8. THE FLIGHT TO EGYPT

43:1–7

1And it came to pass, that when Jeremiah had made an end1 of speaking unto all the people all the words of the LORD their God, for which the LORD their God had 2sent him to them, even all these words, Then spake Azariah the son of Hoshaiah, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud2 men, saying3 unto Jeremiah, Thou speakest falsely: the LORD our God hath not sent thee to say, Go not into 3Egypt to sojourn there: but Baruch the son of Neriah setteth thee on [has excited thee]4 against us, for to deliver us into the land of the Chaldeans, that they might 4put us to death, and carry us away captives into Babylon. So Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces [band-leaders], and all the people, 5obeyed not the voice of the LORD, to dwell in the land of Judah. But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the 6land of Judah; even men, and women, and children, and the king’s daughters, and every person that Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard [halberdiers] had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, 7and Baruch the son of Neriah. So they came into the land of Egypt: for they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: thus came they even to Tahpanhes.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

On the communication, which Jeremiah made in the name of Jehovah to the Jews, these declared, that they regard it, not as a message from their God, but as the result of incitement by Baruch, who is friendly to the Chaldeans (Jer 43:1–3). Thereupon they, with the whole mass of the remaining population, including Jeremiah and Baruch, commence their journey to Egypt, where, on their arrival, they settle first in Tahpanhes (Jer 43:4–7).

Jer 43:1-3. And it came to pass . . . into Babylon. The phrase all these words indicates that the words written in Jer 42 are an exact rendering of the prophet’s verbal communication. Comp. 51:60.—On Azariah, the son of Hoshaiah. Comp. rems. on 42:1.—On what facts this charge against Baruch was supported, it is difficult to perceive. From this book we learn only that Baruch was a faithful adherent and servant of the prophet. It was doubtless merely the circumstance that Baruch, to the envy of many, was the most intimate of all the Jews with Jeremiah, which gave a handle to the accusation.

Jer 43:4-7. So Johanan … Tahpanhes.—All the remnant of Judah. Those who had returned from the dispersion are mentioned first, probably because among them there were few or none of the “poor of the land ” (40:7) It seems surprising that in Jer 43:6 a specification follows which, on account of the mention of the king’s daughter, does not correspond to the general statement in Jer 43:5b. But the specification concludes with children, and with king’s daughters commences the description of the second division of the remnant of Judah. Besides, those who had returned, viz., the king’s daughters and all the other souls are mentioned. If we consider that in Jer 43:5a, the heads of those who had remained in the country are named as the subjects of the deportation, it is intelligible that besides these the princesses were the most eminent personages in this category (comp. 41:10).—Every person. Comp. Josh. 10:28. The expression is so general that it comprehends all the other members of (the remnant of Judah (comp. 51:16).—On Tahpanhes comp. rems. on Jer 43:8.

9. JEREMIAH IN TAHPANHES

43:8–13

8, 9Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah in Tahpanhes, saying, Take great stones in thine hand, and hide them in the clay [mortar]5 in the brick-kiln, which is at the entry of Pharaoh’s house in Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of10Judah; and say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts [Jehovah Zebaoth], the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall 11spread his royal pavilion6 over them. And when he cometh,7 he shall [he shall come and] unite the land of Egypt, and deliver such as are for death to death; and such as are for captivity to captivity: and such as are for the sword to the sword.12And I will kindle a fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them, and carry them away captives: and he shall array himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment; and he shall go forth from thence13in peace. He shall break also the images [statues] of Bethshemesh [the house of the sun], that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall be burned with fire.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

In Tahpanhes Jeremiah receives the command to hide great stones in the clay of a brick-kiln, opposite the royal palace in the sight of the Jews, and to tell them that the Lord will bring king Nebuchadnezzar to Egypt, and that he will erect his throne and stretch his tent on these stones (Jer 43:8–10). Then will Nebuchadnezzar visit the land of Egypt with all the terrors of war, burn the idol-temples, subjugate the land completely to his sway, and depart in peace (Jer 43:11 and 12). It is especially emphasized at the close that Nebuchadnezzar will break in pieces the statues of Beth-shemesh and burn up the idol-temples (Jer 43:13).

Jer 43:8, 9. Then came … men of Judah. When we compare the larger superscriptions, 40:1 and 44:1, it is evident that the first introduces the events after the deportation, the second the occurrences in Egypt. Hence it might seem as if this passage were not in place, or as if the superscription, which stands in 44:1, belonged in this place, 43:8. But it is evident from 44:1 that the passage, which begins with this superscription, is to narrate what happened to the Jews already established in Egypt (who dwelt in the land), while the event related here is, as it were, a part of the journey. For Tahpanhes (comp. 2:16) is the eastern boundary city of Egypt, situated on the Pelusian branch of the Nile. Here Jeremiah, by a symbolical act, was to set before the eyes of the Jews, how impossible it is to escape from the Lord (comp. the prophet Jonah), and that by their removal from Egypt they had only come from bad to worse. Thus clear as is the meaning of the symbolical act in general, the definition of the details is still difficult. The word brick-kiln (מַלְבֵּן) occurs, besides here, only twice in the Old Testament: 2 Sam. 12:31, and Nah. 3:14. In the first passage it is related that David caused them to pass under saws, harrows and axes of iron. It then continues, “and made them pass through the brick-kiln” (the Chethibh has, doubtless incorrectly, מַלְכֵּן, which is no word). When we recall the frequently occurring phrase “made his son to pass through the fire” (comp. 2 Ki. 16:3; 21:6, etc.), we cannot doubt that a similar cruel mode of death is spoken of here also. As such also appears the putting into heated brick-ovens (לְבֵנָה, brick, from which the denominative verb לָבַן, to make bricks, Exod. 5:7, 14). In the second passage, Nah. 3:14; the Assyrians are ironically called upon to “repair the fortifications, go into the mud and tread the mortar, and repair the brick-kiln.” EICHHORN, HITZIG and GRAF think it incredible that a brick-kiln can have stood immediately opposite the royal palace. Hence HITZIG takes the word in the sense of a projection of tiles or brick-work under the threshold, a stone-floor probably cemented over. Besides the analogies in Arabic, the meanings of מַלְבֵּן in later Hebrew (area, massa, tabula, quadrata. Comp. BUXTORF, Lex. Chald., p. 1120) favor this rendering. On the other hand, as GRAF himself correctly remarks, it is equally incredible that Jeremiah could have torn up the pavement before the gate of the king’s palace, and inserted large stones. I am now quite of NEUMANN’S opinion that we are to regard this brick-kiln not as permanently, but only temporarily, present.

The brick-yard need not have been in the court of the royal palace and directly before the doors of the building. It may have been situated opposite the gate of the outer court or avenue to the palace. The place may have been designated to the prophet on account of this position, and perhaps also because it was the place, from which the material was taken for the extension of the palace now building, as NEUMANN [comp. also HENDERSON] supposes. In this case the thought would be expressed that Egypt, to whose protection the Jews had fled, was only weak, fragile clay. Since the prophet was to hide the stones in the clay, it is evident, that he did not place them visibly on the surface, and therefore set them up on the walls of the brick-kiln. Brick-kiln must be, therefore, understood as pars pro toto. The whole place is called מלבן, not merely the oven. Jeremiah is to hide the large stones in clay belonging to this kiln. He is to lay the foundation for a future ideal building. In place of the weak clay, which signifies Egypt, the Lord lays the foundation stones of a power, which He intends to found, the bearer of which will be His servant (Jer 43:10), or the organ of His will. It is a fact, still hidden in the womb of the future, that Egypt will groan under the foot of the Babylonian conqueror; but the stones guarantee this fact. Men of Judah were present as witnesses (Jer 43:9), when they were laid. The significance of the stones is disclosed to these witnesses. The memory remained; the word of the Lord was pledged. On the fulfilment comp. the remarks on 44:29, 30.

Jer 43:10-13. And say unto them … burn with fire. On Behold, I will send, etc., comp. 25:9.—The Lord Himself has hidden the stones, and in so far the prophet was only an instrument. On these stones Nebuchadnezzar shall one day erect his throne and stretch his tent—HITZIG thinks that the erection of a tent would not be threatening, or dangerous; on the contrary, it would be only a matter of curiosity. It seems to me, however, that Nebuchadnezzar’s tent, erected before the royal palace in Tahpanhes, is dangerous enough, signifying neither more nor less than the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar.—Such as are for death. Comp. rems. on 15:2. The sense of the expression is, that not only one kind of destruction will come upon Egypt, but many, and that each one will also really devour the victims apportioned to it.—Away captives, viz., the idols. Comp. rems. on 48:7.—And he shall array, etc. Commentators have frequently, and as it seems to me, quite unnecessarily, stumbled over this expression. How does a shepherd put on his garment? In general like any other person, but there is this difference, that in doing so the shepherd has regard to no one, because no one sees him. He therefore puts on his garment entirely at his own whim and convenience. So according to his own pleasure, without the slightest regard to others, will Nebuchadnezzar deal with conquered Egypt. After he has thus made Egypt his own property, he will depart in peace, without, any one being able to detain or harass him or rob him of his booty.

Jer 43:13 is surprising. The discourse seemed to have concluded with Jer 43:12. For what is there to report of Nebuchadnezzar’s doings in Egypt, when his departure is already announced? Further, the second clause of the verse is tautological. Comp. burn them, Jer 43:12. Finally the addition that is in the land of Egypt is very surprising, for did Jeremiah, writing in Egypt, need to say this? Hence not merely three words (in the original text), but the whole verse, might be suspected. If, however, these words originated with the rest, then by Beth-shemesh must be meant not the temple of the sun at Heliopolis, but this city itself. The images of Beth-shemesh are above all the obelisks, of which there was an unlimited number in the city. Of the oldest, which however were not the largest (comp. Herod II., 111), one still remains in its place. Comp. HERZOG, R.-Enc., X., S. 610 sqq.

[The fulfilment of this prophecy is confirmed by JOSEPHUS (Ant. X., 9, 7). “It is also probable, that during the thirteen years in which some of Nebuchadnezzar’s forces were engaged in the blockade of Tyre, he extended his campaign into Egypt; and there is a confirmation of this opinion in the narrative of MEGASTHENES in STRABO, XVI., 687. JOSEPH.Ant. X., 11, 1; c. Apion. I., 20. ABULFEDA, Hist. Ante-islam, p. 102.” WORDSWORTH.—S. R. A.]

Footnotes:

[1]Jer 43:1.—בְּכַלּוֹת as in 26:8.

[2]Jer 43:2—הזדים. The word occurs here only in Jeremiah. The LXX. omits it, and reads instead καὶ πάντες οἱ*ἀλλογενεῖς, 42:17, reading זֵרִים for זֵדִים. The reverse in 18:14; 51:2.

[3]Jer 43:2.—אמֹרים. Instead of לֵאמֹר, because the words spoken do not follow immediately. Comp. 14:15; 23:17.

[4]Jer 43:3.—מסית. Comp. 38:22; Isa 36:18.

[5]Jer 43:9.—מֶלֶט is ἅπ. λεγ. The analogies milât, molto (Syr.), μάλθα, malta, are vouchers for the meaning of “mortar cement, clay.”

[6]Jer 43:10.—The meaning of שַׁבְּרוּר is doubtful. The word occurs here only. HITZIG, with J.D. MICHAELIS, refers to suphra (Arab. for corium orbiculare, quod solo insternitur), which agrees with nat’ (Arab. the leathern veil of the judge of life and death). According to the text the throne is to be first placed on the stones, and then the שַׁבְּרוּר stretched above it. Is a veil spread over a throne? And is not נָטָה the technical term for the spreading of a tent? The meaning “pavilion,” seems then most suitable, it being, however, still doubtful whether it be so named a splendore (שָׁבַּר, nituit, שִׁפְרָה ,שֶׁפֶר, splendor, pulchritudo, or a cavitate (comp. שׁוֹפָר, tuba, שִׁפְרָה, Pi. Job 26:13? [“The Keri Proposes שַׁפְרִיר as the proper form which is, indeed, that in which nouns, with the third radical germinated, most frequently appear. Comp. סַנְרִיר, Prov. 27:15.” HENDERSON.—S. R. A.]

[7]Jer 43:11.—ובאה. Chethibh וּבָאָהּ. The Keri would unnecessarily strike out the suffix. Comp. rems. on 11:15; 27:8; 31:2; 41:3; 48:44.