e of their announcements was
formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the
Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in
the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim
mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the
future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he
presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this
protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find
expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first
overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and
Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right
interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap.
xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim,
contents himself with the _actual_ contrast, and omits to substitute a
truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be
accounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be
unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then
reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The
first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the
two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second
change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is
put first, in order that, by cutting off the [Hebrew: i], the sign of
the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the [Hebrew: i]
says only God establishes, but not that He _will_ establish. In
reference to these names, _Grotius_ came near the truth; but he erred
in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of
the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The
Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate
that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a
sign of contempt, _q.d._ that Coniah!" _Lightfoot_ comes nearer to the
truth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against
him _Hiller_ and _Simonis_ who thought his views scarcely worth
refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (_Harmon._ p.
275): "By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would
not establish to the progeny of Solomon the [Pg 404] uninterrupted
government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his
son, seems