Zedad (Hastings' Dictionary)

One of the points mentioned in defining the Northern border of the Promised Land in Nu 34', and again in Ezekiel's ideal picture, Ezk 47'^. The reading is uncertain, the Sam. having in Numbers mns ; LXX in Numbers, B and Luc. ZapddaK, A Zadd3aK, F 2d5daK ; in Ezekiel, BA ^(Xda/jifia. If the reading lis is followed, the site ia unknown ; for, as Dillmann points out, the Sadad, on the road from Riblah to ^iaryaten (accepted by Wetzstein, Miihlau, Furrer, et al.)

, is much too far to the east and north. If we read tim, as we should probably do, the place may perhaps be identified (so van Kasteren, RB, 1895, p. oU) with Khirbet Seradd, N. of Abil, E. of Merj 'Ajdn, towards Hermon. ZEDEKIAH (5n;p-ix, .i.-p-is only in 1 K 22", Jer 27''- '28' '29^ ' righteousness of J" ' ; LX.\ i:eoeKii, -(3eKLat, ZeSeKioii ; A'^ulg. Sedecias). — 1. Son of Chenaanah, and one of Ahab's four hundred court prophets (1 K 22'i- "•^- ==, 2 Ch W- ^- ").

When Jehoshaphat demanded that a prophet of J" should be consulted about the proposed expedition to Kamotli-gilead, Zedekiah came forward in that character in order to forestall Micaiah ben-Imlah. He produced horns of iron and apparently pre- sented them to Ahab as from J", with a Divine commission : ' Thus saith the Lord, With the.se shalt thou push the Syrians, until they be con- sumed.'

He maintained his attitude in the pres- ence of Micaiah, and ventured to insinuate a doubt as to the source of the inspiration of the latter : ' Which way went the spirit of the Lord from me to speak unto thee?' The sharp retort in wliich Micaiah reaffirmed the coming defeat of Israel does not seem to have weakened the infatua- tion of the two kings. Tfie lying spirit prevailed. Joseplms {Ant. vni. xv. 4) embellishes this story, and trans- j^osos the incidents of it.

lie puts a speech to Ahab into Zedekiaii's mouth, in which he tries to prove Micaiah t<3 be a fal^e prophet because of his disagreement with Elijah as to the place of Ahab's future death, and concludes by proposing a practical test : ' When struck by me, let him injure my hand as Jadaos dried up tlic right hand of king Jeroboam when he wished to arrest him.' Zedekiah then smites .Micaiah, and oi nothing happens to him, Ahab is convinced. The incident of the iron horns follows. 2.

A prophet, one of the captives deported to Babylon with Jehoiachin. He and another, named Ahab, are denounced by Jeremiah (29'^'"^) for gross immorality as well as for falsely prophesying a speedy restoration from Babylon. It was probably tlieir action as political agitators that brought on them the cruel punishment of being masUd in the tire by order of Nebuchadrezzar. Jeremiah ZEDEKIAH ZEDEKIAH 971 proiiliesied that their fate wouhl be proverbial.

Zedekiah was son of Maaseiah, who is probably to be identified with the priest whose son, ' the second priest' Zephaniah, wa< put to death at Kihlali by Nebuchadrezzar (2 K 2.') ■'"■•). 3. Son of Hananiah, one of the princes in the reign of Jehoiakim (Jer 36"). 4. Tlie last king of Jndah (Sedekias in I Es l", Bar 1). He was the youngest son of Josiah and full brother of Jehoahaz (2 K 23"' 24'; in Jos. Ant. x. vii. 2, 'Jehoiakim' is a blunder for ' Jelioaliaz').

In 1 Ch 3" liis name pre- cedes that of SHALLUM or Jehoahaz, perhaps on account of the latter's insignificance, while in the following verse and in 2 Ch 30'° he is repre- sented as son of Jehoiakim, perhaps as having been his successor. These variations are in- structive as showing the degree of inaccuracy which may exist in biblical genealogies. The direct account of tliis reign is contained in 2 K 24"-25', Jer 30'"' 52'-", 2 Ch 30'°-='.

Consider- able light is also thrown on this period by the prophetical writings of Jeremiah and Kzekiel, especially the narrative portions of Jeremiah which are here enumerated in their chronological order : chs. 24. 27. (Gr. 34.) 28. (.35.) 29. (36.) 21. 37. (44.) 34. (41.) 38. (45.) 39"-'« (46'»-"') 32. (39.) 33. (40.) 39'"''' (46'"').

There is, in fact, more contemporary material available for the construction of the history of this reign than of tliat of any other Hebrew nionarcli ; yet there are few of which there is so little definite to record. Zedekiah's eleven je.irs' occupancy of the throne was but the hist sigh of the expiring Davidic dyna-sty, one episode in the struggle of Egypt and Babylon for the masterj'. The king himself was a weak man in a false position.

As a private citizen he might have liad an inolt'ensive and respectable career, for he was of an amiable disposition and religiously inclined, but in the Davidic vine he was ' no strong rod to be a sceptre to rule' (Ezk 19'^). Josephus in one passage {Ant. X. vii. 5) credits him with x/")<"''^''';' "o' SiKaioavfrj. Tliis is Butliciently evidenced in his de.-ilings with Jere- miah.

On two occasions we read of formal depu- tations from tlie king to the propliet (Jer 21' 37'), ' Inquire, I pray thee, of the LoRD for us,' ' I'ray now unto the Lord uurGod for us' ; and wlien this State recognition was no longer possible, Zedvkiah proved the sincerity of his own penional con- victions in secret consultations (Jer 37" 38'").

It is noteworthy, too, that the only occasions on which we read of Zedekiah's exerting his authority are when he mitigated the rigour of Jeremiah's im- prisonment (37-') and sanctioned his deliverance from the miry dungeon (3S'°), see also Jer 38'"; anil so it was promised to him, in marked contrast with the fate of Jehoiakim (Jer 22'"'"), that he should die in jieivce and be buried as a king (Jer 34''' '). Jeremiah, in fact, never adopts a liarsh tone when speaking of him.

Others also felt the same personal attraction. They looked back on him as ' the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord ... of whom we said. Under his shallow we shall live among the nations' (La 4-"). On the other hand, Ezekiol, whose moral and political jud;:nient was uninllucncnl bj- personal contact with the king, speaks of Zedekiah in terms of un- qualified censure. He is the 'deadly wounded wicked one.'

The prophetic sentence of dejiosition anticipates the act of^ man (Ezk 2r-""-''). Kzekiel, in fact, is at one with the pro-Egyptian party in regarding Jehoiachin as de jure king. Ho dates his visions not by the years of Zedekiah's reign, but by those of kin" Jehoiachin's captivity.

On other grounds it is dilheult to avoid feeling sym- fathy with the pro-Egyptian party in Jerusalem, n comparison, indeed, with the exiles in Babylon, they were as bad figs, ' very bad, that cannot be eaten, they are so bad' (Jer 24, see also Ezk 5 ai3-i8 1422 22. 33«-«), but their patriotism was sincere if perverted, while Zedekiah s throne rested upon a renunciation of national ambitions. This is clearly marked in the words of Ezekiel (17'^- '■), ' The king of Babylon . .

took of the seed royal and made a covenant with him ; he also brought him under an oath, and took away the mighty of the land : that the kingdom might be base, that it might not lift itself up, but that by keeidng of his covenant it might stand.' In other words, it was Nebuchadrezzar's policy to reduce the Jewish nation to impotence and at the same time attach it to himself by motives of self-interest, and thus control the powerful fortress of Jerusalem. Jose- phus (.4n<. X.

viL 1) gives the terms of the oath under which Zedekiah was brought : ' That he would surely guard the country for him, and neither make any political changes nor favour the Egyptians.' Accordingly, the hopes of the n.ational party centred round Jehoiachin, whom they hoped to restore to the throne (Jer 28'').

Zedekiah's dis- loyalty, therefore, was directly against his own personal interests ; but he was quite passive in the liands of the man or faction that happened to be nearest to him at the time; as Josephus says {Atit. X. vii.

2), ' As long as he heard the prophet speak- ing these things, he believed him and agreed to everything as true, and believed that it would be to his advantage ; but then his friends used to corrupt him and draw him away from the sug- gestions of the prophet to whatever course they wished.'

We have here an echo of the taunt-song which Jeremiah (38, ) puts into the mouth of the women of the royal harem : 'Thy familiar friends have set thee on, and have prevailed over thee : now that thy feet are sunk in the mire, they are turned away back.' ' The princes ' to whom allu- sion is here made, seem in this reign to have usurped most of the executive power. They tried and sentenced Jeremiah on a charge of desertion (Jer 37"). They reduced the king to abject terror (37" 3S-°).

There was truth as well as pathos in the words with which he surrendereil his best friend to them : ' The king is not he that can do any- thing against you ' (38^). In a ruler such weakness is the greatest crime, and in the case of Zedekiah it was aggravated by the fact that ' the |)rince3 ' for the most part belonged to the pro- Egyptian party to which Jeremiaii and Ezekiel (Jos. Ant. X. vii. 2) were opposed, and which encouraged the idolatrous reaction which followed on the death of .losiah.

That reaction was now in full force (.see Ezk 8 and 11). And yet it is not so much for abetting false or irregular worship that the pro- phets condemn Zedekiah as for brcacli of faith. The oath of fealty which ho made to Neliucliad- rezzar struck men as being of a i>eculiarly binding nature. He 'made him swear by God' (2 Ch 36'") and place his hand under his thigh (Ezk 17"). The lofty and stern morality of the Hebrew ]iro- phets dill not p.

alliate Zedekiah's subsequent viola- tion of this solemn promise on the ground that it had been made to a heathen. On the contraiy, 'Thus .saith the Lord God : As I live, surely mine oath that he hath despised, and my covenant that he hath broken, I will even bring it upon his own head '(Ezk 17'").

The new name Za/c/ciah which he now received in place of Mattaniah, in token of vassalage, very possibly has reference to the right- eousness of J" whicli was ajipealed to on this occasion ; and this again may well be ' the circum- stantial origin ' of the Messianic aspirations alter the Shoot of the Uavidic stock whoso name is 'J" is our righteousness' (Jer '-'.3''- ').

It is dithcult to say how long Zedekiah remained negatively loyal to the Chaldicans, but in his fourth 972 ZEDEKIAH ZEDKKIAII year (n.c. 590) his allegiance was so far question- able that the rulers of Edoni, Moab, Amnion, Tyre, and Sidon (Jer 27'''), incited thereto by their pro- phets and diviners, were emboldened to send envoys to Jerusalem in order to induce Ztdekiah to join a league for the purpose of throwing oli' the BaDjlonian yoke.

The prophets and diviners of Israel, too, both in Jerusalem and Babylon, were fomenting a similar agitation, utterinj,' delinite predictions that ' shortly ' (Jer 27'"), ' within two full years' (Jer 28'), would all the vessels of the Lord's house and Jeconiah himself be restored to their native land. The silver vessels which Zedekiah is said (Bar 1') to have made to take the place of the gold ones served to emphasize the national humiliation.

It seems to us unaccount- able that the peoples of Syria could have had such provincial imaginations, so little sense of pro- portion, as to expect the speedy fall of the empire of Nebuchadrezzar. On the other hand, it must be rememliered that the rise of Chalda;a was of very recent date, the sudden collapse of Nineveh must have made anytliing seem possible, and belief in the inexhaustible resources of Egypt was a tradition in the East. The prestige of centuries dies hard.

In opposition to such men as Hananiah and Shemaiah at Jerusalem (Jer 28' 29-^), and Ahab and Zedekiah at Babylon (Jer 29, ), Jere- miah as chief prophet of the pro-Chaldsean party declared that resistance to Nebuchadrezzar was premature, futile, and suicidal, since supremacy had been assured by God to Babylon for 70 years. With characteristic energy Nebuchadrezzar at once set about crushing the incipient revolt.

He made examples of the agitators at Babylon, ' roasting them in the fire ' (Jer 29, ), and at the same time apparently sent to demand explana- tions from his vassal at Jerusalem. It is possible that the mission of Elasah and Gemariah (Jer 29^) to Babj'Ion should be referred to this date ; in any case Zedekiah's personal attendance was required, and he journe3'ed to Babylon before the close of his fourth j'ear, accompanied by a leading member of the pro, ChaUUean party, Seraiah (Jer 51°").

There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the protests of loyalty which Zedekiah doubtless made at this time. He had, in fact, everything to lose by the defeat of Chaldsea, but he counted for nothing in the struggle of factions at Jerusalem, which continued as before, intense, sordid, mono- tonous. In his fifth year Ezekiel (F4"-) sees the fate of Jernsakni to be inevitable.

The dominant party had an infatuated confidence in the im- pregnability of their fortress, ' This city is the caldron, and we be the flesh ' (Ezk 11') ; and as it was hopeless to expect any help from the exiles in Babylon, these latter — the real depositaries of the Mes.sianic hope — came to be regarded as outcasts : ' Get you far from the Loi;d ; unto us is this land given for a posses.sion ' (Ezk 11"). This was the state of feeling in Jerusalem in the sixth year of the reign. Psainmetichus 11.

, who died in 589, was succeeded on the throne of Egypt by his brother Apries (Uahibri), and Zedekiah was induced to 'send his ambassadors into Egj-pt that they might give him horses and much people' (Ezk 17'°). Edom, Moab, and Philistia now held back, but Judali committed itself to an alliance with Tyre (Ezk 26' 29"*), Amnion, and Egypt against Babylon. This took place, according to Josephus (Ant. X. N-ii.

3), at the close of Zedekiah's eighth year ; but the prophecy of Ezekiel (21) in which reference is made to it seems to be dated (20') in his seventh year. In any case it was not until his ninth year, the tenth day of the tenth month, that the Chalda;an army actually invested Jerusalem. The delay is easily accounted for.

At the time when war was actually declared, Nebuchadrezzar was probably engaged in reducing Elam or Susiana (Jer 49^'"), ami when he did turn his attention to the Egyptian coalition he was uncertain whether he should first attack Amnion or Judah (Ezk 21^'''). Finally, he estab- lished himself at Kiblah, wlience he despatched expeditions against Tyre and Jerusalem respec- tively.

The division sent against Zedekiah, before settling down around the capital, reduced tha smaller fortresses of Judah ; Lachish and Azekah alone held out (Jer 34'). It was a day never to be forgotten (2 K 25', Jer 39' 52*, Ezk 24», Zee 8'»). Some, the king himself included, at last recognized the fact that deliverance from this danger would be a miracle comparable to one of the Lord's wondrous works of old time (Jer 2P).

The general alarm, indeed, was such as to cause a religious revival, one feature of which was a renewal, with the patriarchal ceremonial (Jer 34'- '*), of the covenant, and in particular a solemn engagement was made by all the people that they would in future observe the law as to the manumission of slaves (Ex 2P, Dt 15"). Their zeal for this enact- ment may have been quickened by a desire to increase the number of defenders of the city.

Meanwhile the Egyptian army, commanded by Apries in person, was advancing from the south to the relief of his ally (Jos. Ant. X. vii. 3), and captured Gaza, and compelled the Chaldaians to raise the siege of Jerusalem. Josephus (I.e.) states that the two armies met in a pitched battle, and that the Egj'ptians were put to flight and driven out of all Syria. From Jer 37' we shcmld infer no more than that Pharaoh was forced to retreat to his OAvn land.

The Chaldeean army had no sooner withdrawn than the base people of Jerusalem broke faith with their slaves and reduced them to bondage again — a step which called forth an in- dignant protest from the prophet (Jer 34'"''-). Meanwhile there were constant desertions to the Chaldrean army (Jer 37" 38"> 39» 52"), caused at least in .some measure by the predictions of Jere- miah.

The burden of his utterances during the siege was that the city and all its contents was doomed, but that individual deserters would save their own lives (21° 38^- "). We cannot wonder then that the anti-Chalda^an party regarded him as a dangerous traitor (38*), and viewed with sus- picion his relations with the king. In fact, after lie had been sentenced to imprisonment, Zedekiah could only see him by stealth (37" 3S'«).

The relieving force having been completely re- pulsed, the besiegers once more closed round the doomed city. Josephus displayed a true historical spirit in describing the siege in the light of bia own experiences. It must have been an almost exact counterpart, in the desperate courage and the horrors of it, to the siege under Titus.

There were the same circles of forts to keep the blockade, the battering-rams against the gates, the 'mounts' built high to overtop the city walls (2 K 25', Jer 32-», Ezk i- 17" 21*" 26'-»), while the besieged strained all their powers of mind and body U) erect counter works, destroying even the royal palace to find building material (Jer 33').

But deadlier than the missiles of the Chalda>ans weie the pestilence and the famine (Jer 21''- '• » 32» 34" 38^- » La 5'», Ezk 5'=- '«• ", Bar 2»), with the supreme horror of cannibalism (Jer 19, La 2'"'' 4"*, Ezk 5'").

The city yielded at last to famine (Jer 52"), and on the ninth day of the fourth month, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah's reign, about midnight the six generals who had been conducting the siege entered through a breach and sat in grim state in the middle temple gate (Jer39' ; Jos. Ant. X. viii. 2 ; cf. Ezk 9-). In the confusion that followed, Zedekiah with his household and most of the surviving defender!

ZEEB ZEPHANIAH 973 of tlie city broke tlirou;,'li the cordon of the be- siegers ; they were betrayed, however, by some of the deserters, and had only succeeded in reaoliing the plains of Jericho when they were overtaken. The unfortunate king was conveyed to Riblah to the presence of Nebuchadrezzar, who ' spake with liiin of judgment,' taxing him, according to Josephus, with perjury and ingratitude.

With a relinenient of cruelty his eyes were put out, but not until he had seen the slaughter of hiB children. Josephua calls attention to the remarkable manner in which the (ate of Zetickiah fulfilled two apparently discrepant pro- phcL'ies of Jc-rtiiiiah and Ezekiel TL-spectively.

'Thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the kin^j of liabylon, and he shall s^teak with thee mouth to mouth, atid thou" shalt go to liabylon' (Jer 34-'), and ' 1 will brin;r him to liabylon, to the land of the Chalda:ans; yet shall be not see it, though he shall die there' (Ezk 12'a). In all probability, Zedekiah did not long survive his misfortunes. We hear no more of liim. The hope of Israel henceforth centres round the more innocent captive, his nephew Jeconiah (2 K 25-''). 5.

A ' prince ' who ' sealed unto the covenant ' at Nehemiah's reformation (Xeh 10'). N. J. D. White.