Mizpah Betrayed: Murder, Fear, and the Drift Toward Egypt

Jer 41:6-7 Ishmael went out from Mizpah to meet these men, always weeping as he went (הלך הלך וּבכה, cf. Ges. §131, ab; Ew. §280, b). If they came from Ephraim by way of Gibeon (el Jîb), the road on to Jerusalem passed close by Mizpah. When Ishmael met them, he asked them to come to Gedaliah (to Mizpah). But when they had entered the city, "Ishmael slew them into the midst of the pit" (which was there), i.e., killed them and cast their corpses into the pit.

Jer 41:6-7 Ishmael went out from Mizpah to meet these men, always weeping as he went (הלך הלך וּבכה, cf. Ges. §131, ab; Ew. §280, b). If they came from Ephraim by way of Gibeon (el Jîb), the road on to Jerusalem passed close by Mizpah. When Ishmael met them, he asked them to come to Gedaliah (to Mizpah). But when they had entered the city, "Ishmael slew them into the midst of the pit" (which was there), i.e., killed them and cast their corpses into the pit.

Jer 41:8-9 Only ten men out of the eighty saved their lives, and this by saying to Ishmael, "Do not kill us, for we have hidden stores in the field - wheat, and barley, and oil, and honey." מטמנים are excavations in the form of cisterns, or subterranean storehouses in the open country, for keeping grain; the openings or entrances to these are so concealed that the eye of a stranger could not perceive them.

Such places are still universally employed in Palestine at the present day (Robinson’s Palestine , i. pp. 324-5), and are also to be found in other southern countries, both in ancient and modern times; see proofs of this in Rosenmüller’s Scholia ad hunc locum . It is remarked, in Jer 41:9, of the pit into which Ishmael threw the corpses, that it was the same that King Asa had made, i.

e. , had caused to be made, against, i. e. , for protection against, Baasha the king of Israel. In the historical books there is no mention made of this pit in the account of the war between Asa and Baasha, 1Ki 15:16-22 and 2Ch 16:1-6; it is only stated in 1Ki 15:22 and 2Ch 16:6 that, after Baasha, who had fortified Ramah, had been compelled to return to his own land because of the invasion of Benhadad the Syrian king, whom Asa had called to his aid, the king of Judah ordered all his people to carry away from Ramah the stones and timber which Baasha had employed in building, and therewith fortify Geba and Mizpah.

The expression מפּני בעשׁא certainly implies that the pit had been formed as a protection against Baasha, and belonged to the fortifications raised at that time. However, הבּור cannot mean the burial-place belonging to the city (Grotius), but only a cistern (cf. 2Ki 10:14); and one such as could contain a considerable store of water was as necessary as a wall and a moat for the fortification of a city, so that it might be able to endure a long siege (Graf).

Hitzig, on the other hand, takes בּור to mean a long and broad ditch which cut off the approach to the city from Ephraim, or which, forming a part of the fortifications, made a break in the road to Jerusalem, though it was bridged over in times of peace, thus forming a kind of tunnel. This idea is certainly incorrect; for, according to Jer 41:7, the "ditch" was inside the city (בּתוך).

The expression בּיד גּדליהוּ is obscure, and cannot be explained with any of certainty. בּיד cannot mean "through the fault of" Gedaliah (Raschi), or "because of" Gedaliah - for his sake (Kimchi, Umbreit), or " coram " Gedaliah (Venema), but must rather be rendered "by means of, through the medium of," or "at the side of, together with." Nägelsbach has decided for the rendering "by means of," giving as his reason the fact that Ishmael had made use of the name of Gedaliah in order to decoy these men into destruction.

He had called to them, "Come to Gedaliah" (Jer 41:6); and simply on the authority of this name, they had followed him. But the employment of the name as a means of decoy can hardly be expressed by בּיד. We therefore prefer the meaning "at the hand = at the side of" (following the Syriac, L. de Dieu, Rosenmüller, Ewald), although this signification cannot be established from the passages cited by Rosenm.

(1Sa 14:34; 1Sa 16:2; Ezr 7:23), nor can the meaning "together with" (Ewald) be shown to belong to it. On the other hand, a passage which is quite decisive for the rendering "by the hand of, beside," is Job 15:23 : "there stands ready at his hand (בּידו, i. e. , close to him) a day of darkness." If we take this meaning for the passage now before us, then בּיד גּדליהוּ cannot be connected with אשׁר , in accordance with the Masoretic accents, but with השׁליך שׁם, "where Ishmael cast the bodies of the men whom he had slain, by the side of Gedaliah;" so that it is not stated till here and now, and only in a casual manner, what had become of Gedaliah’s corpse.

Nothing that admits of being proved can be brought against this view. The הוּא which follows is a predicate: "the ditch wherein... was that which Asa the king had formed." The motive for this second series of assassinations by Ishmael is difficult to discover. The supposition that he was afraid of being betrayed, and for this reason killed these strangers, not wishing to be troubled with them, is improbable, for the simple reason that these strangers did not want to go to Mizpah, but to Jerusalem.

For the supposition of Thenius (on 2Ki 25:23) and of Schmieder, that the people had intended going to Mizpah to a house of God that was there, is very properly rejected by Hitzig, because no mention is made in history of a place of worship at Mizpah; and, according to the express statement of Jer 41:6. , Ishmael had enticed them into this city only by inviting them to come and see Gedaliah.

Had Ishmael wished merely to conceal the murder of Gedaliah from these strangers, he ought to have done anything but let them into Mizpah. As little can we regard this deed (with Graf) as an act of revenge on these Israelites by Ishmael for the murder of his relations and equals in rank by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 52:10), because these men, who had now for a long time been living together with heathens, were Assyrian and Chaldean subjects.

For we cannot comprehend how he could look on these Israelites as friends of the Chaldeans, and vent his anger against the Chaldean rule by murdering them; the mournful procession which they formed, and the offerings they were carrying to present, proclaimed them faithful adherents of Judah. Nägelsbach, accordingly, is of opinion that Ishmael had simply intended robbery.

As it is evident that he, a rough and wild man, had assassinated the noble Gedaliah from personal jealousy, and in order to further the political interest of his Ammonite patron, he must have been seeking to put himself in the position of his victim, or to flee. "When we find, moreover, that he soon murdered a peaceable caravan of pilgrims, and preserved the lives only of a few who offered to show him hidden treasures; when, finally, we perceive that the whole turba imbellis of Mizpah were seized and carried off into slavery, Ishmael proves himself a mere robber."

But, though the fact that Ishmael spared the lives of the ten men who offered to show him hidden treasures seems to support this view, yet the supposition that nothing more than robbery was intended does not suffice to explain the double murder. The two series of assassinations plainly stand in the closest connection, and must have been executed from one and the same motive.

It was at the instigation of the Ammonite king that Ishmael murdered Gedaliah; moreover, as we learn from the report brought to Gedaliah by Johanan (Jer 40:15), the crime was committed in the expectation that the whole of Judah would then be dispersed, and the remnant of them perish. This murder was thus the work of the Ammonite king, who selected the royally-descended Ishmael as his instrument simply because he could conveniently, for the execution of his plans, employ the personal envy of one man against another who had been preferred by the king of Babylon.

There can be no doubt that the same motive which urged him to destroy the remnant of Judah, i. e. , to frustrate the attempt to gather and restore Judah, was also at work in the massacre of the pilgrims who were coming to the temple. If Ishmael, the leader of a robber-gang, had entered into the design of the Ammonite king, then everything that might serve for the preservation and consolidation of Judah must have been a source of pain to him; and this hatred of his towards Judah, which derived its strength and support from his religious views, incited him to murder the Jewish pilgrims to the temple, although the prospect of obtaining treasures might well cooperate with this in such a way as to make him spare the ten men who pretended they had hidden stores.

With this, too, we can easily connect the hypocritical dealing on the part of Ishmael, in going forth, with tears, to meet these pious pilgrims, so that he might deceive them by making such a show of grief over the calamity that had befallen Judah; fore the wicked often assume an appearance of sanctity for the more effectual accomplishment of their evil deeds. The lxx evidently did not know what to make of this passage as it stands; hence, in Jer 41:6, they have quite dropped the words "from Mizpah," and have rendered הלך הלך by αὐτοὶ ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἔκλαιον.

Hitzig and Graf accept this as indicating the original text, since Ishmael had no ostensible ground for weeping. But the reasons which are supposed to justify this conjecture are, as Nägelsbach well remarks, of such a nature that one can scarcely believe they are seriously held.

Jer 41:8-9 Only ten men out of the eighty saved their lives, and this by saying to Ishmael, "Do not kill us, for we have hidden stores in the field - wheat, and barley, and oil, and honey." מטמנים are excavations in the form of cisterns, or subterranean storehouses in the open country, for keeping grain; the openings or entrances to these are so concealed that the eye of a stranger could not perceive them.

Such places are still universally employed in Palestine at the present day (Robinson’s Palestine , i. pp. 324-5), and are also to be found in other southern countries, both in ancient and modern times; see proofs of this in Rosenmüller’s Scholia ad hunc locum . It is remarked, in Jer 41:9, of the pit into which Ishmael threw the corpses, that it was the same that King Asa had made, i.

e. , had caused to be made, against, i. e. , for protection against, Baasha the king of Israel. In the historical books there is no mention made of this pit in the account of the war between Asa and Baasha, 1Ki 15:16-22 and 2Ch 16:1-6; it is only stated in 1Ki 15:22 and 2Ch 16:6 that, after Baasha, who had fortified Ramah, had been compelled to return to his own land because of the invasion of Benhadad the Syrian king, whom Asa had called to his aid, the king of Judah ordered all his people to carry away from Ramah the stones and timber which Baasha had employed in building, and therewith fortify Geba and Mizpah.

The expression מפּני בעשׁא certainly implies that the pit had been formed as a protection against Baasha, and belonged to the fortifications raised at that time. However, הבּור cannot mean the burial-place belonging to the city (Grotius), but only a cistern (cf. 2Ki 10:14); and one such as could contain a considerable store of water was as necessary as a wall and a moat for the fortification of a city, so that it might be able to endure a long siege (Graf).

Hitzig, on the other hand, takes בּור to mean a long and broad ditch which cut off the approach to the city from Ephraim, or which, forming a part of the fortifications, made a break in the road to Jerusalem, though it was bridged over in times of peace, thus forming a kind of tunnel. This idea is certainly incorrect; for, according to Jer 41:7, the "ditch" was inside the city (בּתוך).

The expression בּיד גּדליהוּ is obscure, and cannot be explained with any of certainty. בּיד cannot mean "through the fault of" Gedaliah (Raschi), or "because of" Gedaliah - for his sake (Kimchi, Umbreit), or " coram " Gedaliah (Venema), but must rather be rendered "by means of, through the medium of," or "at the side of, together with." Nägelsbach has decided for the rendering "by means of," giving as his reason the fact that Ishmael had made use of the name of Gedaliah in order to decoy these men into destruction.

He had called to them, "Come to Gedaliah" (Jer 41:6); and simply on the authority of this name, they had followed him. But the employment of the name as a means of decoy can hardly be expressed by בּיד. We therefore prefer the meaning "at the hand = at the side of" (following the Syriac, L. de Dieu, Rosenmüller, Ewald), although this signification cannot be established from the passages cited by Rosenm.

(1Sa 14:34; 1Sa 16:2; Ezr 7:23), nor can the meaning "together with" (Ewald) be shown to belong to it. On the other hand, a passage which is quite decisive for the rendering "by the hand of, beside," is Job 15:23 : "there stands ready at his hand (בּידו, i. e. , close to him) a day of darkness." If we take this meaning for the passage now before us, then בּיד גּדליהוּ cannot be connected with אשׁר , in accordance with the Masoretic accents, but with השׁליך שׁם, "where Ishmael cast the bodies of the men whom he had slain, by the side of Gedaliah;" so that it is not stated till here and now, and only in a casual manner, what had become of Gedaliah’s corpse.

Nothing that admits of being proved can be brought against this view. The הוּא which follows is a predicate: "the ditch wherein... was that which Asa the king had formed." The motive for this second series of assassinations by Ishmael is difficult to discover. The supposition that he was afraid of being betrayed, and for this reason killed these strangers, not wishing to be troubled with them, is improbable, for the simple reason that these strangers did not want to go to Mizpah, but to Jerusalem.

For the supposition of Thenius (on 2Ki 25:23) and of Schmieder, that the people had intended going to Mizpah to a house of God that was there, is very properly rejected by Hitzig, because no mention is made in history of a place of worship at Mizpah; and, according to the express statement of Jer 41:6. , Ishmael had enticed them into this city only by inviting them to come and see Gedaliah.

Had Ishmael wished merely to conceal the murder of Gedaliah from these strangers, he ought to have done anything but let them into Mizpah. As little can we regard this deed (with Graf) as an act of revenge on these Israelites by Ishmael for the murder of his relations and equals in rank by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 52:10), because these men, who had now for a long time been living together with heathens, were Assyrian and Chaldean subjects.

For we cannot comprehend how he could look on these Israelites as friends of the Chaldeans, and vent his anger against the Chaldean rule by murdering them; the mournful procession which they formed, and the offerings they were carrying to present, proclaimed them faithful adherents of Judah. Nägelsbach, accordingly, is of opinion that Ishmael had simply intended robbery.

As it is evident that he, a rough and wild man, had assassinated the noble Gedaliah from personal jealousy, and in order to further the political interest of his Ammonite patron, he must have been seeking to put himself in the position of his victim, or to flee. "When we find, moreover, that he soon murdered a peaceable caravan of pilgrims, and preserved the lives only of a few who offered to show him hidden treasures; when, finally, we perceive that the whole turba imbellis of Mizpah were seized and carried off into slavery, Ishmael proves himself a mere robber."

But, though the fact that Ishmael spared the lives of the ten men who offered to show him hidden treasures seems to support this view, yet the supposition that nothing more than robbery was intended does not suffice to explain the double murder. The two series of assassinations plainly stand in the closest connection, and must have been executed from one and the same motive.

It was at the instigation of the Ammonite king that Ishmael murdered Gedaliah; moreover, as we learn from the report brought to Gedaliah by Johanan (Jer 40:15), the crime was committed in the expectation that the whole of Judah would then be dispersed, and the remnant of them perish. This murder was thus the work of the Ammonite king, who selected the royally-descended Ishmael as his instrument simply because he could conveniently, for the execution of his plans, employ the personal envy of one man against another who had been preferred by the king of Babylon.

There can be no doubt that the same motive which urged him to destroy the remnant of Judah, i. e. , to frustrate the attempt to gather and restore Judah, was also at work in the massacre of the pilgrims who were coming to the temple. If Ishmael, the leader of a robber-gang, had entered into the design of the Ammonite king, then everything that might serve for the preservation and consolidation of Judah must have been a source of pain to him; and this hatred of his towards Judah, which derived its strength and support from his religious views, incited him to murder the Jewish pilgrims to the temple, although the prospect of obtaining treasures might well cooperate with this in such a way as to make him spare the ten men who pretended they had hidden stores.

With this, too, we can easily connect the hypocritical dealing on the part of Ishmael, in going forth, with tears, to meet these pious pilgrims, so that he might deceive them by making such a show of grief over the calamity that had befallen Judah; fore the wicked often assume an appearance of sanctity for the more effectual accomplishment of their evil deeds. The lxx evidently did not know what to make of this passage as it stands; hence, in Jer 41:6, they have quite dropped the words "from Mizpah," and have rendered הלך הלך by αὐτοὶ ἐπορεύοντο καὶ ἔκλαιον.

Hitzig and Graf accept this as indicating the original text, since Ishmael had no ostensible ground for weeping. But the reasons which are supposed to justify this conjecture are, as Nägelsbach well remarks, of such a nature that one can scarcely believe they are seriously held.

Jer 41:10 After executing these murderous deeds, Ishmael led away into captivity all the people that still remained in Mizpah, the king’s daughters and all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had committed to the care of Gedaliah, intending to go over with them to the Ammonites. As the object of ויּשׁבּ is very far removed through the intervention of a relative clause, the connection is resumed by ויּשׁבּם.

"The king’s daughters" are not only the daughters of Zedekiah, but female members generally of the royal house, princesses, analogous to בּן־מלך, king’s son = prince, Jer 36:26; Jer 38:6.

Jer 41:11-12 - Jer 41:11. When Johanan and the rest of the captains heard of what had taken place in Mizpah, they marched out with all their men to fight Ishmael, and came on him at the great water at Gibeon, i.e., by the pool at Gibeon which is mentioned 2Sa 2:13, one of the large receptacles for water which are still found there; see on 2Sa 2:13. Gibeon, now called el Jib (see on Jos 9:3), was situated only about two miles north from Mizpah; from which we may conclude that it was soon known what had happened, and the captains quickly assembled their men and marched after Ishmael.

Jer 41:11-12 - Jer 41:11. When Johanan and the rest of the captains heard of what had taken place in Mizpah, they marched out with all their men to fight Ishmael, and came on him at the great water at Gibeon, i.e., by the pool at Gibeon which is mentioned 2Sa 2:13, one of the large receptacles for water which are still found there; see on 2Sa 2:13. Gibeon, now called el Jib (see on Jos 9:3), was situated only about two miles north from Mizpah; from which we may conclude that it was soon known what had happened, and the captains quickly assembled their men and marched after Ishmael.

Jer 41:13-15 When those who had been carried off by Ishmael saw these captains, they were glad, since they had followed their captor merely because they were forced to do so. They all turned, and went over to Johanan; but Ishmael escaped from Johanan, with eight men, - having thus lost two in the fight with Johanan, - and went to the Ammonites.

Jer 41:13-15 When those who had been carried off by Ishmael saw these captains, they were glad, since they had followed their captor merely because they were forced to do so. They all turned, and went over to Johanan; but Ishmael escaped from Johanan, with eight men, - having thus lost two in the fight with Johanan, - and went to the Ammonites.

Jer 41:13-15 When those who had been carried off by Ishmael saw these captains, they were glad, since they had followed their captor merely because they were forced to do so. They all turned, and went over to Johanan; but Ishmael escaped from Johanan, with eight men, - having thus lost two in the fight with Johanan, - and went to the Ammonites.

Jer 41:16 After the escape of Ishmael, it was to be feared that the Chaldeans would avenge the murder of the governor, and make the Jews who remained atone for the escape of the murderer by executing them or carrying them away to Babylon. Accordingly, Johanan and the other captains determined to withdraw to Egypt with the men, women, and children that had been carried off by Ishmael; these they conducted first to Bethlehem, where they encamped for the purpose of deliberating as to the rest of the journey, and taking due precautions.

The account given in Jer 41:16 is clumsily expressed, especially the middle portion, between "whom he had brought back" and "the son of Ahikam;" and in this part the words "from Mizpah" are particularly troublesome in breaking the connection: "whom he (Johanan) had brought back from Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, from Mizpah, after he (Ishmael) had slain Gedaliah," while it is more correctly stated in the second relative clause, "whom he had brought back from Gibeon." Hitzig and Graf accordingly suppose that, originally, instead of אשׁר השׁיב מאת, there stood in the text אשׁר שׁבה, "whom he (Ishmael) had led captive from Mizpah, after he had slain Gedaliah."

Thus the whole becomes clear. Against this conjecture there only stands the fact that the lxx translate οὕς ἀπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ ̓Ισμαήλ; they must thus have read אשׁר השׁיב מאת, and omitted merely המּצפּה as unsuited to the passage. However, the error may be even older than the lxx, and השׁיב מאת may easily have arisen through a scribe having glanced at the words אשׁר השׁיב of the last clause.

The words from "men" to "chamberlains" form the more exact specification of the general expression "all the remnant of the people:" "men, viz. , men of war, women (including the king’s daughters, Jer 40:10), and children and chamberlains" (סריסים, guardians and servants of the female members of the royal family).

Jer 41:17-18 "They marched and stopped (made a half) at the inn if Chimham, which is near Bethlehem." גּרוּת, ἅπ. λεγ. , considered etymologically, must mean diversorium, hospitium , an inn, khan, or caravanserai. Instead of the Kethib כמוהם, many codices read כּמהם (like the Qeri ); nor, have any of the old translators read וּ or וׁ in the word. The Qeri is evidently correct, and we are to read כּמהם, the name of a son of Barzillai the rich Gileadite, 2Sa 19:38, 2Sa 19:41, who is supposed to have built or founded this caravanserai for the convenience of travellers.

The words "because of the Chaldeans" in the beginning of Jer 41:18 depend on "to go to Egypt" at the end of the preceding verse: "to go to Egypt for fear of the Chaldeans," on account of the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael. The Word of God Concerning the Flight to Egypt At the halting-place near Bethlehem the captains and the people whom they led deem it necessary to inquire through Jeremiah as to the will of God regarding their intention; they betake themselves to the prophet with the request that he would address God in prayer for them regarding this matter, and they promise that they will, in any case, comply with the message that he may receive from God (Jer 42:1-6).

Whereupon, after ten days, the word of the Lord came to the prophet, vv. 7-22, to the effect that, if they remained in the country, the Lord would take pity on them and protect them from the Chaldeans, and establish them; but, should they go to Egypt, against the will of the Lord, then the evil which they feared would follow them thither, so that they would perish by the sword, hunger, and pestilence.

Jer 41:17-18 "They marched and stopped (made a half) at the inn if Chimham, which is near Bethlehem." גּרוּת, ἅπ. λεγ. , considered etymologically, must mean diversorium, hospitium , an inn, khan, or caravanserai. Instead of the Kethib כמוהם, many codices read כּמהם (like the Qeri ); nor, have any of the old translators read וּ or וׁ in the word. The Qeri is evidently correct, and we are to read כּמהם, the name of a son of Barzillai the rich Gileadite, 2Sa 19:38, 2Sa 19:41, who is supposed to have built or founded this caravanserai for the convenience of travellers.

The words "because of the Chaldeans" in the beginning of Jer 41:18 depend on "to go to Egypt" at the end of the preceding verse: "to go to Egypt for fear of the Chaldeans," on account of the murder of Gedaliah by Ishmael. The Word of God Concerning the Flight to Egypt At the halting-place near Bethlehem the captains and the people whom they led deem it necessary to inquire through Jeremiah as to the will of God regarding their intention; they betake themselves to the prophet with the request that he would address God in prayer for them regarding this matter, and they promise that they will, in any case, comply with the message that he may receive from God (Jer 42:1-6).

Whereupon, after ten days, the word of the Lord came to the prophet, vv. 7-22, to the effect that, if they remained in the country, the Lord would take pity on them and protect them from the Chaldeans, and establish them; but, should they go to Egypt, against the will of the Lord, then the evil which they feared would follow them thither, so that they would perish by the sword, hunger, and pestilence.

Jer 42:1-6 "And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Jer 42:2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Jer 42:3.

That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz. , Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, Jer 42:1. , insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in Jer 40:8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in Jer 43:2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the lxx also have in Jer 42:1 of this chapter.

Hitzig, Ewald, etc. , are consequently of the opinion that יזניה in our verse has been written by mistake for עזריה. But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the עזריה of Jer 43:2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (Jer 40:8); and the assumption that יזניה is incorrect in two passages (Jer 42:1 and Jer 40:8) is highly improbable.

They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (Jer 41:16). תּפּל־נא as in Jer 37:20; see on Jer 36:7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, which they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish; - this request Nägelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet "a mere farce," since it is quite plain from Jer 43:1-6 that the desire to go to Egypt was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet.

But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in Jer 42:8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, He certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God.

We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord’s reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, - not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. "The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, - in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them.

Jer 42:1-6 "And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Jer 42:2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Jer 42:3.

That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz. , Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, Jer 42:1. , insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in Jer 40:8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in Jer 43:2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the lxx also have in Jer 42:1 of this chapter.

Hitzig, Ewald, etc. , are consequently of the opinion that יזניה in our verse has been written by mistake for עזריה. But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the עזריה of Jer 43:2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (Jer 40:8); and the assumption that יזניה is incorrect in two passages (Jer 42:1 and Jer 40:8) is highly improbable.

They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (Jer 41:16). תּפּל־נא as in Jer 37:20; see on Jer 36:7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, which they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish; - this request Nägelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet "a mere farce," since it is quite plain from Jer 43:1-6 that the desire to go to Egypt was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet.

But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in Jer 42:8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, He certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God.

We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord’s reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, - not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. "The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, - in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them.

Jer 42:1-6 "And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Jer 42:2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Jer 42:3.

That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz. , Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, Jer 42:1. , insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in Jer 40:8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in Jer 43:2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the lxx also have in Jer 42:1 of this chapter.

Hitzig, Ewald, etc. , are consequently of the opinion that יזניה in our verse has been written by mistake for עזריה. But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the עזריה of Jer 43:2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (Jer 40:8); and the assumption that יזניה is incorrect in two passages (Jer 42:1 and Jer 40:8) is highly improbable.

They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (Jer 41:16). תּפּל־נא as in Jer 37:20; see on Jer 36:7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, which they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish; - this request Nägelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet "a mere farce," since it is quite plain from Jer 43:1-6 that the desire to go to Egypt was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet.

But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in Jer 42:8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, He certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God.

We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord’s reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, - not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. "The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, - in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them.

Jer 42:1-6 "And there drew near all the captains, namely, Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people, from little to great, Jer 42:2. And said to Jeremiah the prophet, Let our supplication come before thee, and pray for us to Jahveh thy God, for all this remnant (for we are left a few out of many, as thine eyes see us); Jer 42:3.

That Jahveh thy God may tell us the way in which we should go, and the thing that we should do." Of the captains, two, viz. , Johanan and Jezaniah, are mentioned as the leaders of the people and the directors of the whole undertaking, who also, Jer 42:1. , insolently accuse the prophet of falsehood, and carry out the proposed march to Egypt. Jezaniah is in Jer 40:8 called the Maachathite; here he is named in connection with his father, "the son of Hoshaiah;" while in Jer 43:2, in conjunction with Johanan the son of Kareah, Azariah the son of Hoshaiah is mentioned, which name the lxx also have in Jer 42:1 of this chapter.

Hitzig, Ewald, etc. , are consequently of the opinion that יזניה in our verse has been written by mistake for עזריה. But more probable is the supposition that the error is in the עזריה of Jer 43:2, inasmuch as there is no reason to doubt the identity of Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah with the Jezaniah descended from Maacha (Jer 40:8); and the assumption that יזניה is incorrect in two passages (Jer 42:1 and Jer 40:8) is highly improbable.

They go to the prophet Jeremiah, whom they had taken with them from Mizpah, where he was living among the people, with the rest of the inhabitants of the place (Jer 41:16). תּפּל־נא as in Jer 37:20; see on Jer 36:7. The request made to the prophet that he would intercede for them with the Lord, which they further urge on the ground that the number left out of the whole people is small, while there is implied in this the wish that God may not let this small remnant also perish; - this request Nägelsbach considers a piece of hypocrisy, and the form of asking the prophet "a mere farce," since it is quite plain from Jer 43:1-6 that the desire to go to Egypt was already deeply rooted in their minds, and from this they would not allow themselves to be moved, even by the earnest warning of the prophet.

But to hypocrites, who were playing a mere farce with the prophet, the Lord would have probably replied in a different way from what we find in Jer 42:8-22. As the Searcher of hearts, He certainly would have laid bare their hypocrisy. And however unequivocally the whole address implies the existence of disobedience to the voice of God, it yet contains nothing which can justify the assumption that it was only in hypocrisy that they wished to learn the will of God.

We must therefore assume that their request addressed to the prophet was made in earnest, although they expected that the Lord’s reply would be given in terms favourable to their intention. They wished to obtain from God information as to which way they should go, and what they should do, - not as to whether they should remain in the country or go to Egypt. "The way that we should go" is, of course, not to be understood literally, as if they merely wished to be told the road by which they would most safely reach Egypt; neither, on the other hand, are the words to be understood in a merely figurative sense, of the mode of procedure they ought to pursue; but they are to be understood of the road they ought to take in order to avoid the vengeance of the Chaldeans which they dreaded, - in the sense, whither they ought to go, in order to preserve their lives from the danger which threatened them.