Charles Ellicott Commentary Ezekiel 29:19

"Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army." — Ezekiel 29:19 (ASV)

I will give. —In the original, this is in the form of a participle; literally, I am giving. This form is often used for the future, but with special appropriateness for the immediate future. The other tenses, according to Hebrew usage, take the temporal meaning of the principal verb.

It seems probable that this was spoken at the very time of Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign and conquest. For evidence that he did actually conquer Egypt, see the Excursus at the end of the book. He must have found abundant booty there, as the kings of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty were commercial and greatly given to the accumulation of wealth.

EXCURSUS E: ON CHAPTER 29:19.—ON NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S CONQUEST OF EGYPT.

The fact of this conquest having been called in question, it may be well to state very briefly the points of evidence in its favor. It is admitted by all that Pharaoh-Hophra was dethroned, died a violent death, and was succeeded by Amasis, who was at first little regarded by the people, though he afterwards won their confidence. The account given of this revolution by the Egyptian priests to Herodotus makes no mention of any foreign interference but represents it as wholly an internal affair, caused by a revolt of Hophra's troops. He sent Amasis to them to bring them back to their allegiance, but they saluted him as king.

This authority is suspicious, since the priests were prone to cover up whatever they considered against the honor of their country; and the two facts of Amasis's popularity with the troops and his unpopularity with the people are scarcely consistent, since it is said that he spared Hophra for a time but afterwards, yielding to the wishes of the people, strangled him. Now, against this suspicious and interested story stands the much more probable supposition that Hophra was dethroned and Amasis put into his place by the power of Nebuchadnezzar.

Megasthenes and Berosus, according to Josephus, expressly testify that “Nebuchadnezzar conquered a great part of Africa, and having invaded Egypt, took many captives, who were committed to the charge of persons appointed to conduct them after him to Babylon.” This conquest, according to the dates already given, must be placed just at the time of Hophra's fall. Besides this, there is a very full prophecy of the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah (Jeremiah 46:0), uttered in the first year of his reign (compare Jeremiah 46:1 with Jeremiah 25:1). But Jeremiah was himself afterwards carried into Egypt and, while there, uttered other prophecies to the same effect (Jeremiah 43, 44).

It is altogether probable that he was still living there at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s expedition; and, on the lowest grounds, it is inconceivable that he would have allowed these various prophecies to remain on record if they had been proved false by the event. The same thing substantially may also be said of the present prophecy of Ezekiel, and of that in Ezekiel 30:10, although the prophet was not, like Jeremiah, living where he could be an eyewitness of the result of the attack. Other prophecies against Egypt (Isaiah 18, 19, 31; Joel 3:19) are more general and may not have this particular conquest in view.

Again, Ezekiel represents Egypt as spoiled by Nebuchadnezzar, while both ancient history and the monuments describe the country as rich and prosperous under Amasis. There is really no inconsistency, but entire harmony between these accounts. The great drain upon Egypt's resources for many generations had been its foreign wars with the powers of Mesopotamia. Relieved of this, and at peace with Nebuchadnezzar, under the government of his vassal, Egypt would soon have recovered its prosperity in wealth and art, while still politically desolated and no longer able to appear as a great power among the nations. From this time through all subsequent history, Egypt was a lowly kingdom and never again able, as in former days, to dispute the sovereignty of the world.

There is an apparent difficulty about the date of this conquest, alluded to under Ezekiel 29:17. Ezekiel's prophecy is in the future, yet it was spoken in the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar (the twenty-seventh from Zedekiah's accession). Now, Jerusalem was taken in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year (2 Kings 25:8), and an interval of sixteen years seems, at first sight, inconsistent with Josephus's statement.

But if that statement is examined, it will be found to be entirely indefinite , and it is hardly to be supposed that Nebuchadnezzar would have undertaken the conquest of Egypt while still engaged in the siege of Tyre; in fact, Ezekiel 29:18–19 distinctly imply that the one was subsequent to the other. Now, the siege of Tyre appears to have begun about two years after the capture of Jerusalem and lasted thirteen years. It closed, then, fifteen years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and supposing the campaign against Egypt followed immediately in the next year, we get the exact date of this prophecy. (For the references to Josephus, see Antiquities, Book X, chapter 9, section 7; Against Apion, Book 1, sections 19, 20.)