ile, which is well to
be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31,
Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially
when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom,
elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be
pointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more
threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which
announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as
many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be
such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their
apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring
contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of
Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord should _hold_, was violently and
irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him
Shallum, _i.e._, the _recompensed_,--not _retribution_, as _Hiller_,
_Simonis_, and _Roediger_ think, nor _retributor_ according to _Fuerst_
(comp. _Ewald_ Sec. 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called
Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord
has visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim
and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of
these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is
said: "And I cause to rise up ([Hebrew: vhqimti]) thy seed after thee,
which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish ([Hebrew:
vhkinti]) his kingdom." This passage contains the ground of _both_
names; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have
one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been
given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When
Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself
shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a
proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that
change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to
the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as
He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God
of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we
cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety,
nothing is more natural [Pg 403] than to account for it from an
opposition to the prophets. The centr