Jer 46:14-28 | KD | STEP | "Tell ye it in Egypt, and make it to be heard in Migdol, and make it be heard in Noph and Tahpanhes: say, Stand firm, and prepare thee; for the sword hath devoured around thee. Jer 46:15. Why hath thy strong one been swept away? he stood not, for Jahveh pushed him down. Jer 46:16. He made many stumble, yea, one fell on another; and they said, Arise, and let us return to our own people, and to the land of our birth, from before the oppressing sword. Jer 46:17. They cried there, Pharaoh the king of Egypt is undone; he hath let the appointed time pass. Jer 46:18. As I live, saith the King, whose name is Jahveh of hosts, Surely as Tabor among the mountains, and as Carmel by the sea, shall he come. Jer 46:19. Prepare thee things for exile, O daughter dwelling in Egypt: for Noph will become a desolation, and be destroyed by fire, without an inhabitant." Like the last prophecy, this one also begins with the summons to arms ( ), in order to prepare the way for the description given immediately afterwards of the defeat (Jer 46:15.). The summons to make the proclamation is addressed to some persons not named, who are to announce through the country, particularly in the frontier towns and in the northern capital of Egypt, that the foe, in his devastating career, has advanced to the borders of the land. This is evident from the clause which states the reason: "The sword hath devoured what lay round thee." Regarding Migdol, i.e., Magdolos , and Tahpanhes, i.e., Daphne , the two frontier towns in the north, and Noph, i.e., Memphis , the northern capital of the kingdom, see on and 54:1. התיצּב, to take up one’s position for the fight; cf. Jer 46:4. סביביך, "thy surroundings," are the frontier countries, but especially those on the north, - Judah, Philistia, Edom, - since the enemy comes from the north. However, we cannot with certainty infer from this, that by that time the kingdom of Judah had already fallen, and Jerusalem been laid waste. Immediately after Necho had been vanquished at the Euphrates, Nebuchadnezzar marched after the fugitive foe, pursuing him as far as the borders of Egypt; hence we read, in 2Ki 24:7, "The king of Egypt went no more out of his land; for the king of Babylon had taken all that had belonged to the king of Egypt, from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates." Even at that time, in the fourth and fifth years of Jehoiakim, it could be said, "His sword hath devoured the countries contiguous to Egypt." And Nebuchadnezzar was prevented on that occasion from advancing farther, and penetrating into Egypt itself, only by hearing of his father’s death at Babylon, in consequence of which he was compelled to return to Babylon as speedily as possible, for the purpose of assuming the reins of government, and to let his army with the prisoners follow him at their leisure (Berosus in Josephus, contra Ap. i. 19).

‏ Jeremiah 46:14-28

Jer 46:14 "Tell ye it in Egypt, and make it to be heard in Migdol, and make it be heard in Noph and Tahpanhes: say, Stand firm, and prepare thee; for the sword hath devoured around thee. Jer 46:15. Why hath thy strong one been swept away? he stood not, for Jahveh pushed him down. Jer 46:16. He made many stumble, yea, one fell on another; and they said, Arise, and let us return to our own people, and to the land of our birth, from before the oppressing sword. Jer 46:17. They cried there, Pharaoh the king of Egypt is undone; he hath let the appointed time pass. Jer 46:18. As I live, saith the King, whose name is Jahveh of hosts, Surely as Tabor among the mountains, and as Carmel by the sea, shall he come. Jer 46:19. Prepare thee things for exile, O daughter dwelling in Egypt: for Noph will become a desolation, and be destroyed by fire, without an inhabitant."

Like the last prophecy, this one also begins with the summons to arms (Jer 46:14), in order to prepare the way for the description given immediately afterwards of the defeat (Jer 46:15.). The summons to make the proclamation is addressed to some persons not named, who are to announce through the country, particularly in the frontier towns and in the northern capital of Egypt, that the foe, in his devastating career, has advanced to the borders of the land. This is evident from the clause which states the reason: "The sword hath devoured what lay round thee." Regarding Migdol, i.e., Magdolos, and Tahpanhes, i.e., Daphne, the two frontier towns in the north, and Noph, i.e., Memphis, the northern capital of the kingdom, see on Jer 2:16 and 54:1. התיצּב, to take up one’s position for the fight; cf. Jer 46:4. סביביך, "thy surroundings," are the frontier countries, but especially those on the north, - Judah, Philistia, Edom, - since the enemy comes from the north. However, we cannot with certainty infer from this, that by that time the kingdom of Judah had already fallen, and Jerusalem been laid waste. Immediately after Necho had been vanquished at the Euphrates, Nebuchadnezzar marched after the fugitive foe, pursuing him as far as the borders of Egypt; hence we read, in 2Ki 24:7, "The king of Egypt went no more out of his land; for the king of Babylon had taken all that had belonged to the king of Egypt, from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates." Even at that time, in the fourth and fifth years of Jehoiakim, it could be said, "His sword hath devoured the countries contiguous to Egypt." And Nebuchadnezzar was prevented on that occasion from advancing farther, and penetrating into Egypt itself, only by hearing of his father’s death at Babylon, in consequence of which he was compelled to return to Babylon as speedily as possible, for the purpose of assuming the reins of government, and to let his army with the prisoners follow him at their leisure (Berosus in Josephus, contra Ap. i. 19). Jer 46:15

The prophet in spirit looks on the power of Egypt as already broken. This is shown by the question of astonishment, מדּוּע נסחף אבּיריך, which has been variously rendered. אבּירים .deredner ylsuoirav neeb sa, "strong ones," is used in Jer 8:16; Jer 47:3, and Jer 50:11, of stallions, but elsewhere as an epithet of bulls, especially the strong bulls of Bashan; see on Jer 8:16. In the present passage the reference may be to the mighty men of war, who do not maintain their position (Chald. and most of the old interpreters); the verb in the singular forms no sufficient objection to this view, the irregularity being due to the fact that the verb precedes its subject see Ewald, §316, t; Gesenius, §147]. It is more difficult to combine with this the singulars of the verbs עמד and הדפו which follow; these, and especially the suffix in the singular, appear to indicate that אבּידיך really refers to a noun in the singular. But the form of this noun seems against such a view; for the words adduced in support of the position that singular nouns sometimes assume plural suffixes, are insufficient for the purpose: thus, תּהלּתיך, Psa 9:15, and שׂנאתיך, Eze 35:11, are plainly nouns in the singular. And in support of the averment that, in pausal forms with Segol, the י is a mere mater lectionis, only כּפּיך, Pro 6:1, can be adduced: the other instances brought forward by Hitzig fail to establish his position. For איביך, Deu 28:48, may be plural; בּיני, Gen 16:5, is far from being a case in point, for the preposition often takes plural suffixes; and even in the case of חסידיך, Psa 16:10, the י is marked in the Qeri as superfluous; most codices, too, rather give the form חסידך. But even in the verse now before us, many codices, according to Kennicott and de Rossi, read אבּירך, so that the word should perhaps be taken as a singular. The singulars, however, which occur in the following clauses do not form conclusive proofs of this, since they may be taken in a distributive sense; and more generally the address often suddenly changes from the plural to the singular. In connection with the possibility of taking אבּיריך as a singular, the paraphrase of the lxx deserves mention and consideration, ὁ μόσχος ὁ ἔκλετός σου, to which a gloss adds ὁ But we cannot agree with Kennicott, J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Hitzig, Graf, and Nägelsbach, in holding this as certainly the correct rendering; nor can we give to אבּיר the sense of "bull," for this meaning is not made out for the singular simply because the plural is used of strong bulls: this holds especially in Jeremiah, who constantly applies the plural to strong steeds. Still less ground is there for appealing to the fact that Jahveh is repeatedly called אבּיר ישׂראל or אבּיר יעקוב, Gen 49:24, Isa 1:24; Isa 39:1-8 :26 etc.; for this epithet of Jahveh (who shows Himself in or towards Israel as the Mighty One) cannot be applied to the helpless images of Apis. In Psa 68:31, אבּירים means "strong ones" - bulls as emblems of kings. If the word be used here with such a reference, it may be singular or plural. In the former case it would mean the king; in the latter, the king with his princes and magnates. Against the application of the word to the images of Apis, there is the fact that Apis, a symbol of Osiris, was neither the only nor the chief god of Egypt, but was worshipped nowhere except in Memphis (Herodotus, ii. 153); hence it was not suited to be the representative of the gods or the power of Egypt, as the context of the present passage requires. Jer 46:16

As the mighty one of Egypt does not stand, but is thrust down by God, so Jahveh makes many stumble and fall over one another, so that the strangers return to their own home in order to escape the violence of the sword. The subject of ויּאמרוּ is indefinite; the speakers, however, are not merely the hired soldiers or mercenaries (Jer 46:11), or the allied nations (Eze 30:5), but strangers generally, who had been living in Egypt partly for the sake of commerce, partly for other reasons (Hitzig, Graf). As to חרב היּונה, see on Jer 25:38. Jer 46:17-19

In Jer 46:17, "they cry there" is not to be referred to those who fled to their native land; the subject is undefined, and "there" refers to the place where one falls over the other, viz., Egypt. "There they cry, 'Pharaoh the king of Egypt is שׁאון, desolation, destruction, ruin:' " for this meaning, cf. Jer 25:31; Psa 40:3; the signification "noise, bustle," is unsuitable here. ^{▼▼The word שׁם has been read by the lxx and the Vulgate as if it had been שׁם, ὄνομα, nomen; accordingly the lxx render, καλέσατε τὸ ὄνομα Φαραὼ Νεχαὼ βασίλεως Αἰγύπτου Σαὼν ̓Εσβεὶ ̓Εμωήδ (or ̓Εσβειὲ Μωὴδe'd); Vulgate, vocate nomen Pharaonis regis Aegypti: Tumultum adduxit tempus. This reading is preferred by J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Hitzig, and Graf, with this difference, that Hitzig and Graf take only שׁאון as a name. Hence Ewald translates, "They call Pharaoh’s name 'Noise-which-a-wink-can-hush.' " This rendering is decidedly false, for מועד nowhere has the sense of "wink, nod," not even in Jdg 20:38, where it means an agreement made. For the reading שׁם instead of שׁם there are no sufficient grounds, although such passages as Jer 20:3 and Isa 30:7 may be adduced in support of the idea obtained by such a change in the word. The translation of the lxx is merely a reproduction of the Hebrew words by Greek letters, and shows that the translator did not know how to interpret them. The Vulgate rendering, tumultum adduxit tempus, is also devoid of meaning. Moreover, these translators have read קראוּ as the imperative קראוּ; if we reject this reading, as all moderns do, then we may also lay no weight on שׁם instead of שׁם. Besides, the meaning is not materially affected by this reading, for the giving of a name to a person merely expresses what he is or will be.}

The meaning of העביר המּועד also is disputed; it is quite inadmissible, however, to join the words with שׁאון, as Ewald does, for the purpose of making out a name. No suitable meaning can be extracted from them. Neither שׁאון nor המּועד can be the subject of העביר; the translation given by Schnurrer, "devastation that goes beyond all bounds," is still more arbitrary than that of Ewald given in the note. Since the Hiphil העביר is never used except with a transitive meaning, the subject can be none else than Pharaoh; and the words העביר המּועד must be intended to give the reason for this becoming a desolation: they are thus to be rendered, "he has allowed המּועד to pass by," not "the precise place," as Rosenmüller explains it ("he did not stop in his flight at the place where the army could be gathered again, on the return"), but "the precise time." The reference, however, is not to the suitable time for action, for self-defence and for driving off the enemy (Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Maurer, Umbreit), because the word does not mean suitable, convenient time, but appointed time. As Hitzig rightly perceived, the time meant is that within which the desolation might still be averted, and after which the judgment of God fell on him (Isa 10:25; Isa 30:18), - the time of grace which God had vouchsafed to him, so that Nebuchadnezzar did not at once, after the victory at Carchemish, invade and conquer Egypt. Pharaoh let this time pass by; because, instead of seeing in that defeat a judgment from God, he provoked the anger of Nebuchadnezzar by his repeated attacks on the Chaldean power, and brought on the invasion of Egypt by the king of Babylon (see above, p. 354). - In Jer 46:18. there is laid down a more positive foundation for the threat uttered in Jer 46:17. With an oath, the Lord announces the coming of the destroyer into Egypt. Like Tabor, which overtops all the mountains round about, and like Carmel, which looks out over the sea as if it were a watch-tower, so will he come, viz., he from whom proceeds the devastation of Egypt, the king of Babylon. the power of Nebuchadnezzar, in respect of its overshadowing all other kings, forms the point of comparison. Tabor has the form of a truncated cone. Its height is given at 1805 feet above the level of the sea, or 1350 from the surface of the plain below; it far surpasses in height all the hills in the vicinity, ad affords a wide prospect on every side; cf. Robinson’s Phys. Geogr. of Palestine, p. 26f. Carmel stretches out in the form of a long ridge more than three miles wide, till it terminates on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, as a bold, lofty promontory, which rises in an imposing manner at least 500 feet above the sea; cf. Robinson, p. 26f. Then the inhabitants of Egypt will be driven into exile. כּלי גולה .e, "vessels of wandering;" outfit for an exile, as in Eze 12:3. "Daughter of Egypt" is not a personification of the country, whose inhabitants are the people, but of the population, which is viewed as the daughter of the country; it stands in apposition to יושׁבת, like בּתוּלת בּת מצרי, Jer 46:11. For Noph, i.e., Memphis, the capital, is laid waste and burned, so as to lose its inhabitants. With Jer 46:20 begins the second strophe, in which the fate impending on Egypt is still more plainly predicted. Jer 46:20-26 "Egypt is a very beautiful young heifer; a gadfly from the north comes - comes. Jer 46:21. Her mercenaries, too, in her midst, are like fatted calves; for they also turn their backs, they flee together: they do not stand, for the day of her destruction is some on her, the time of her visitation. Jer 46:22. Its sound is like [that of] the serpent [as it] goes; for they go with an army, and come against her with axes, like hewers of trees. Jer 46:23. They cut down her forest, saith Jahveh, for it is not to be searched; for they are more numerous than locusts, and they cannot be numbered. Jer 46:24. The daughter of Egypt is disgraced; she is given into the hand of the people of the north. Jer 46:25. Jahveh of hosts, the God of Israel, saith, Behold, I will visit Amon of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, her gods, and her kings; Pharaoh, and all those who trust in him. Jer 46:26. And I will give them into the hand of those who seek their life, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and into the hand of his servants; but afterwards it shall be inhabited, as in the days of old, saith Jahveh." Jer 46:20

In Jer 46:20 the address begins afresh, in order to carry out further, under new images, the description of the desolation already threatened. Egypt is a very beautiful עגלה; this feminine is chosen with a regard to "the daughter of Egypt." יפה־פיּה is an adjective formed from the Peal of יפה, "very beautiful," not "coquetting" (Hitzig, who follows the κεκαλλωπισμένη of the lxx). A very beautiful heifer is the people when carefully and abundantly fed in their beautiful and fertile land (Hitzig). Upon this heifer there comes from the north קרץ. This ἁπ. λεγ. is variously rendered. קרץ means, in the Hebrew, to pinch, nip (Job 33:6), to compress together, as in winking (Psa 35:19), to bring the lips closely together (Pro 16:30), and to nip off; cf. Arab. qaras[a to pinch, nip, cut off. Hence A. Schultens (Orig. Heb. ii. 34ff.), after Cocceius, and with a reference to Virgil, Georg. iii. 147, has rendered קרץ by morsus vellicans oestri. Hitzig (with whom Roediger, in his additions to Gesenius’ Thesaurus, agrees) takes Arab. qârṣ , insectum cimici simile as his warrant for rendering it by oestrus, "the gadfly," which gives a more suitable meaning. Ewald, on the contrary, compares קרץ with Arab. qrs], and translates it "whale," a huge sea-monster; but this is quite arbitrary, for קרץ does not correspond to the Arabic qrs], and the whale or shark does not afford any figure that would be suitable for the context: e.g., Jer 46:21, "her mercenaries also flee," shows that the subject treated of is not the devouring or destruction, but the expulsion of the Egyptians out of their land; this is put as an addition to what is said about exile in Jer 46:19. Still less suitable is the general rendering excidium, destruction (Rabbins, Gesenius, Umbreit); and there is no lexical foundation for the Vulgate translation stimulator, nor for "taskmaster," the rendering of J. D. Michaelis and Rosenmüller. The old translators have only made guesses from the context. The figure of the gadfly corresponds to the bee in the land of Assyria, Isa 7:18. The repetition of בּא gives emphasis, and points either to the certainty of the coming, or its continuance. Jer 46:27-28 A promise for Israel. - Jer 46:27. "But fear not thou, O my servant Jacob, nor be dismayed: for, behold, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be at rest and secure, and no one shall make him afraid. Jer 46:28. Fear thou not, my servant Jacob, saith Jahveh, for I am with thee; for I will make complete destruction of all the nations whither I have driven thee, but of thee will I not make complete destruction: yet I will correct thee in a proper manner, and I will not leave thee wholly unpunished." These verses certainly form no integral portion of the prophecy, but an epilogue; yet they are closely connected with the preceding, and are occasioned by the declaration in Jer 46:26, that the Lord, when He visits Pharaoh, shall also visit all those who trust in Him. This word, which is directed to Judah, might be understood to declare that it is Judah chiefly which will share the fate of Egypt. In order to prevent such a misconception, Jeremiah adds a word for Israel, which shows how the true Israel has another destiny to hope for. Their deliverer is Jahveh, their God, who certainly punishes them for their sins, gives them up to the power of the heathen, but will also gather them gain after their dispersion, and then grant them uninterrupted prosperity. This promise of salvation at the close of the announcement of judgment on Egypt is similar to the promise of salvation for Israel inserted in the threat of judgment against Babylon, Jer 50:4-7 and Jer 50:19, Jer 50:20, Jer 51:5-6, Jer 51:10, Jer 51:35-36, Jer 51:45-46, Jer 51:50; and this similarity furnishes a proof in behalf of the genuineness of the verse, which is denied by modern critics. For, although what Nägelsbach remarks is quite correct, viz., that the fall of the kingdom of Babylon, through its conquest by Cyrus, directly brought about the deliverance of Israel, while the same cannot be said regarding the conquest of Egypt, yet even Egypt had a much greater importance, in relation to Judah, than the smaller neighbouring nations, against which the oracles in Jer 47-49 are directed; hence there is no ground for the inference that, because there is nothing said in these three chapters of such a connection between Egypt and Israel, it did not really exist. But when Nägelsbach further asks, "How does this agree with the fact that Jeremiah, on other occasions, while in Egypt, utters only the strongest threats against the Israelites - Jer 42-44?" - there is the ready answer, that the expressions in Jer 42-44 do not apply to the whole covenant people, but only to the rabble of Judah that was ripe for the sentence of destruction, that had fled to Egypt against the will of God. What Hitzig and Graf have further urged in another place against the genuineness of the verses now before us, is scarcely worth mention. The assertion that the verses do not accord with the time of the foregoing prophecy, and rather presuppose the exile, can have weight only with those who à priori deny that the prophet could make any prediction. But if Jeremiah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, distinctly announces not merely the carrying away of Judah to Babylon, but also fixes the duration of the exile at seventy years, then he might well speak at the same time, or later, of the restoration of Israel from their captivity.

But there are two other considerations which support the genuineness of these verses: (1) The fact that Hitzig and Graf are obliged to confess it remains a problem how they came to form a part of the oracle against Egypt. The attempt made by the former writer to solve this problem partly rests on the assumption, already refuted by Graf, that the verses were written by the second Isaiah (on this point, see our remarks at p. 263, note), and partly on a combination of results obtained by criticism, in which even their author has little confidence. But (2) we must also bear in mind the nature of the verses in question. They form a repetition of what we find in Jer 30:10-11, and a repetition, too, quite in the style of Jeremiah, who makes variations in expression. Thus here, in Jer 46:27, נאם יהוה is omitted after יעקוב, perhaps simply because Jer 46:26 concludes with נאם יהוה; again, in Jer 46:20, àתּה אל־תּירא is repeated with נאם יהוה, which is wanting in Jer 30:11. On the other hand, להושׁיעך in Jer 30:11, and אך in Jer 30:11, have been dropped; הפיצותיך שׁם (Jer 30:11) has been exchanged for הדּחתּיך שׁמּה. Hence Hitzig has taken the text here to be the better and the original one; and on this he founds the supposition that the verses were first placed here in the text, and were only afterwards, and from this passage, inserted in Jer 30:10-11, where, however, they stand in the best connection, and even for that reason could not be a gloss inserted there. Such are some of the contradictions in which critical scepticism involves itself. We have already given an explanation of these verses under Jer 30.