Jeremiah 22:12

King Josiah died in 609 BC, killed by the Egyptians at the Battle of Megiddo. The people of Judah were not to mourn his death. Instead, they should focus their sorrow on Josiah’s son, whom they had chosen as the new king. After three months, King Jehoahaz was exiled to Egypt, where he lived for the rest of his life (2 Kings 23:1–33; 2 Chronicles 36:1–8).

This section presents serious accusations against Josiah's descendants.

Weep . . . not for--that is, not so much for Josiah, who was taken away by death from the evil to come (Kg2 22:20; Isa 57:1); as for Shallum or Jehoahaz, his son (Kg2 23:30), who, after a three months' reign, was carried off by Pharaoh-necho into Egypt, never to see his native land again (Kg2 23:31-34). Dying saints are justly to be envied, while living sinners are to be pitied. The allusion is to the great weeping of the people at the death of Josiah, and on each anniversary of it, in which Jeremiah himself took a prominent part (Ch2 35:24-25). The name "Shallum" is here given in irony to Jehoahaz, who reigned but three months; as if he were a second Shallum, son of Jabesh, who reigned only one month in Samaria (Kg2 15:13; Ch2 36:1-4). Shallum means "retribution," a name of no good omen to him [GROTIUS]; originally the people called him Shallom, indicative of peace and prosperity. But Jeremiah applies it in irony. Ch1 3:15, calls Shallum the fourth son of Josiah. The people raised him to the throne before his brother Eliakim or Jehoiakim, though the latter was the older (Kg2 23:31, Kg2 23:36; Ch2 36:1); perhaps on account of Jehoiakim's extravagance (Jer 22:13, Jer 22:15). Jehoiakim was put in Shallum's (Jehoahaz') stead by Pharaoh-necho. Jeconiah, his son, succeeded. Zedekiah (Mattaniah), uncle of Jeconiah, and brother of Jehoiakim and Jehoahaz, was last of all raised to the throne by Nebuchadnezzar.

He shall not return--The people perhaps entertained hopes of Shallum's return from Egypt, in which case they would replace him on the throne, and thereby free themselves from the oppressive taxes imposed by Jehoiakim.

Kings, though they are gods to us, are men to God, and shall die like men; so it appears in these verses, where we have a sentence of death passed upon two kings who reigned successively in Jerusalem, two brothers, and both the ungracious sons of a very pious father.
I. Here is the doom of Shallum, who doubtless is the same with Jehoahaz, for he is that son of Josiah king of Judah who reigned in the stead of Josiah his father (Jer 22:11), which Jehoahaz did by the act of the people, who made him king though he was not the eldest son, Kg2 23:30; Ch2 36:1. Among the sons of Josiah (Ch1 3:15) there is one Shallum mentioned, and not Jehoahaz. Perhaps the people preferred him before his elder brother because they thought him a more active daring young man, and fitter to rule; but God soon showed them the folly of their injustice, and that it could not prosper, for within three months the king of Egypt came upon him, deposed him, and carried him away prisoner into Egypt, as God had threatened, Deu 28:68. It does not appear that any of the people were taken into captivity with him. We have the story Kg2 23:34; Ch2 36:4. Now here, 1. The people are directed to lament him rather than his father Josiah: "Weep not for the dead, weep not any more for Josiah." Jeremiah had been himself a true mourner for hm, and had stirred up the people to mourn for him (Ch2 35:25): yet now he will have them go out of mourning for him, though it was but three months after his death, and to turn their tears into another channel. They must weep sorely for Jehoahaz, who had gone into Egypt; not that there was any great loss of him to the public, as there was of his father, but that his case was much more deplorable. Josiah went to the grave in peace and honour, was prevented from seeing the evil to come in this world and removed to see the good to come in the other world; and therefore, Weep not for him, but for his unhappy son, who is likely to live and die in disgrace and misery, a wretched captive. Note, Dying saints may be justly envied, while living sinners are justly pitied. And so dismal perhaps the prospect of the times may be that tears even for a Josiah, even for a Jesus, must be restrained, that they may be reserved for ourselves and for our children, Luk 23:28. 2. The reason given is because he shall never return out of captivity, as he and his people expected, but shall die there. They were loth to believe this, therefore it is repeated here again and again, He shall return no more, Jer 22:10. He shall never have the pleasure of seeing his native country, but shall have the continual grief of hearing of the desolations of it. He has gone forth out of this place, and shall never return, Jer 22:11. He shall die in the place whither they have led him captive, Jer 22:12. This came of his forsaking the good example of his father, and usurping the right of his elder brother. In Ezekiel's lamentation for the princes of Israel this Jehoahaz is represented as a young lion, that soon learned to catch the prey, but was taken, and brought in chains to Egypt, and was long expected to return, but in vain. See Eze 19:3-5.
II. Here is the doom of Jehoiakim, who succeeded him. Whether he had any better right to the crown than Shallum we know not; for, though he was older than his predecessor, there seems to be another son of Josiah, older than he, called Johanan, Ch1 3:15. But this we know he ruled no better, and fared no better at last. Here we have,
1. His sins faithfully reproved. It is not fit for a private person to say to a king, Thou art wicked; but a prophet, who has a message from God, betrays his trust if he does not deliver it, be it ever so unpleasing, even to kings themselves. Jehoiakim is not here charged with idolatry, and probably he had not yet put Urijah the prophet to death (as we find afterwards he did, Jer 26:22, Jer 26:23), for then he would have been told of it here; but the crimes for which he is here reproved are, (1.) Pride and affection of pomp and splendour; as if all the business of a king were to look great, and to do good were to be the least of his care. He must build himself a stately palace, a wide house, and large chambers, Jer 22:14. He must have windows cut out after the newest fashion, perhaps like sash-windows with us. The rooms must be ceiled with cedar, the richest sort of wood. His house must be as well-roofed and wainscoted as the temple itself, or else it will not please him, Kg1 6:15, Kg1 6:16. Nay, it must exceed that, for it must be painted with minium, or vermilion, which dyes red, or, as some read it, with indigo, which dyes blue. No doubt it is lawful for princes and great men to build, and beautify, and furnish their houses so as is agreeable to their dignity; but he that knows what is in man knew that Jehoiakim did this in the pride of his heart, which makes that to be sinful, exceedingly sinful, which is in itself lawful. Those therefore that are enlarging their houses, and making them more sumptuous, have need to look well to the frame of their own spirits in the doing of it, and carefully to watch against all the workings of vain-glory. But that which was particularly amiss in Jehoiakim's case was that he did this when he could not but perceive, both by the word of God and by his providence, that divine judgments were breaking in upon him. He reigned his first three years by the permission and allowance of the king of Egypt, and all the rest by the permission and allowance of the king of Babylon; and yet he that was no better than a viceroy will covet to vie with the greatest monarchs in building and furniture. Observe how peremptory he is in this resolution: "I will build myself a wide house; I am resolved I will, whoever advises me to the contrary." Note, It is the common folly of those that are sinking in their estates to covet to make a fair show. Many have unhumbled hearts under humbling providences, and look most haughty when God is bringing them down. This is striving with our Maker. (2.) Carnal security and confidence in his wealth, depending upon the continuance of his prosperity, as if his mountain now stood so strong that it could never be moved. He thought he must reign without any disturbance or interruption because he had enclosed himself in cedar (Jer 22:15), as if that were too fine to be assaulted and too strong to be broken through, and as if God himself could not, for pity, give up such a stately house as that to be burned. Thus when Christ spoke of the destruction of the temple his disciples came to him, to show him what a magnificent structure it was, Mat 23:38; Mat 24:1. Note, Those wretchedly deceive themselves who think their present prosperity is a lasting security, and dream of reigning because they are enclosed in cedar. It is but in his own conceit that the rich man's wealth is his strong city. (3.) Some think he is here charged with sacrilege, and robbing the house of God to beautify and adorn his own house. He cuts him out my windows (so it is in the margin), which some understand as if he had taken windows out of the temple to put into his own palace and then painted them (as it follows) with vermilion, that it might not be discovered, but might look of a piece with his own buildings. Note, Those cheat themselves, and ruin themselves at last, who think to enrich themselves by robbing God and his house; and, however they may disguise it, God discovers it. (4.) He is here charged with extortion and oppression, violence and injustice. He built his house by unrighteousness, with money unjustly got and materials which were not honestly come by, and perhaps upon ground obtained as Ahab obtained Naboth's vineyard. And, because he went beyond what he could afford, he defrauded his workmen of their wages, which is one of the sins that cries in the ears of the Lord of hosts, Jam 5:4. God takes notice of the wrong done by the greatest of men to their poor servants and labourers, and will repay those, in justice, that will not in justice pay those whom they employ, but use their neighbour's service without wages. Observe, The greatest of men must look upon the meanest as their neighbours, and be just to them accordingly, and love them as themselves. Jehoiakim was oppressive, not only in his buildings, but in the administration of his government. He did not do justice, made no conscience of shedding innocent blood, when it was to serve the purposes of his ambition, avarice, and revenge. He was all for oppression and violence, not to threaten it only, but to do it; and, when he was set upon any act of injustice, nothing should stop him, but he would go through with it. And that which was at the bottom of all was covetousness, that love of money which is the root of all evil. Thy eyes and thy heart are not but for covetousness; they were for that, and nothing else. Observe, In covetousness the heart walks after the eyes: it is therefore called the lust of the eye, Jo1 2:16; Job 31:7. It is setting the eyes upon that which is not, Pro 23:5. The eyes and the heart are then for covetousness when the aims and affections are wholly set upon the wealth of this world; and, where they are so, the temptation is strong to murder, oppression, and all manner of violence and villany. (5.) That which aggravated all his sins was that he was the son of a good father, who had left him a good example, if he would but have followed it (Jer 22:15, Jer 22:16): Did not thy father eat and drink? When Jehoiakim enlarged and enlightened his house it is probable that he spoke scornfully of his father for contenting himself with such a mean and inconvenient dwelling, below the grandeur of a sovereign prince, and ridiculed him as one that had a dull fancy, a low spirit, and could not find in his heart to lay out his money, nor cared for what was fashionable; that should not serve him which served his father: but God, by the prophet, tells him that his father, though he had not the spirit of building, was a man of an excellent spirit, a better man than he, and did better for himself and his family. Those children that despise their parents' old fashions commonly come short of their real excellences. Jeremiah tells him, [1.] That he was directed to do his duty by his father's practice: He did judgment and justice; he never did wrong to any of his subjects, never oppressed them, nor put any hardship upon them, but was careful to preserve all their just rights and properties. Nay, he not only did not abuse his power for the support of wrong, but he used it for the maintaining of right. He judged the cause of the poor and needy, was ready to hear the cause of the meanest of his subjects and do them justice. Note, The care of magistrates must be, not to support their grandeur and take their ease, but to do good, not only not to oppress the poor themselves, but to defend those that are oppressed. [2.] That he was encouraged to do his duty by his father's prosperity. First, God accepted him: "Was not this to know me, saith the Lord? Did he not hereby make it to appear that he rightly knew his God, and worshipped him, and consequently was known and owned of him?" Note, The right knowledge of God consists in doing our duty, particularly that which is the duty of our place and station in the world. Secondly, He himself had the comfort of it: Did he not eat and drink soberly and cheerfully, so as to fit himself for his business, for strength and not for drunkenness? Ecc 10:17. He did eat, and drink, and do judgment; he did not (as perhaps Jehoiakim and his princes did) drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of the afflicted, Pro 31:5. He did eat and drink; that is, God blessed him with great plenty, and he had the comfortable enjoyment of it himself and gave handsome entertainments to his friends, was very hospitable and very charitable. It was Jehoiakim's pride that he had built a fine house, but Josiah's true praise that he kept a good house. Many times those have least in them of true generosity that have the greatest affection for pomp and grandeur; for, to support the extravagant expense of that, hospitality, bounty to the poor, yea, and justice itself, will be pinched. It is better to live with Josiah in an old-fashioned house, and do good, than live with Jehoiakim in a stately house, and leave debts unpaid. Josiah did justice and judgment, and then it was well with him, Jer 22:15, and it is repeated again, Jer 22:16. He lived very comfortably; his own subjects, and all his neighbours, respected him; and whatever he put his hand to prospered. Note, While we do well we may expect it will be well with us. This Jehoiakim knew, that his father found the way of duty to be the way of comfort, and yet he would not tread in his steps. Note, It should engage us to keep up religion in our day that our godly parents kept it up in theirs and recommended it to us from their own experience of the benefit of it. They told us that they had found the promises which godliness has of the life that now is made good to them, and that religion and piety are friendly to outward prosperity. So that we are inexcusable if we turn aside from that good way.
2. Here we have Jehoiakim's doom faithfully read, Jer 22:18, Jer 22:19. We may suppose that it was in the utmost peril of his own life that Jeremiah here foretold the shameful death of Jehoiakim; but thus saith the Lord concerning him, and therefore thus saith he. (1.) He shall die unlamented; he shall make himself so odious by his oppression and cruelty that all about him shall be glad to part with him, and none shall do him the honour of dropping one tear for him, whereas his father, who did judgment and justice, was universally lamented; and it is promised to Zedekiah that he should be lamented at his death, for he conducted himself better than Jehoiakim had done, Jer 34:5. His relations shall not lament him, no, not with the common expressions of grief used at the funeral of the meanest, where they cried, Ah, my brother! or, Ah, sister! His subjects shall not lament him, nor cry out, as they used to do at the graves of their princes, Ah, lord! or Ah his glory! It is sad for any to live so that, when they die, none will be sorry to part with them. Nay, (2.) He shall lie unburied. This is worse than the former. Even those that have no tears to grace the funerals of the dead with would willingly have them buried out of their sight; but Jehoiakim shall be buried with the burial of an ass, that is, he shall have no burial at all, but his dead body shall be cast into a ditch or upon a dunghill; it shall be drawn, or dragged, ignominiously, and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. It is said, in the story of Jehoiakim (Ch2 36:6), that Nebuchadnezzar bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon, and (Eze 19:9) that he was brought in chains to the king of Babylon. But it is probable that he died a prisoner, before he was carried away to Babylon as was intended; perhaps he died for grief, or, in the pride of his heart, hastened his own end, and, for that reason, was denied a decent burial, as self-murderers usually are with us. Josephus says that Nebuchadnezzar slew him at Jerusalem, and left his body thus exposed, somewhere at a grat distance from the gates of Jerusalem. And it is said (Kg2 24:6) he slept with his fathers. When he built himself a stately house, no doubt he designed himself a stately sepulchre; but see how he was disappointed. Note, Those that are lifted up with great pride are commonly reserved for some great disgrace in life or death.

Jeremiah 22:11-12

11. For thus saith the LORD touching Shallum the son of Josiah king of Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah his father, which went forth out of this place; He shall not return thither any more:

11. Quia sic dicit Jehova ad Sallum (vel, super Sallum) filium Josliae, regis Jehudah, qui regnat pro Josia patre suo, quando (rs', est quidem relativum, sed non dubito quin, sumatur hic pro adverbio temporis; et ideo obscuerant sensum interpretes, dum vertunt, qui egressus est, et coguntur deinde mutare sensum verbi; sed hoc optime fluit et soepe occipitur pro quando) egressus fuerit ex hoc loco, non revertetur amplius:

12. But he shall die in the place whither they have led him captive, and shall see this land no more.

12. Quoniam in loco ad quem transtulerint ipsum, illic morietur, et terram hanc non videbit amplius.

What he had before said generally he now applies distinctly and especially to the person of the king, that the people in general might know that they could not escape that punishment from which even the king would not be exempt. They, no doubt, when they heard that such a hard and bitter lot would happen to a king, regarded it as a thing incredible; but Jeremiah intended to shew in his person that what we have just seen was nigh them all, that is, that it would be better for them at once to die than to pine away for a long time.

We must at the same time notice, that what these two verses contain respecting the king is not said as though it applied to him alone, but rather that every one might apply it to himself what the Prophet said of the king alone.

As to the word Shallum, it is thought that Jehoiakim was so called, who had also the name of Jeconiah, and who had of his own accord given up the kingdom and died in exile. But as he is called the son of Josiah, a doubt has arisen. But if we duly consider what sacred history relates, the probable conjecture is, that he was not his son but his grandson, for the chosen successor of his father was Jehoiakim, called also Eliakim. Yet Matthew calls him the son of Josiah, and that he was born to him together with his brethren. (Matthew 1:11.) But we know that it was a common thing with the Hebrews to call descendants sons, especially when the family of David was spoken of; that the order of succession might be preserved, those who next followed their predecessors were called sons. Thus, according to this custom, Elialdm might have been deemed his son, who was really his brother. As, then, he was the successor of Josiah, he is called his son. [45]

There is yet no doubt but that God shews here that a pious king would not be a patronizer either to his own son, or to his grandson, or to others; for hypocrites are wont to form a defense for themselves from the holiness of their fathers. And as king Josiah had faithfully served God, his sons thought that God was in a manner bound to themselves, as though all this had not proceeded from the mere bounty of God, that Josiah had been so sincerely religious. But hypocrites, as I have just said, seek ever to render God bound to them. Hence the Prophet checks this false confidence, and declares that though Josiah was approved of God, yet his memory would not be of such an account as to shield his posterity from punishment. God, indeed, promises in his Law to be merciful to the thousandth generation, even to them who love him, (Exodus 20:6) but the ungodly very absurdly lay hold on this, as though they held God bound to them; for they thus imagine that they can deprive him of his power, and judgment, and authority over the world. The meaning then is, that Shallum in vain promised safety to himself because he had descended from the holy king Josiah, who had been a patron of eminent piety, for this could not be the means of lessening his punishment, inasmuch as he had degenerated from his father, whom he ought to have imitated, knowing that he was approved by God. And this also was the reason for the repetition, for he not only calls him the son of Josiah, but also adds, that he reigned instead of his father Josiah. Though, then, he succeeded so pious a king, he yet became degenerated and departed from the example of his father.

When he shall have gone forth from this place, he shall not return here any more [46] As, then, the king was precluded from returning, what would become of the common people and the dregs of society? Could their condition be better? How then could the Jews dare flatter themselves when they perceived so dreadful an evidence of God's wrath in the king himself, on whom depended their safety? A confirmation follows, For he shall die in the place to which they shall have led him away He intimates that he was to be by force carried away; he doubtless did not surrender himself until he saw that he was under the necessity of yielding. Then the Prophet in effect says that he would be a miserable exile, driven into banishment against his own will. It is then added, that he would see no more the land of his nativity, so that his lot would be nothing better than that of any one of the common people. It follows, --

Footnotes:

[45] Most commentators agree that Shallum was another name for Jehoahaz, who succeeded his father Josiah. See 2 Kings 23:30; and 2 Chronicles 36:1. He reigned only three months, and was succeeded by his elder brother Jehoiakim. Compare 2 Chronicles 36:2, with Jeremiah 22:5. The only difficulty arises from 1 Chronicles 3:15, where we have the sons of Josiah arranged in this order, -- Johanan, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum. Johanan no doubt died young, and he could not be Jehoahaz, for he is said to be the first-born; and Jehoahaz, as it appears from 2 Chronicles 36:2 and 5, was younger than Jehoiakim, and older by many years than Zedekiah. The only solution of the difficulty seems to be that there is, as Blayney, Horsley, and others thought, a typographical mistake in 1 Chronicles 3:15, that Shallum ought to be before Zedekiah, instead of being after him. His two brothers had two names as well as Shallum. There is a mistake of the same kind (that of transcribers at an early period, as there are no different readings) in 2 Chronicles 36:9, where Jehoiachin is said to have been eight years old when he began to reign, instead of eighteen, as we find it stated in 2 Kings 24:8. And this age alone comports with the language of Jeremiah in this chapter, for he would not have denounced such a judgment on a child eight years of age. As to Matthew 1:11, the true reading no doubt is, "And Josiah begat Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim begat Jeconiah," etc., as found in some copies, though not of great authority. Some, with Calvin, think Shallum to be Jeconiah, or Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, and not Shallum the son of Josiah. The objection to this is, that the Prophet here proceeds from Shallum to Jehoiakim, and then to his son Jeconiah. And from what he says of Jehoiakim, it appears that he delivered this prophecy in his reign, except we think, as some do, that the Prophet relates here in the reign of Zedekiah what he had previously prophesied. But the probability is, as Blayney and others think, that this prophecy was delivered in the reign of Jehoiakim. -- Ed.

[46] There is no doubt but 'sr is sometimes an adverb of time, when; but all the Versions and the Targum render it here who, "who has gone forth," etc. Shallum, whoever he was, had no doubt been led captive, as it is said in the next verse; for the verb, which Calvin renders in the second future, is in the past tense, and is so rendered by all the Versions. -- Ed

But he shall die in the place whither they have led him captive,.... Even in Egypt, where Pharaohnecho and his army carried him captive, as before observed:

and he shall see his land no more; the land of Judah, where he was born, and over which he had been king: this is repeated to show the certainty of it, and what reason there was for the above lamentation; since the people might have been in hopes of the return of him, but now they are assured they had no ground for it; who, though he was not a good prince, yet perhaps not so bad as his brother Jehoiakim, who succeeded him; who appears, by what follows, to have been a very unjust, tyrannical, and oppressive prince; and therefore there was great occasion for mourning on the account of Shallum, who very likely was more promising.

So as he returned no more to see his native country, as is there said. But others think this Shallum was Josiah’ s fourth son, that Johanan died before his father, and the people made Shallum his youngest son king, calling him Jehoahaz, so as he reigned immediately after Josiah.

On Jehoahaz. - Jer 22:10. "Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him; weep rather for him that is gone away, for he shall no more return and see the land of his birth. Jer 22:11. For thus saith Jahveh concerning Shallum, the son of Josiah king of Judah, who became king in his father Josiah's stead, and who went forth from this place: He shall not return thither more; Jer 22:12. but in the place whither they have carried hi captive, there shall he die and see this land no more." The clause: weep not for the dead, with which the prophecy on Shallum is begun, shows that the mourning for King Josiah was kept up and was still heartily felt amongst the people (Ch2 35:24.), and that the circumstances of his death were still fresh in their memory. למת without the article, although Josiah, slain in battle at Megiddo, is meant, because there was no design particularly to define the person. Him that goes or is gone away. He, again, is defined and called Shallum. This Shallum, who became king in his father Josiah's place, can be none other than Josiah's successor, who is called Joahaz in Kg2 23:30., Ch2 36:1; as was seen by Chrysost. and Aben-Ezra, and, since Grotius, by most commentators. The only question is, why he should here be called Shallum. According to Frc. Junius, Hitz., and Graf, Jeremiah compares Joahaz on account of his short reign with Shallum in Israel, who reigned but one month (Kg2 15:13), and ironically calls him Shallum, as Jezebel called Jehu, Zimri murderer of his lord, Kg2 9:31. This explanation is unquestionably erroneous, since irony of such a sort is inconsistent with what Jeremiah says of Shallum. More plausible seems Hgstb.'s opinion, Christ. ii. p. 401, that Jeremiah gives Joahaz the name Shallum, i.e., the requited (cf. שׁלּם, Ch1 6:13, = משׁלּם, Ch1 9:11), as nomen reale, to mark him out as the man the Lord had punished for the evil of his doings. But this conjecture too is overthrown by the fact, that in the genealogy of the kings of Judah, Ch1 3:15, we find among the four sons of Josiah the name שׁלּוּם instead of Joahaz. Now this name cannot have come there from the present passage, for the genealogies of Chronicles are derived from old family registers. That this is so in the case of Josiah's sons, appears from the mention there of a fourth, Johanan, over and above the three known to history, of whom we hear nothing more. In the genealogical tables persons are universally mentioned by their own proper names, not according to "renamings" or surnames, except in the case that these have received the currency and value of historical names, as e.g., Israel for Jacob. On the ground of the genealogical table 1 Chron 3 we must accordingly hold that Joahaz was properly called Shallum, and that probably at his accession he assumed the name יואחז, "Jahveh sustains, holds." But Jeremiah might still have used the name Shallum in preference to the assumed Joahaz, because the former had verified itself in that king's fate. With Jer 22:11 and Jer 22:12, cf. Kg2 23:33-35. - The brief saying in regard to Joahaz forms the transition from the general censure of the wicked rulers of Judah who brought on the ruin of the kingdom, to the special predictions concerning the ungodly kings Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, in whose time the judgment burst forth. In counselling not to weep for the dead king (Josiah), but for the departed one (Joahaz), Jeremiah does not mean merely to bewail the lot of the king carried prisoner to Egypt, but to foreshadow the misery that awaits the whole people. From this point of view Calv. well says: si lugenda est urbis hujus clades, potius lugendi sunt qui manebunt superstites quam qui morientur. Mors enim erit quasi requies, erit portus ad finienda omnia mala: Vita autem longior nihil aliud erit quam continua miseriarum series; and further, that in the words: he shall no more return and see the land of his birth, Jeremiah shows: exilium fore quasi tabem, quae paulatim consumat miseros Judaeos. Ita mors fuisset illis dulcior longe, quam sic diu cruciari et nihil habere relaxationis. In the lot of the two kings the people had to recognise what was in store for itself.