliasses, king of Tunis, when fleeing from his son Amidas, he
was discovered by the sweet perfumes he had about him; and being brought back,
had, like Zedekiah, his eyes put out with a burning hot iron.
WHEDON, " 4. Saw — Perhaps literally, notwithstanding it was night, but the
sense may be perceived — knew by the confusion.
Way of the king’s garden… the way of the plain — In Nehemiah 3:15, occurs this
expression: “The wall of the pool of Siloah by the king’s garden.” The two walls
were that of Ophel on the east, and that of Zion on the west. The gate was probably
in the short wall uniting these and stretching across the valley of the Tyropoeon. It
was not, as some have suggested, “the gate of the fountain,” but the same that is
called the “horse gate” in Nehemiah 3:28. The “way of the plain” is more distinctly
indicated in the following verse — the plain of Jericho.
5 But the Babylonian[b] army pursued them and
overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho. They
captured him and took him to Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon at Riblah in the land of Hamath,
where he pronounced sentence on him.
CLARKE, "To Riblah - This city was situated on the northern frontier of Palestine,
and Hamath was a large city belonging also to Syria. See Gen_10:18.
26

27. GILL, "But the Chaldean army pursued after them,.... Being informed of the
flight of them, by those who surrendered to them, as Josephus says; or not finding the
king, his family, nobles, and guards, at the palace, where they expected them; and,
knowing which way they must take, pursued after them; not the whole army, only a part
of it; for some must remain at Jerusalem to demolish the city, and take the spoil of it:
and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; not far from it, as Josephus says;
and who also observes, that when his friends and generals saw the enemy near, they left
him, and shifted for themselves, and only a few were with him when overtook:
and when they had taken him they brought him to Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon to Riblah in the land of Hamath: which is generally thought to be Antioch
in Syria; whither he had retired from the siege of Jerusalem, having left it to his generals
to refresh himself in this pleasant place, as it seems it was; or that he might be nearer his
own kingdom, if any troubles should arise in it during his absence; however, here he
was, and here the army brought Zedekiah to him, and those they took with him; which
must be very agreeable to the king of Babylon to have this perfidious and ungrateful
prince in his power:
where he gave judgment upon him: or passed sentence on him, which was to have
his eyes put out: or, "spake judgments with him" (i); he severely chide him, and
upbraided him for the injury he had done him; the perfidy he had been guilty of in
breaking his oath and covenant. So Josephus says,
"after he came to him, Nebuchadnezzar began to call him a wicked man and a covenant
breaker, unmindful of promises he had made to preserve the country for him; he
reproached him with ingratitude, in receiving the kingdom from him he had taken from
Jehoiakim, and given to him, who had used his power against the giver; but, says he, the
great God that hates thy manners has put thee into our hands.''
JAMISON, "Riblah — north of Palestine (see Jer_1:14; Num_34:11). Hamath is
identified by commentators with Antioch, in Syria, on the Orontes, called Epiphania,
from Antiochus Epiphanes.
gave judgment upon him — literally, “spake judgments with him,” that is, brought
him to trial as a common criminal, not as a king. He had violated his oath (Eze_17:13-19;
2Ch_36:13).
CALVIN, "The Chaldeans pursued the fugitive king, no doubt, through a hidden
impulse from above. It is, indeed, probable that he was betrayed by his own people;
and this often happens in a disturbed state of things; but however, he might have
escaped, had he not been given up by the hand of God. These things are therefore
narrated, that we may know that the ungodly, by their evasions, gain no other thing
than really to acknowledge that God is true ill his threatenings as well as in his
promises. They believe not his word, it is therefore necessary that they should be
convinced by actual experience. Zedekiah then is here set before us as an example,
27

28. so that we may know that as soon as God announces any calamity, we ought to
tremble and to humble ourselves under his mighty hand, for he holds us on every
side completely shut up, so that if hiding places and refuges be open before us, they
can yet avail us nothing.
The Prophet then tells us, that he was taken in the deserts of Jericho This
circumstance also is important, for he had gone forth beyond the sight of men, even
into solitude; for that plain was not so fruitful as to support many inhabitants, but it
was as it were a desert. It is then a wonder how the Chaldeans found him in that
solitude, but they had God, as it were, as their guide. Hence then it was, that
Zedekiah fell into the hands of the Chaldean army. The Prophet adds, that they
brought him into Riblah, which is thought to have been Antioch. It is also called
Hemath; but this name designated the country and not the city. And yet in Amos
6:2, it means the city, when it is said,
“Go to Calneh, go to Hemath the great.”
But it may be, that the dignity of the city was the reason why the country was so
called; and no doubt Pliny, in his fifth book, calls that part of Syria Antiochean; and
as to what he says shortly before, that Antioch was that part of Syria toward Cilicia,
that place seems to me to have been corrupted. I rather read thus, that it was a part
of Syria, for, as I have said, he calls it Antiochean. And it was not unsuitable that
the city should be called Hemath and Riblah, and that the name of the city should be
given to the country. Interpreters indeed agree, that Riblah was Antioch. Jerome
says, that in his day, the first station towards Chaldea still retained its ancient name,
though, by changing some letters, they called it Emmaus. But he doubts not but it
was Antioch, which was formerly called Epidaphne, and had also the name of
Hemath. There then Zedekiah was brought to Nebuchadnezzar, who spoke
judgments with him, that is, who brought him as a criminal before his tribunal, that
he might pronounce sentence upon him; for to speak judgments means the same as
to minister justice or to pass judgment.
Now this was very inconsistent with royal dignity, for though, as a conqueror, he
was angry with his enemy, he might yet have been content with his death alone.
Kings are not wont to deal in this way with kings, for they respect themselves, and
are not disposed to degrade royal dignity. But Jeremiah says, that Zedekiah was by
no means dealt with royally; for he was constrained to plead guilty, and was
condemned by a solemn sentence. Then to speak judgments is the same as what we
call in French former proces criminel. And this indignity increased the weight of his
calamity and his punishment; for Zedekiah not only had to bear many reproaches,
while the king of Babylon expostu-lated with him, but he was also brought to
judgment, so that punishment, according to the common practice, was allotted to
him. For Nebuchadnezzar had made him king, and imposed tribute on him. He
therefore condemned him as guilty of perfidy and perjury. This is the degradation
which the Prophet points out, when he says, that he spoke judgments with him, or
acted towards him judicially; and he repeats the same expression in the last chapter.
28

29. It follows —
ELLICOTT, " (5) In the plains of Jericho.—Here again we have the distinctive
word, the Araboth of the Jordan, the enlargement of the Jordan valley, three miles
wide, near Jericho. The intention of the king was apparently to make his way to the
ford near Jericho, cross the river, and escape to the open country of Gilead.
Riblah in the land of Hamath.—The city of Hamath stood on the Orontes, about
half-way from its source, near Baalbek, to the bend which it makes at Jisr-hadid,
and commanded the whole valley of the river to the defile of Daphne, below
Antioch. It was a well-known city at the time of the Exodus (Numbers 13:21;
Numbers 34:8), and in that of David was the capital of a kingdom, which became
tributary to him and Solomon (2 Samuel 8:10; 1 Kings 4:21-24). Riblah (still
retaining its name, Ribleh), also on the Orontes, and near its source, was a centre
from which the great lines of traffic led by the Euphrates to Nineveh, by Palmyra to
Babylon, by Lebanon and the coast to Palestine and Egypt, and through the Jordan
valley to the Holy Land. It was, therefore, a natural post of observation for the
Chaldæan king while his generals were carrying on the sieges of Tyre and
Jerusalem. So when Pharaoh-necho was for a time, before the battle of Carchemish,
master of the Assyrian territory, it was to Riblah that he summoned Jehoahaz, and
there imprisoned him (2 Kings 23:33). In this instance Zedekiah was brought before
Nebuchadnezzar as a vassal prince who, having received his authority from the
Chaldæan king (2 Kings 24:17), had rebelled, and met with scant mercy.
TRAPP, "Jeremiah 39:5 But the Chaldeans’ army pursued after them, and overtook
Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho: and when they had taken him, they brought him
up to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to Riblah in the land of Hamath, where he
gave judgment upon him.
Ver. 5. But the Chaldeans pursued.] See on 2 Kings 25:5.
WHEDON, " 5. Riblah is situated on the right bank of the Orontes, on the great
road between Baalbec and Hums, about thirty-five miles from the former place.
It is fully identified and bears its original name. Dr. Robinson points out the
advantages of this locality as a place of encampment for a great army.
“From this point the roads were open by Aleppo and the Euphrates to Nineveh, or
by Palmyra to Babylon… by the end of Lebanon and the coast to Palestine and
Egypt, or through the Bukaa and the Jordan valley to the centre of the Holy Land.”
Gave judgment — Compare Jeremiah 1:16.
29

30. 6 There at Riblah the king of Babylon slaughtered
the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes and also
killed all the nobles of Judah.
GILL, "Then the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah in Riblah before
his eyes,.... Not with his own hands, but gave orders to do it: these must be very young,
at least some of them; since Zedekiah at this time was but thirty two years of age. This
must be a dreadful spectacle for him to behold; and the consideration must be cutting,
that it was owing to his own obstinacy in not taking the advice of the Prophet Jeremiah
to surrender to the Chaldeans, whereby he and his family would have been saved, Jer_
38:17;
also the king of Babylon slew all the nobles of Judah; who did not come over to
the Chaldean army and surrender themselves; such who advised the king to stand out to
the last, and who fled, and were taken with him; as many of them as fell into the hands of
the king of Babylon. Jarchi says those were the sanhedrim, who loosed Zedekiah from
his oath to Nebuchadnezzar.
JAMISON, "slew ... sons ... before his eyes — previous to his eyes being “put
out” (Jer_39:7); literally, “dug out.” The Assyrian sculptures depict the delight with
which the kings struck out, often with their own hands, the eyes of captive princes. This
passage reconciles Jer_32:4, “his eyes shall behold his eyes”; with Eze_12:13, “he shall
not see Babylon, though he shall die there.”
slew all ... nobles — (Jer_27:20).
CALVIN, "It is probable that Nebuchadnezzar continued in that pleasant city while
Jerusalem was attacked, for he would not endure the weariness of a long siege, and
he also wished to be far away from danger. It was enough for him that his generals,
of whom mention is made, fought under his banner. Nebuchadnezzar then was
beyond the reach of danger, and yet he filled the Jews with terror, because he did
not return home, or to the principal seat of government, but remained in the
neighborhood; for the Antioch of Syria was not far from Judea.
The Prophet now tells us how cruelly Nebuchadnezzar acted towards Zedekiah. It
was surely a sad spectacle to see a king, who had been before in repute, who was of a
noble family, who was a type of Christ, lying prostrate at the feet of a proud
conqueror. But much more bitter to him than this, was to see his own sons killed
before his eyes. It would have been better for him to die a hundred times than to be
30

31. compelled to witness that slaughter. He was, however, compelled to do so. And then,
that all hope might be cut off, all those who excelled in dignity and power were slain.
For under the name princes, Jeremiah generally in-eluded the chief men; so that all
who had any name among the people were killed. It was a horrible carnage! not
only the king’s sons were slain, but all who were capable of restoring the city and
the land to a better condition. Thus Nebuchadnezzar wished to take away every
hope, by putting to death the royal family and all the nobles. It afterwards
follows —
COFFMAN, "Verse 6
ZEDEKIAH'S PUNISHMENT
After the ancient custom of terrible and inhumane punishment of defeated enemies,
Nebuchadnezzar imposed his ruthless sentence upon Zedekiah and his nobles, sons,
and friends.
"Then the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah in Riblah before his eyes: also
the king of Babylon slew all the nobles of Judah. Moreover he put out Zedekiah's
eyes, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon."
"He put out Zedekiah's eyes ..." (Jeremiah 39:7). Feinberg tells us that ancient kings
liked to perform this act of cruelty, and often did it with their own hands.[7] The
word in the Hebrew from which the verb comes in this place is from a root which
means "to dig out," indicating that the entire eyeball was popped out of the victim's
skull. Another form of blinding was that of bringing a red hot iron to the surface of
the eye. What made this especially pitiful to Zedekiah was the fact of his witnessing
the execution of his sons and the nobles of Judah as the very last events that he
would ever be able to remember seeing.
In Jeremiah 52:11, it is stated that Zedekiah remained a prisoner in Babylon until
the day of his death, but no hint of just when that death occurred is given.
ELLICOTT, "(6) The sons of Zedekiah.—The history of Eastern monarchies
presents us with many examples of this refinement of cruelty, notably in the case of
(Eobazus under Darius (Herod. Iv. 84), and Pythius under Xerxes (Herod, vii. 39).
The slaughter of the “nobles” probably included most of those whom we have seen
in Jeremiah 36:12, and elsewhere.
7 Then he put out Zedekiah’s eyes and bound him
31

32. with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon.
CLARKE, "Bounds him with chains - Margin: “Two brazen chains;” one for his
hands, and the other for his feet.
GILL, "Moreover he put out Zedekiah's eyes,.... By what means is not certain;
however, hereby the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled, that his eyes should see the king
of Babylon, as they did, before they were put out, and that he should not die by the
sword, Jer_34:3; and also the prophecy of Ezekiel, Eze_12:13; that he should be brought
to Babylon, and yet should not see it; for his eyes were put out before he was carried
there: a full proof this of the prescience of God; of his foreknowledge of future and
contingent events; of the truth and certainty of prophecy, and of the authority of divine
revelation:
and bound him with chains, to carry him to Babylon; with two brass or iron
chains, or fetters, for both his legs; and thus bound he was carried to Babylon, where he
remained to the day of his death.
CALVIN, "Here was an accumulation of misery: the king had his eyes pulled out,
(117) after having been a spectator of the slaughter of his own sons! He then saw
heaped together the dead bodies of his own offspring and of all his nobles. After that
slaughter he was made blind. His life was, no doubt, prolonged to him, that he might
die, as it were, by little and little, according to what a notorious tyrant has said. And
thus Nebuchadnezzar intended to kill him a hundred and a thousand times, and not
at once to put him to death, for death removes man from all the miseries of the
present life. That Zedekiah remained alive, was then a much harder condition.
And this has been recorded that we may know, that as he had been so long obstinate
against God, the punishment inflicted on him was long protracted; for he had not
sinned through levity or want of thought, or some hidden impulse, but hardened
himself against every truth and all counsels. It was therefore just that he should die
by little and little, and not be killed at once. This was the reason why the king of
Babylon pulled out his eyes.
The Prophet says in the last place, that he was bound with chains, and that he was
in this miserable condition led into Babylon This reproach was an addition to his
blindness: he was bound with chains as a criminal. It would have been better for
him to have been taken immediately to the gallows, or to have been put to death in
any way; but it was the design of Nebuchadnezzar, that he should lead a miserable
32