when the city was breached, Zedekiah and his entourage had tried to escape by the
Arabah road but he was caught, brought to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, his sons
slaughtered in his presence, and he himself blinded.
One detail of the account warrants special attention. Reference is to 2 Kings 25 :
6 (cf. Jer 39 : 5 , 52 : 9 ), which records Zedekiah’s capture in flight. The Chaldean
troops overtook Zedekiah near Jericho, and brought him to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah,
where the Babylonian king “laid down the law to him, “Hebrew: wayyedabberû `ittô
misˇpa ̄t.îm,” literally: “They spoke judgments with him.” This distinctive idiom (also
in the singular: wayyedabbe ̄r “he spoke,” and cf. the variant in Jer 1 : 16 ) is used
elsewhere to characterize how the prophet speaks the harsh truth to the people ( Jer
4 : 12 ) and to how he demands divine justice ( Jer 12 : 1 ). Zedekiah had violated his
oath of vassalage to Nebuchannezzar, which accounts for usage of the term misˇpa ̄t.îm
“judgments,” and implies punitive action on the part of the suzerain. Hence, Cogan
and Tadmor ( 1988 : 317 ) translate: “They passed sentence upon him.” The description
of the disposition of the temple decorations and furnishings is a litany of plunder in
all of its detail, reminiscent of Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions, especially
the royal annals. Acts of brutality are recorded graphically, but dispassionately. The
chronicle closes in 2 Kings 25 : 21 b with the words: “Then Judah went into exile
from his land.”
We note that 2 Kings 25 : 1 – 21 are free of the cultic-moral ideology, sticking to
the tragic consequences of rebellion pursuant to the political agenda of the prophets.
That is undoubtedly why, in the preceding passage, 2 Kings 24 : 18 – 20 , reference to
Zedekiah’s having done what was evil in Yahweh’s sight skips over Jehoiachin, his
immediate predecessor, and harks back directly to Jehoiakim, even though momentous
events occurred during his very short reign. After all, Jehoiachin had not rebelled;
he was, in the view of Second Kings, the victim of the momentum of destruction
generated by Jehoiakim, who could have remained a loyal vassal to Nebuchadnezzar,
just as he had been to Necho, whom he served dutifully. Although massive damage
had been done during the reign of Jehoiachin, survival was still possible under
Zedekiah, had he not rebelled, because Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed. The
choice that faced Zedekiah is dramatized in Jeremiah 27 , to be discussed further on.
One has the impression that the author(s) of 2 Kings 25 were experiencing déja vû.
Under similarly severe circumstances, Hezekiah had kept the kingdom alive by
realizing the futility of rebellion against Assyria. Zedekiah failed to do so with respect
to Babylonia.
Assessing the overall character of the biblical record in the Book of Kings it can
be said that more interest is shown in the end result of misguided royal policies than
in their dynamics, and that it reveals certain ideological inconsistencies. Thus, Josiah
met a tragic end notwithstanding his cultic and moral devotion to the God of Israel.
In realistic terms, this was because of some offense to, or act against Pharaoh Necho
II, or because that Pharaoh had suspected him of such disloyalty. The Hebrew Bible
tells us only that he was assassinated on the spot at Megiddo. His son, Jehoahaz, was
installed as king by the Judean gentry, but he lasted only three months, at which
time the Pharaoh had him arrested and brought to Egypt. The reason given is that
he did what was evil in Yahweh’s sight, a proverbial way of characterizing cultic
heterodoxy. The above are examples of what we find repeatedly in the Book of Kings.
— Baruch A. Levine —