John Calvin Commentary Jeremiah 22:11-12

"For thus saith Jehovah touching Shallum the son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of Josiah his father, [and] who went forth out of this place: He shall not return thither any more. But in the place whither they have led him captive, there shall he die, and he shall see this land no more." — Jeremiah 22:11-12 (ASV)

What he had previously said generally, he now applies distinctly and especially to the person of the king. This was so that the people in general might know that they could not escape the punishment from which even the king would not be exempt. No doubt, when they heard that such a hard and bitter lot would happen to a king, they regarded it as incredible. But Jeremiah intended to show through him that what we have just seen was near them all—namely, that it would be better for them to die at once than to pine away for a long time.

We must also notice that what these two verses contain respecting the king is not said as if it applied to him alone. Rather, it is so that everyone might apply to himself what the Prophet said of the king alone.

Regarding the name Shallum, it is thought that Jehoiakim was so called. He also had the name Jeconiah and had voluntarily given up the kingdom and died in exile. But as he is called the son of Josiah, a doubt has arisen. If we carefully consider what sacred history relates, the probable conjecture is that he was not Josiah's son but his grandson, because the chosen successor of his father was Jehoiakim, also called Eliakim. Yet Matthew calls him the son of Josiah, stating that he was born to him along with his brothers (Matthew 1:11).

However, we know that it was common for the Hebrews to call descendants sons, especially when speaking of the family of David. This was so that the order of succession might be preserved; those who immediately followed their predecessors were called sons. Thus, according to this custom, Eliakim might have been considered his predecessor's son, though he was really his predecessor's brother. Therefore, as he was the successor of Josiah, he is called his son.

Yet there is no doubt that God shows here that a pious king would not be a protector for his own son, his grandson, or others; for hypocrites are accustomed to fashion a defense for themselves from the holiness of their fathers. And since King Josiah had faithfully served God, his sons thought that God was somehow bound to them, as if Josiah's sincere piety had not itself proceeded from God's mere bounty.

But hypocrites, as I have just said, always seek to make God bound to them. Hence the Prophet checks this false confidence and declares that though Josiah was approved by God, yet his memory would not be of such importance as to shield his posterity from punishment.

God, indeed, promises in His Law to be merciful to the thousandth generation of those who love Him (Exodus 20:6), but the ungodly very absurdly seize upon this, as if they held God bound to them. For they thus imagine that they can deprive Him of His power, judgment, and authority over the world.

The meaning, then, is that Shallum vainly promised himself safety because he had descended from the holy King Josiah, who had been an example of eminent piety. For this could not lessen his punishment, since he had degenerated from his father, whom he should have imitated, knowing that his father was approved by God.

And this was also 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. Therefore, though he succeeded such a pious king, he nevertheless degenerated and departed from his father's example.

When he shall have gone forth from this place, he shall not return here any more. Since, then, the king was prevented 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 such a dreadful sign of God’s wrath in the king himself, on whom their safety depended?

A confirmation follows: For he shall die in the place to which they shall have led him away. He intimates that the king was to be carried away by force; the king doubtless did not surrender himself until he saw that he was forced to yield. 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 no better than that of any of the common people.