29 This shall be the sign to you, says Yahweh, that I will punish you in this place, that you may know that my words shall surely stand against you for evil:
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
Jeremiah seals his prophecy by adding a sign which yet was to be coincident with it. It was not then, as they say, a premonstrative sign. And doubtless the Jews were wholly unworthy that God should shew them anything extraordinary; but this sign was only added, that they might know that they in vain trusted in the protection of Egypt, and also that every excuse might be taken away. This brief notice may perhaps be obscure. We shall therefore refer to a distinction that exists: some signs precede the time and order of things, but others are connected with the events themselves. The signs which precede events avail to prepare the minds of the faithful, so that they may not doubt but that God will do what he has promised, as when Gideon sought a sign from God, and it was granted to him; the ground was wet with dew, while the fleece remained dry; and then the fleece remained dry when the ground was wet. (Judges 6:36-40.) By this sign Gideon was encouraged to proceed in his course, when before doubt made him inert Gideon was torpid, but when he saw by this miracle that victory would be given him, he boldly undertook the work assigned to him. The greatest portion of signs are of this kind. But there are other signs which do not precede events, but shew that when the time is fulfilled the events have been truly predicted, as when God said to Moses, "This sign I give thee, that after ye have come out of Egypt ye shall sacrifice to me in this mountain." (Exodus 3:12) Neither Moses nor the people could know anything by that sign before they had departed from Egypt. But after they were delivered they there gave thanks on the third day to God their Redeemer. Hence signs refer sometimes to past time, and sometimes to what is future. Those which refer to the future are such as we call premonstrative, as the case was with Gideon, who took up arms with alacrity, because he knew that he was fighting under God's banner; and he was fully persuaded of a victory when he understood that God would be his leader. This sign then had a reference to what was future. But the sign given to Moses was retrospective, for the people more clearly saw that God had been their deliverer, because it had been predicted to Moses when yet in the desert that the Israelites would come there; and that place, even Mount Sinai, had been already destined for that worship which afterwards was presented to God. The people at the time considered this, and by calling to mind what had been predicted, they were more and more confirmed as to their faith in God's favor. Such was also the sign mentioned here, This shall be a sign, says Jeremiah, even that God would deliver Pharaoh-hophrah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy Had any one then asked the Prophet why he spoke of the king of Egypt, he would have said, "Now indeed this sign remains as it were buried, its use is not seen; but God will in due time shew that I have been entrusted with his commands, for whatever I predict of the king of Egypt shall be fulfilled." This sign was also added, for the thing seemed incredible, that is, that Egypt could be conquered, which was strongly fortified on every side. As, then, there was no entrance open for enemies, especially from Pelusium, the Jews thought that they dwelt, as they say, within the circle of the moon, and that they were placed beyond the reach of danger. Since, then, they confided in the protection of Egypt, and thought the land unassailable, this their confidence was laughed to scorn. And the Prophet expressly mentions the surname of Pharaoh, which was Hophra, the meaning of which is not known to me; and it is probably an Egyptic word, for there is no such word in Hebrew: and it is not known whence the word Pharaoh has come. We know that all the kings of Egypt had this name, as the emperors of Rome were called Caesars, in memory of Julius Caesar. The kings of Egypt were in the same manner called Pharaohs. But each had his own name to distinguish him from the rest; and this king was called Hophra. Now what the Prophet predicted, if we believe Josephus, was fulfilled about the fourth year after they had departed into Egypt. For Nebuchadnezzar went down again into Egypt, after having spoiled the Moabites and the Ammonites, and at length took possession of that kingdom. But it was a hateful message, when Jeremiah predicted the ruin of the kingdom. Nor is there a doubt, but that danger appeared before his eyes, when he saw that he addressed ungodly men, who a hundred times wished him to be destroyed. When therefore he dared to prophesy against the king, the whole people, and the land, we hence see how great must have been his firmness and his courage, still boldly to discharge his office; for he was not terrified by danger, but promulgated whatever God had committed to him. We then have here a singular example of magnanimity; for the Prophet hesitated not to risk his own life while obeying God. By saying, I will deliver the king of Egypt into the hands of his enemies, and of them who seek his life, he intimates that there would be fatal enemies, though he speaks only of one enemy, but he connects the army with its head: I will deliver Pharaoh then into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, as I have delivered Zedekiah into the hand of his enemy and of him who sought his life; as though he had said, "The condition of the king of Egypt will not be better than that of Zedekiah.": For Zedekiah occupied that sacred throne of which God had testified, "Here will I dwell;" and further, "On the throne of David shall one of his posterity ever continue." We hence see, that the Prophet reasons from the greater to the less; for if God had not spared King Zedekiah, who was, as it were, a sacred person, nothing better could be hoped for as to the king of Egypt, who reigned only in a manner usual and common. The sum of what is said then is, that the Jews had been already sufficiently taught by facts how true his prophecies were; for he had predicted what at length happened to Zedekiah; but his word was not believed. "It is now the time," he says, "when the Jews must know that I am God's faithful servant, as God had added a proof in the case of Zedekiah, which ought to have remained fixed in their memory." Now, if they thought that the king of Egypt was beyond danger, they ascribed great injustice to God, who had not delivered Zedekiah, who had been anointed in his name, and by his command. This then is the import of the passage.
And this shall be a sign unto you, saith the Lord, that I will punish you in this place,.... In Egypt, as before threatened; and what follows is a confirming sign that so it would be; and which, when observed by some, gave the hint to them to make their escape; though others, being hardened in their idolatry, impenitence, and unbelief, continued, and perished:
that ye may know that my words shall surely stand against you for evil; which sign, when they should see, they might assure themselves that the threatenings of evil to them would certainly be accomplished, as sure as they saw the sign given, which is as follows:
this . . . sign unto you--The calamity of Pharaoh-hophra (see on Jeremiah 44:30) shall be a sign to you that as he shall fall before his enemy, so you shall subsequently fall before Nebuchadnezzar (Matthew 24:8) [GROTIUS]. CALVIN makes the "sign" to be simultaneous with the event signified, not antecedent to it, as in Exodus 3:12. The Jews believed Egypt impregnable, so shut in was it by natural barriers. The Jews being "punished in this place" will be a sign that their view is false, and God's threat true. He calls it "a sign unto you," because God's prediction is equivalent to the event, so that they may even now take it as a sign. When fulfilled it would cease to be a sign to them: for they would be dead.
In confirmation of this threatening, the Lord gives them another sign which, when it is fulfilled, will let them know that the destruction announced to them shall certainly befall them. The token consists in the giving up of King Hophra into the hand of his enemies. As certainly as this shall take place, so certainly shall the extermination of the Jews in Egypt ensue. The name חפרע is rendered Οὐάφρις in Manetho, in the classical writers ̓Απρίης, Apris, who, according to Herodotus (ii. 161), reigned twenty-five years, but nineteen according to Manetho (cf. Boeckh, Manetho, etc., p. 341ff.). His death took place in the year 570 b.c. This date is reached by a comparison of the following facts: - Cambyses conquered Egypt in the year 525; and in the preceding year Amasis had died, after a reign of forty-four years (Herod. iii. 10). Hence Amasis - who took Apris prisoner, and gave him up to the common people, who killed him (Herod. ii. 161-163, 169) - must have commenced his reign in the year 570. On the death of Apris, or Hophra, cf. the explanation given on p. 353f., where we have shown that the words, "I will give him into the hand of his enemies, and of those who seek his life," when compared with what is said of Zedekiah, "into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy," do not require us to assume that Hophra was killed by Nebuchadnezzar, and can very well be harmonized with the notice of Herodotus regarding the death of this king.
Hitzig and Graf have taken objection to this sign given by Jeremiah, and regard Jeremiah 44:29, Jeremiah 44:30 as a spurious vaticinium ex eventu, the work of another hand. The reasons they urge are, that it is scarcely possible Jeremiah could have lived till 570; that Jeremiah 44:29. would be the only place where Jeremiah offered such a criterion; and that, even as it is, these verses contain nothing original, but, by their stiff and lifeless parallelism, are easily seen to be an artificial conclusion. Of these three arguments, the last can prove nothing, since it is merely a subjective opinion on an aesthetic point. The second, again, rather declares for than against the genuineness. For "if it were not Jeremiah's usual, elsewhere, to offer some criterion, then such an interpolation would have been all the more carefully avoided" (Ngelsbach). Of course we do not find any other signs of this kind in Jeremiah; but it does not follow from this that he could not offer such a thing in a special case. Yet the ground taken up by Ngelsbach, as sufficient to establish this position, seems quite untenable, viz., that the announcement of the fate in store for the king must have been the answer of the true God to the presumptuous boast of Apris, mentioned by Herodotus, "that even God could not dethrone him, so firmly did he think he was established:" this view of the matter seems too remote from the object of Jeremiah's address. And finally, the first-named objection receives importance only on the supposition that "an event which was intended to serve as אות, a sign or criterion, must be something that was to happen immediately, or within a brief appointed period of time, so that a person might be able, from the occurrence of the one, to conclude that what had been foretold about a later period would as certainly take place" (Graf). But there are no sufficient grounds for this hypothesis. If no definite time be fixed for the occurrence of this sign, then it may not appear till a considerable time afterwards, and yet be a pledge for the occurrence of what was predicted for a still later period. That Jeremiah lived till the year 570 is certainly not inconceivable, but it is not likely that he uttered the prophecy now before us at the advanced age of nearly eighty years. Now, if his address is allowed to be a real prophecy, and not a mere vaticinium ex eventu, as Hitzig, looking from his dogmatic standpoint, considers it, then it must have been uttered before the year 570; but whether this was two, or five, or ten years before, makes no material difference. The address itself contains nothing to justify the assumption of Graf, that it is closely connected with the prophecy in Jeremiah 43:8-13, and with the warning against the migration into Egypt, Jeremiah 42. That the Jews spoken of had not been long in Egypt, cannot be inferred from Jeremiah 44:8, Jeremiah 44:12, and Jeremiah 44:18; on the contrary, the fact that they had settled down in different parts of Egypt, and had assembled at Pathros for a festival, shows that they had been living there for a considerable time before. Nor does it follow, from the statement in Jeremiah 44:14 that they longed to return to Judah, that they had gone to Egypt some months before. The desire to return into the land of their fathers remains, in a measure, in the heart of the Jew even at the present day. After all, then, no valid reason can be assigned for doubting the genuineness of these verses.
On the fulfilment of these threatenings Ngelsbach remarks: "Every one must be struck on finding that, in Jeremiah 44, the extermination of the Jews who dwelt in Egypt is predicted; while some centuries later, the Jews in Egypt were very numerous, and that country formed a central point for the Jewish exiles (cf. Herzog, Real-Encycl. xvii. S. 285). Alexander the Great found so many Jews in Egypt, that he peopled with Jews, in great measure, the city he had founded and called after himself (cf. Herzog, i. S. 235). How did these Jews get to Egypt? Whence the great number of Jews whom Alexander found already in Egypt? I am inclined to think that we must consider them, for the most part, as the descendants of those who had come into the country with Jeremiah. But, according to this view of the matter, Jeremiah's prophecy has not been fulfilled." Ngelsbach therefore thinks we must assume that idolatrous worship, through time, almost entirely ceased among the exiled Jews in Egypt as it did among those in Babylon, and that the Lord then, in return, as regards the penitents, repented of the evil which He had spoken against them (Jeremiah 26:13, Jeremiah 26:19). But this whole explanation is fundamentally wrong, since the assertion, that Alexander the Great found so many Jews in Egypt, that with them mainly he peopled the city of Alexandria which he had founded, is contrary to historic testimony. In Herzog (Real-Encycl. i. S. 235), to which Ngelsbach refers for proof on the point, nothing of the kind is to be found, but rather the opposite, viz., the following: "Soon after the foundation of Alexandria by Alexander the Great, this city became not merely the centre of Jewish Hellenism in Egypt, but generally speaking the place of union between Oriental and Occidental Jews. The external condition of the Jews of Alexandria must, on the whole, be characterized as highly prosperous. The first Jewish settlers had, indeed, been compelled by Alexander the Great to take up their residence in the city (Josephus, Antt. xv. 3. 1); so, too, were other Jews, by Ptolemy I. or Lagi (ibid. xii. 2. 4). But both of these monarchs granted them the same rights and privileges as the Macedonians, including Greek citizenship; and in consequence of the extremely advantageous position of the city, it speedily increased in importance. A still larger number, therefore, soon went thither of their own accord, and adopted the Greek language." In this account, the quotation from Josephus, Antt. xv. 3. 1, is certainly incorrect; for neither is there in that passage any testimony borne to the measures attributed to Alexander, nor are there any other historical testimonies given from antiquity. But as little can we find any proofs that Alexander the Great found so many Jews in Egypt that he could, to a large extent, people with them the city he had founded. It is merely testified by Josephus (Antt. xi. 8. 5), and by Hecataeus in Josephus (contra Ap. i. 22; p. 457, ed. Haverc.), that Alexander had Jewish soldiers in his army; it is further evident, from a notice in Josephus, de bell. Jude. ii. 18. 7, contra Ap. ii. 4) cf. Curtius Rufus, iv. 8), that the newly founded city, even under Alexander, immediately after it was commenced, and still more under Ptolemy Lagi (cf. Josephus, Antt. xii. 1, and Hecataeus in Joshua. contra Ap. i. 22, p. 455), attracted a constantly increasing multitude of Jewish immigrants. This same Ptolemy, after having subdued Phoenicia and Coele-Syria in the year 320, and taken Jerusalem also, it would seem, by a stratagem on a Sabbath day, transported many captives and hostages out of the whole country into Egypt; many, too, must have been sold at that time as slaves to the inhabitants of such a wealthy country as Egypt: see a statement in the book of Aristeas, at the end of Havercamp's edition of Josephus, ii. p. 104. In the same place, and in Josephus' Antt. xii. 1, Ptolemy is said to have armed 30,000 Jewish soldiers, placed them as garrisons in the fortresses, and granted them all the rights of Macedonian citizens (ἰσοπολιτεία). Ewald well says, History of the People of Israel, vol. iv. of second edition, p. 254: "When we further take into consideration, that, in addition to all other similar disasters which had previously befallen them, many Jews were removed to Egypt (especially by Ochus, after Egypt had been reconquered), we can easily explain how Ptolemy Philadelphus can be said to have liberated 100,000 Egyptian Jews. Aristeas' Book, p. 105." This much, at least, is proved by these various notices, - that, in order to understand how such a vast increase took place in the number of the Jews in Egypt, we do not need to regard them as the descendants of those who removed thither with Jeremiah, and so to question the fulfilment of the prophecy now before us. Jeremiah does not, of course, threaten with destruction all those Jews who live in Egypt, but only those who at that time went thither against the divine will, and there persevered in their idolatry. We do not know how great may have been the number of these immigrants, but they could hardly exceed two thousand, - perhaps, indeed, there were not so many. All these, as had been foretold them, may have perished in the conquest of Egypt by the Chaldeans, and afterwards, through the sword, famine, and pestilence; for the myriads of Jews in Egypt at the time of Ptolemy Lagi could easily have removed thither during the period of 250 years intermediate between the immigration in Jeremiah's time and the foundation of Alexandria, partly as prisoners and slaves, partly through voluntary settlement.
This shall be a sign - Signs are usually antecedent to the thing signified, but the word is taken in a larger notion in this place for that which should attend the thing signified by it.
*More commentary available at chapter level.