(4) Relations to Jehoiachin. (B. C. 597.) In the short reign of his successor Jehoiachin or Jeconiah, we find him still uttering his voice of warning (see ch. xiii A; comp. 2 Kings xxiv: 12, and ch. xxii :24-3o), though without' effect.
(5) Relations to Zedekiah. It was probably either during this reign, or at the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, that he was put in con finement by Pashur, the 'chief governor of the house of the Lord.' He seems, however, soon to have been liberated, as we find that 'they had not put him into prison' when the army of Nebuchadnez zar commenced the siege of Jerusalem. The Chaldxans drew off their army for a time, on the report of help coming from Egypt to the besieged city; and now feeling the danger to be immi nent, and yet a ray of hope brightening their pros pects, the king entreated Jeremiah to pray to the Lord for them. The hopes of the king were not responded to in the message which Jeremiah re ceived from God. He was assured that the Egyp tian army should return to their own land, that the Chaldmans should come again, and that they should take the city and burn it with fire (ch. xxxvii :7, 8). The princes, apparemly irritated by a message so contrary to their wishes, made the departure of Jeremiah from the city, during the short respite, the pretext for accusing him of deserting to the Chaldreans, and he was forthwith cast into prison. The king seems to have been throughout inclined to favor the prophet, and sought to know from him the word of the Lord; but he was wholly under the influence of the princes, and dared not communicate with him ex cept in secret (ch. xxxviii 28),; much less could he follow advice so obnoxious to their views as that which the prophet gave. Jeremiah, therefore, more from the hostility of the princes than the inclination of the king, was still in con finement when the city was taken.
(8) Relations to Nebuchadnezzar. Nebu chadnezzar formed a more just estimate of his character and of the value of his counsels, and gave a special charge to his captain Nebuzar adan, not only to provide for him but to follow his advice (ch. xxxix :12). He was accordingly vaken from the prison and allowed free choice either to go to Babylon, where doubtless he would have been held in honor in the royal court. or to remain with his own people. We need scarcely be told that he who had devoted more than forty years of unrequited service to the welfare of his fallen country, should choose to remain with the remnant of his people rather than seek the precarious fame which might await him at the court of the king of Babylon. Accordingly he went to Mizpah with Gedaliah, whom the Baby lonian monarch had appointed governor of Judea ; and after his murder, sought to persuade Jo hanan, who was then the recognized leader of the people, to remain in the land, assuring him and the people, by a message from God in answer to their inquiries, that if they did so the Lord would build them up, but if they went to Egypt the evils which they sought to escape should come upon them there (ch. xlii). The people refused to at
tend to the Divine message, and under the com mand of Johanan went into Egypt, taking Jere miah and Baruch along with them (ch. xliii :6). In Egypt the prophet still sought to turn the peo ple to the Lord, from whom they had so long and so deeply revolted (ch. xliv) ; but his writings give us no subsequent information respecting his personal history.
(7) Traditions. Ancient traditions assert that he spent the remainder of his life in Egypt. Ac cording to the pseudo-Epiphanius he was stoned by the people at Taphnre (the same as Tahpanlies), where the Jews were settled (De Vitis Prophet.
t. p. 239, quoted by Fabricius, Codex Pscudepig raphus V. T. t. p. 111o). It is said that his bones were removed by Alexander the Great to Alexandria (Carpzov, /ntrod. part iii, p. 138, where other traditions respecting him will be found).
(8) Character. Jeremiah was contemporary with Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, and Daniel. None of these, however, are in any remarkable way connected with him, except Ezekiel. The writings and character of these two eminent prophets furnish many very interesting points both of comparison and contrast. Both, during a long series of years, were laboring at the same time and for the same object. The representa tions of both, far separated as they were from each other, are in substance singularly accordant : yet there is at the same time a marked difference in their modes of statement, and a still more strik ing diversity in the character and natural dis position of the two. No one who compares them can fail to perceive that the mind of Jere miah was of a softer and more delicate texture than that of his illustrious contemporary. His whole history convinces us that he was by nature mild and retiring (Ewald, Propheten des Alt. Bund. p. 2), highly susceptible and sensitive, es pecially to sorrowful emotions, and rather in clined, as we should imagine, to shrink from dan ger than to brave it. Yet, with this acute percep tion of injury, and natural repugnance from being 'a man of strife,' he never in the least degree shrinks from publicity ; nor is he at all intimi dated by reproach or insult, or even by actual pun ishment and threatened death, when he has the message of God to deliver. He is, in truth, as re markable an instance, though in a different way, of the overpowering influence of the Divine en ergy, as Ezekiel. The one presents the spectacle of the power of Divine inspiration acting on a mind naturally of the firmest texture, and at once subduing to itself every element of the soul ; whilst the other furnishes an example, not less memorable, of moral courage sustained by the same Divine inspiration against the constantly opposing influence of a love of retirement and strong susceptibility to impressions of outward evil. (See Henderson's Commentary, 1851; Cowles. Notes, N. Y., 1869: Isaac Taylor, Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, p. 272: Stanley, Jewish Ch., ii, pp. 570-622; Noyes, New Trans/. of the Heb. Poets, Boston, 1866; and others). (See JEREMIAH, BOOK OF LANIENTArioNs.) F. W. G.