Charles Ellicott Commentary Jeremiah 43

Azariah the son of Hoshaiah.—The Septuagint, it should be remembered, gives this name in Jeremiah 42:1, where the Hebrew has Jezaniah. Possibly, however, as suggested above, the two names represent brothers who were both prominent as leaders of the people. Here, we may note, he takes precedence over Johanan, probably as the chief spokesman of the prevailing discontent. The special mention of all the proud men suggests that there were some who, left to themselves, would have been willing to follow the prophet’s counsel.

Those who join in the protest content themselves with a flat denial of his inspiration, and charge him, as he had been charged before (Jeremiah 37:13), with sinister intentions. It is suggestive, in connection with the view taken in the Note on Jeremiah 42:17, that the Septuagint, following apparently a different reading of the Hebrew, gives all the aliens instead of all the proud.

Baruch the son of Neriah setteth thee on against us. —This was the solution that occurred to the suspicions of the grumblers. The prophet’s amanuensis had become his leader and was using him as a tool for the advancement of his own plans; and those plans were to seek the favor of the conqueror by delivering the remnant of the people into his hands. The warning of Jeremiah 45:5 may perhaps be taken as an indication that there was a certain ambition and love of eminence in Baruch’s character which lent credibility to the suspicion. Baruch himself had not appeared on the scene since the days of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:32), but it stands to reason that he would be known as advocating, like Jeremiah, the policy of submission to Nebuchadnezzar.

The apocryphal Book of Baruch represents him as being actually at Babylon at the time of the capture of Jerusalem, and this was in itself quite probable. On this assumption, Jeremiah was perhaps suspected of actually receiving instructions from the Babylonian Court through Baruch, who in Jeremiah 43:6 suddenly reappears as the prophet’s companion. Prophet and scribe were apparently seized and carried off by force to prevent them from carrying out the schemes of which they were suspected. The phrase “remnant of Judah returned from all nations” refers to the fugitives from Moab, Ammon, or Edom, mentioned in Jeremiah 40:11. As the emigration included all who had gathered together under the protection of Gedaliah, it must have left the lands of Judah almost entirely depopulated, and the fear of this result may well have been among the reasons that determined Jeremiah’s counsel.

Thus they came even to Tahpanhes. —The town was obviously on the north-eastern frontier of Egypt.

In Judith 1:9, it appears between the river of Egypt (the Rhinocolura, which divided Egypt from Palestine), Ramesse (the Raamses of Exodus 1:11, or Rameses of Numbers 33:3 and Numbers 33:5), and all the land of Gesen, or Goshen. In Ezekiel 30:16-18, it is named, in conjunction with No (meaning Thebes) and Noph (meaning Memphis), among the chief cities of Egypt.

In Greek historians, it appears as Daphne and as near Pelusium (Herodotus 2.30); and in the Itinerary of Antoninus, it is placed under the name of Dafno, at a distance of sixteen Roman miles from the latter city. Its name may also be connected with that of the Egyptian Queen Tahpenes, mentioned in 1 Kings 11:19.

Here, apparently, the emigrants determined to settle and found a new home for themselves.

Take great stones in your hand, and hide them in the clay in the brickkiln. —Better, in the mortar on the platform. There seems something incongruous in the idea of a brickkiln, or a place for baking bricks, at the entrance of a royal palace; nor is it easy to see why Nebuchadrezzar should have chosen it as a place for his throne. It seems better, with Hitzig, Furst, and others, to take the Hebrew word, which occurs only here and in 2 Samuel 12:31 and Nahum 3:14, as meaning a structure of brick, a dais or raised pavement, like the Gabbatha or Pavement on which Pilate sat (John 19:13), in front of the entrance of the palace, on which the king naturally placed his throne when he sat in judgment or received petitions. Assyrian and Babylonian monuments present many instances of kings thus seated.

To make his prediction more vivid, the prophet places stones in the mortar or cement (not “clay”) with which the mass was covered, and conceals them apparently with a fresh coat of mortar. There they were to remain until his prediction should be fulfilled. The symbolic act was of the same type as the breaking of the potter’s vessel in Jeremiah 19:10, the yoke worn on the prophet’s shoulders (Jeremiah 27:2), and Ezekiel’s digging through the wall (Ezekiel 12:7). It may be noted that our version follows Luther in translating “brickkiln.” The Septuagint evades the difficulty by taking refuge in vague terms: “in the vestibule (πρόθυρα), in the gate of the house,” and the Vulgate gives “in the crypt which is under the brick walls.”

He shall spread his royal pavilion over them.—Here, again, the meaning of the Hebrew word is doubtful. The English Version, as before, follows Luther in interpreting it as the awning or canopy that was stretched over the throne when the king sat in state as judge. Others (e.g., Hitzig) interpret it as the leather covering that was placed over the pavement on which the throne was set, upon which the criminal knelt as on a scaffold to receive the executioner's death-stroke.

Interpreted this way, the prediction assumes a more definite and terrible aspect. The king was to sit upon the stones that Jeremiah had hidden, not merely in his regal pomp, but in the character of an avenger executing the wrath of Jehovah against the rebellious.