The flight to Egypt; Jeremiah's predic- tion of Nebnchadnezzar's conquest of Egypt,
Ver. 2, — ^All the proud men. It would seem as if the " proud men " were dis- tinguished from others. Jeremiah had called the whole people together (oil. xliL 8) ; but a few domineering men assumed to represent the rest.
Ver. 3. — Baraoh the ion of Neriah setteth thee on. A singular lupposition — Jeremiah leaving the initiative to his secretary I It may be conjectured thatBaruch haiJ somehow made himself specially unpopular ; he may have been a more practical man (comp. oh. zlv. 6) than Jeremiah.
Ver. 5. — All the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations. The speci- floation is peculiar, as it seems to leave out of sight tlie most important part of the gathering at Mizpab, viz. the "men, and women, and children, and those of the poor of the land" (ch. xl. 7) — the very persons who are mentioned just afterwards. Pos- sibly there is some confusion in the text " All nations " doubtless means especially Moab, Ammon, and P^dom.
Yer. 7. — lahpanhes. An Egyptian fron- tier city (see Ezek. xxx. 18 and note on ch, ii. 16), where the fugitives had to wait till the views of the Egyptian government re- specting them were made known. The sup- posed site of the Pelusiao Daphne has not yet been explored ; a single inscribed frag- ment would reveal the Egyptian name, and probably ratify the identity of Daphnes with the Tahpanhes of the prophets (B. 8. Poole, ' The Cities of Egypt,' p, 177).
Var, 9.— lake great itouei, eH. A
■trange lymbolio act of Jeremiah's (■ her* described. " We must not suppose, arguing from our Western and precise notions, that be would be at all necessarily interfered with. In fact, he would have a twofold security, as a prophet of God to those who acknowledged him as such, and in the opinion of others as insane, and, according to Eastern ideas, thus especially under Divine promptings in his acts" (Streane). He is directed to take great stones and embed the min the mortar (not " clay ") in the brick pavement at the entry of the palace. When the events predicted came to pass, these stones would testify that Jere- miah had predicted them. The word ren- dered " brick pavement " is of doubtful meaning. In Nab. iii 14 it signifies « brick-kiln."
Yer. 10. — And will set his throne, eto.; Til. for the victorious king to hold judgment (comp. oh. L 15, 16; xlix. 88). He shall spread his royal pavilion ; rather, /ii> tapegtry (the root means "brilliance"); i.«. the bright-coloured covering of the throne.
Ver. 11. — He shall smite the land ol Egypt. On the invasion of Egypt by Nebn* ohadnezzar, wrongly controverted by some, see note on oh. xlvi. 13. Such as are for death. 8uch as are destined for death (t.e. pestilence,asch. XV. 2; xviii.21). Tlie words, "and deliver," prefixed in the Authorized Version, are unnecessary; "Und" is ei^uiw lent to " population."
Yer. 12. — Bum them; viz. the temple*. Egypt was full of gorgeous and imposing temples, which could not, however, always be burned, nor were the conquerors of Egypt anxious to display hostility to Egyptian re- ligion. Carry them away captives ; viz. the idol-g«di (comp. oh. xlviii. 7, ■'Ohemosk
OH. XLiii. 1— 13.] THE BOOK OP THE PROPHET JEREMIAH.
181
shall KO forth into captivity;" and Isa. xlvL 2, " Their soul [or, ' personality '] hath gone into captivity "). The prophet speaks from the point of vievr of a believer in the idol- gods. He shall array himself with the land of Egypt, etc. (For " array himself with " and "putteth on," read wrap himself in and wrappeth Kimaelf t'n.) Ewald vf ell explains this figure. " As easily as the shepherd in the open field wraps liimself in the cool night in his mantle, will he be able to grasp Egypt with his hand and fling it round him like an easily managed garment, in order then to leave the land as an absolute con- queror, clothed in this attire of booty, in peace, without an enemy." Vor. 18. — Ihe images a( Beth-shemesh ;
rather, the pillan of Beth-shpinesh ; l.e. th« obelisks of the temple of En, the sun-god, from which Heliopolis derived its sacred name "Pe-Ra" "the abode of Ua." It was the custom to place olielisks in pairs at the entrance of thuir temples. Only one of those of Heliopolis is still standing, tliough that, indued, is the oldest in Kgypt, for it wa.-i "set up at least four thousand years ago" (R. S. Poole, ' The Cities of Ejrypt,' p. 131). That is in the land of Egypt. To distinguish it from the Beth-shi mesh in Palestine. But we may also reniler " which are," etc. ; comp. "the gods of Egypt" in the seooml verse-half. The Septnagint reads, " which ate in On."
HOMILETICa.
Ter. 2. — Moral causes of unielief. 1'he causes of unbelief may be either intellectual or moral. It is not just to assume that they are of the latter character. There is an honest doubt, and many a brave soul has been forced to fight its way over a wild deseri of difficulties before seeing the light of Divine revelation. Nevertheless, it is necessary for our own warning and in controversy with others to remember that there are moral causes for unbelief, and that in some cases these may be much more operative than any purely intellectual consideration. Azariah and his friends have discovered ne good ground for doubting the Divine authority of Jeremiah's message. They have seen nothing to detract from the claims of the prophet and nothing to conrradict what lie says. Yet they reject his message and charge him with falsehood. The palpable expla- nation of their conduct may serve to explain the ground of much unbelief in our own day. In the main this consists in two things.
I. The DNFOPnLABiTY OF THE sooTBiNG. Jeremiah had run counter to the determi- nation of the leaders of the people. Instead of modifying their conduct In obedience to the Divine message, they preferred to reject the message and deny its authority. This was most irrational. Yet it is a sample of the commonest conduct. People test their creed by their will instead of their reason and conscience and its own evidences. They say they do not like certain ideas, as though truth were a matter of taste. But truth is the statement of facts, and facts are not altered by sentiments. In the present instance the question was as to Qod's will. Was it not possible from the first that this might contradict the opinions of the people ? Otherwise what was the use of the prayer for direction, that these very men had asked Jeremiah to offer, and the reply to which was his unpopular message? If God's will and truth always agreed with our private notions, what would be the good of revelation and commandment ? It is in the conflict of the two that the chief value of the Divine message is to be found.