Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 25:26
And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which [are] upon the face of the earth: and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.
26. of the world ] rightly omitted by LXX. It is clear that Jer 25:25-26 bear traces of modification in consonance with later Jewish views as to the end of the dispensation.
which are upon the face of the earth ] This would not suggest to the Jewish ear, as it does to us, the thought of absolutely universal dominion on the part of Babylon. This we see from such passages as Dan 2:38; Dan 4:22, where the sense intended to be conveyed cannot be in accordance with the sense of the words taken literally.
Sheshach, etc.] This clause also is absent from LXX, and doubtless is a later insertion. Sheshach=Babel (Babylon) in accordance with a system of cypher writing. It took different forms, of which this (called Atbash) consists in substituting the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet for the first, the last but one for the second and so on. ShShCh will on this principle take the places of BBL. Cp. Jer 51:41, where Sheshach and Babylon occur in parallel clauses. See also in Jer 51:1, where the Hebrew (Le B Ka Ma Y) becomes, when thus transmuted, CaSDIM = Chaldaeans, the actual rendering of the Septuagint. They omit Sheshach in Jer 51:41. The word to the Hebrew ear suggested sinking, humiliation, and thus alluded to Babylon’s eventual punishment, which, however, is foreign to the thought of the passage.
shall drink after them ] The turn of Babylon itself shall come to perish.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
All the kingdoms of the world … – In accordance with the usage of Holy Scripture this universality is limited. It is moral and not geographical.
Sheshach – Jerome says that this is the name Babel written in cypher, the letters being transposed. Another example occurs in Jer 51:1, where the words the heart of my risers up become the Chaldaeans. The Septuagint omits the clause containing the name.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 26. The kings of the north, far and near] The first may mean Syria; the latter, the Hyrcanians and Bactrians.
And the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.] Sheshach was an ancient king of Babylon, who was deified after his death. Here it means either Babylon, or Nebuchadnezzar the king of it. After it has been the occasion of ruin to so many other nations, Babylon itself shall be destroyed by the Medo-Persians.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
All the kings of the north, far and near; all under the government of the Chaldeans, or (as others) all those princes that have dominions between the north and east.
All the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth; that is, in those parts of the world which were at that time known, with whom there was ordinary commerce.
And the king of Sheshach shall drink after them; and the king of Babylon, who was last of all to drink of this cup of the Lords fury. That he is here meant is plain from Jer 51:41, where Sheshach is thus interpreted. But why Babylon is called Sheshach is a harder question, and not easily resolved. Those who think the prophet gives Babylon here another name to avoid an odium fresh the king of Babylon, at this time their enemy, neither consider the usual courage of this prophet, nor that he speaks plainly enough, Jer 51:41, where he mentioneth both Babylon and Sheshach, and expoundeth the latter by the former. It is thought that Babylon is called Sheshach from the name of an idol called Shach which they worshipped, to whose honour they yearly kept a festival for five days together, which they called Shace, and they say that during this festival Cyrus took Babylon. But these are all uncertain guesses; it is enough for us to know that by the king of Sheshach is meant the king of Babel, as the prophet expounds himself, Jer 51:41.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. SheshachBabylon; as theparallelism in Jer 51:41proves. In the Cabalistic system (called Athbash, the firstHebrew letter in the alphabet being expressed by the last)Sheshach would exactly answer to Babel. Jeremiah mayhave used this system (as perhaps in Jer51:41) for concealment at the time of this prediction, in thefourth year of Jehoiakim, while Nebuchadnezzar was before Jerusalem.In Jer 51:41 there can be noconcealment, as Babylon is expressly mentioned. MICHAELISmore simply explains the term “brazen-gated” (compare Isa45:2); others, “the house of a prince.” Rather, itcomes from the Babylonian goddess, Shach, by reduplication ofthe first letter; from her Misael was named Meshach bythe Babylonians. The term Shace was applied to a festival atBabylon, alluded to in Jer 51:39;Jer 51:57; Isa 21:5.It was during this feast that Cyrus took Babylon [HERODOTUS,1]. Thus Jeremiah mystically denotes the time of its capture by thisterm [GLASSIUS].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another,…. That were on the north of Judea, the kings of Syria, and those that were near to the kingdom of Babylon, whether more remote from Judea, or nearer it and which joined one another in that part of the world;
and all the kingdoms of the world, which are upon the face of the earth; the whole Babylonian monarchy, called the whole world; as the Roman empire afterwards was, Lu 2:1;
and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them; or the king of Babylon, as the Targum; and that Babylon is meant by “Sheshach” is certain from Jer 51:41; but why it is so called is not so easy to say. The Jewish writers make it to be the same with Babylon, by a change of the letters in the alphabet, put in such a situation, which they call “Athbash”, in which “shin” is put for “beth”, and “caph” for “lamed”; and so, instead of Babel or Babylon, you have “Sheshach”, which is thought to be used rather than Babylon, that Nebuchadnezzar, now besieging Jerusalem, might not be irritated: but others take it to be the name of an idol of the Babylonians, from whence the city was called, which is not improbable; for, as Hillerus o has observed, their god Bel and Sheshach signify the same thing. Bel is the same as Behal, “swift”; and “Sheshach” may be derived from the Arabic word which signifies “to move swiftly” p; and may both be names of the sun, worshipped by the Chaldeans, so called from the swiftness of its motion. Now in Babylon stood the temple of Bel or Sheshach, and so might have its name from thence: and it may be further observed, what has been by others, that the Babylonians had a public festival, like the Saturnalia of the Romans, which held five days, and was called Sacchoea or Shace, as is supposed from their god Shach, to whom it was kept: to which may be added, that Mishael had the name of Meshach given him in Babylon; “Shach”, in the one, answering to “El” in the other; which signifies God, Da 1:7. Shach is used for a king or prince in the Persic language to this day. And now the king of Sheshach or Babylon must drink of the cup, or be punished last of all; who was the instrument of destroying most of the rest, yet should not go unpunished.
o Onomastic. Sacr. p. 596, 597, 598, 611. p , “celer fuit, celeriter processit”, Golius, col. 2676.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Prophet speaks now of the kings of the north who bordered on the king of Babylon; for as to Judea, Babylon was northward. He calls all those who were towards Chaldea the kings of the north. He then says, Whether near or remote, every one shall be against his brother, and, in short, all the kingdoms of the earth on the face of the earth There is no doubt, as we shall see, but that the Prophet put in the last place the Chaldeans and their king. It is hence probable that what he here predicts was to be accomplished by the hand and power of the king of Babylon, who executed God’s vengeance on all these nations. God, then, chose for himself the king of Chaldea as a scourge, and guided him by his hand in punishing all the lands mentioned here.
I have already reminded you that this was not predicted for the sake of the Jews, that they might derive any alleviation to their grief from the circumstance of having associates, because the condition of others was nothing better; but that God’s design was another, that is, that in so great a confusion of all things, when heaven and earth, as they say, were blended together, they might know that nothing happens through the blind will of fortune. For God had already testified by the mouth of his servant what he would do, and from this prophecy it was easy to conclude that all these changes and violent commotions were the effects of God’s judgment.
The Prophet, after having shewn that the most grievous calamities were nigh all the nations who were neighbors to the Jews, and whose fame had reached them, says, in the last place, that the king of Sheshach would drink after them Hitherto the Prophet seems to have exempted the king of Babylon from all trouble and danger; for he has mentioned all the nations, and has spoken not only of those who were nigh the Jews, but also of the Persians, the Medes, and others. What, then, could have been the design of all this, if the king of Babylon had been passed by? It might have been asked, how can it be right and consistent that this tyrant should escape punishment, though he was of all the most cruel and the most wicked? Hence the Prophet now says, that the king of Babylon, how much soever his violence prevailed among all nations, and raged unpunished, would yet in his time be brought to a reckoning. The meaning then is, that God would defer the punishment of the Chaldeans until he employed them in destroying all the nations of which Jeremiah has hitherto spoken.
Respecting the king of Babylon being called the king of Sheshach, a question has been raised, and some think that some unknown king is intended; for we know that the word is a proper name, as it appears from some passages of Scripture. (1Kg 11:40; 2Ch 12:2.) But this opinion is not well founded; for the Prophet no doubt speaks here of some remarkable king; and there is also no doubt but that he reminded them of some most important event, so that there was no reason why delay should depress the minds of the faithful, though they saw that this Sheshach was not immediately punished with the rest. Others conjecture that Sheshach was a renowned city in Chaldea. But there is no necessity for us to adopt such light and frivolous conjectures. I have no doubt but that the opinion which the Chaldee paraphraser has followed is the true one, that is, that Sheshach was Babylon. For the sort of alphabet which the Jews at this day call אתבש, atbash, is no new invention; it appears from Jerome it had been long known; he, indeed, derived from great antiquity the practice, so to speak, of counting the letters backwards. They put, the last letter, ת, in the place of א, the first, and then ש in the place of ב, and כ being in the middle of the letters was put for ל; and so they called Babel Sheshach. (145) And to designate Babylon by an obscure name was suitable to the design of the Prophet. But every doubt is removed by another passage in this Prophet,
“
How is Sheshach demolished! how fallen is the glory (or praise) of the whole earth! how overthrown is Babylon!” (Jer 51:40.)
There, no doubt, the Prophet explains himself; there is therefore no need to seek any other interpretation. It is a common thing, as we know, with the prophets to repeat the same thing in other words; as he had mentioned Sheshach in the first clause, to prevent any doubt he afterwards mentioned Babylon.
But here a question arises; why did not the Prophet openly and plainly denounce ruin on the king as well as on the Chaldean nation? Many think that this was done prudently, that he might not create an ill-will towards his own people; and Jerome brings forward a passage from Paul, but absurdly, where he says,
“
Until a defection shall come,” (2Th 2:3)
but he did not understand that passage, for he thought that Paul spoke of the Roman empire. One error brings another; he supposed that Paul was cautious that he might not excite the fury of the Roman Emperor against the Church; but it was no such thing. Now, they who reject the opinion, which is the most correct, that Sheshach was Babylon, make use of this argument, — that the Prophet was not afraid to speak of Babylon, because he had declared openly of it what he had to say, as we have already seen in other places, and as it will appear more clearly hereafter. But I do not allow that the Prophet was afraid to speak of Babylon, for we find that he boldly obeyed God, so that he stood firm, as we may say, in the midst of many deaths; but I think that he concealed the name for another reason, even that the Jews might know that they had no cause to be in a hurry, though the punishment of Babylon had been predicted, for the prophecy was, as it were, buried, inasmuch as the Prophet withheld the very name of Babylon. It was not, then, his purpose to provide for the peace of the Church, nor was he afraid of the Chaldeans, lest he should kindle their fury against God’s people; he had no such thing in view, but wished rather to restrain too much haste.
And this appears from the context; Drink, he says, shall the king of Sheshath after them; that is, all these nations must drink before God shall touch the king of Babylon. He will not, then, be an idle spectator of all these calamities, but his severity will proceed through all lands until it reaches its summit; and then, he says, this king shall drink after the rest. Now, it might have seemed a poor consolation that God would for so long a time spare the king of Babylon; but all God’s children ought nevertheless to have acquiesced in the admonition given them, that though they were to bear in mind that each of these nations were to be punished by God’s hand, they were yet to believe that the king of Babylon would have his turn, and that they therefore were to restrain themselves, and not to be carried away by too hasty a desire to look for his punishment, but patiently to bear the yoke of tyranny laid on them, until the seasonable time came of which they had been reminded. It follows, —
(145) Both Venema and Gataker regard this as one of the vagaries of the Rabbins, though countenanced by Jerome. Various have been the reasons assigned for calling Babylon Sheshach. Some derive the word from שיש, which means in Syriac, to dwell, to rest, and consider K a formative letter; and then they render it “a great habitation.” Others derive it from an Arabic root which means to be swift or to advance swiftly — the character of the sun or fire, which was deified. The third party say, that it signifies a feast, like the Saturnalian, which the Chaldeans σακέαν; for it was during a feast that Babylon was taken, so that there was thus an intimation given of this by calling him the king of this feast. See Jer 51:39
But the most probable account is that given by Gataker, that Babylon was thus called from an idol in great repute in the city, named Sheshach or Shach, and that it was on the festival of this idol that the city was taken. This accounts for this name being given to it, when its destruction is especially referred to. Mishael, which terminated with God’s name, was changed into Meschach, or rather Mishach, which contained the name of the Babylonian idol. (Dan 1:7.) — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(26) The kings of the north.The term is used generally (the Jews knowing comparatively little of the detailed geography of that region, the Grog, Magog, Meshech, and Tubal of Ezekiel 38, 39), as in Jer. 1:14, for the Scythians and other nations lying between the Caspian Sea and the Tigris. In the corresponding passage of Jer. 51:27, Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz are specially named.
The kingdoms of the world.The words are, of course, limited by the horizon of the prophets vision. As the world of the New Testament writers was the Roman Empire, so in the life of Jeremiah it was identical with that of Babylon. (Comp. Dan. 2:38; Dan. 4:22.)
The king of Sheshach.The name, which obviously is, from its position, the culminating point of the whole prophecy, is found only here and in Jer. 51:41. No city or country bearing this name is mentioned in the Old Testament or in any ancient writer. The traditional Rabbinic explanation is beyond doubt the true one. We have here the earliest known example of the use of a cypher-writing to disguise the meaning of what was written from all but the initiated. The cypher in this instance, known by the significant name of ATBASH (i.e., A taking the place of T, and T of A, B of SH, and SH of B, and so on), consisted in the use of the Hebrew alphabet in an inverted order, thus giving SHeSHaCH as an equivalent for BaBeL. This, then, was the crowning mystery reserved to the last. The Chaldan kingdom was to do its work as the scourge of God upon the nations; but it was simply an instrument in His hand, as the Assyrians had been in their day (Isa. 10:15); and when the work was done, the law of a righteous retribution would be felt by it and by its rulers. It adds to the point of the enigma that the word Sheshach would suggest to an Hebrew, taking its probable etymology, the idea of crouching or sinking. It may be noted (1) that the use of such a cypher seems to belong to the same mental characteristics as the prominence of the Hebrew alphabet in the acrostic structure of the Lamentations; (2) that the name is omitted by the LXX. both here and in Jer. 51:41; and (3) that another instance of the same cypher is found in Jer. 51:1. The second fact is presumptive evidence that it was not found in the copy which the Greek translators had before them; and the natural inference from this is that there were two editions of the prophecy even in the prophets timeone with and the other without the enigmatic word, the latter being probably the earlier of the two, the former adding, for the comfort of Israel, at once the limits of their exile (Jer. 25:14), and this intimation (so veiled that the Chaldans, if they came across it, would not be likely to understand its meaning) of the way in which it would at last be brought to its close. The use of the cypher has, however, been questioned by some writers, who refer the name to shishaki, a possible form of the name of the moon-god of the Chaldans (Rawlinson: Herod, i., p. 616). If the existence of any obscure region bearing the name could be proved, it would still be perfectly compatible with the use of the cypher, as veiling its true significance. Other meanings for the word, such as the warlike city, the kings palace, have been suggested by recent scholars.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. Kings of the north Completing the survey.
Sheshach See also Jer 51:41. In the opinion of many we have here and in Jer 51:1, an example of that cabalistic figure called the atbash. This consisted in substituting for each letter in a word the letter holding the corresponding place counting from the other end of the alphabet, namely, for (aleph) (tav;) for (beth) (shin,) etc. On this plan Sheshach would answer to Babel, which it certainly means; and in Jer 51:1, the words rendered “in the midst of them that rise up,” literally, heart of the risers up, would answer to Chasdim, (Chaldea,) which also seems to be the sense intended. Jerome, in the fourth century, gives this explanation, which he had probably derived from his rabbinical teachers. If this explanation is correct, it is doubtless true, as Dean Smith says, that this is the “oldest known cipher.”
But even if this view be taken, it will still be questioned whether this device was originated by Jeremiah for some purpose of his own, or whether he simply appropriated what was formed to his hand. For the former no good reason can be given, as there was evidently no concealment by means of this name. Besides, there is some sense of incongruity between the character and work of a prophet feeling almost insupportably the burden of the Lord’s message of judgment, and such an artificial, not to say puerile, expedient as this. But if these words were already in common use there is no reason why Jeremiah may not have employed them, especially if the baldness of his reference to Babylon might thus be in any measure relieved. And yet it is more than possible that the origin of these words is altogether of a different character. For instance, as Professor Rawlinson suggests, this name Sheshach may belong to a Babylonian divinity, and for that reason be taken for the land.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jer 25:26. And the king of Sheshach shall drink, &c. By Sheshach is meant Babylon, as appears from chap. Jer 51:41. Houbigant renders it, And king Sheshach, &c. whereby, says he, Nebuchadnezzar himself is meant, who is spoken of under the name of Sheshach, a king who reigned formerly in Babylon, and who was deified among that people. See Calmet.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Jer 25:26 And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which [are] upon the face of the earth: and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them.
Ver. 26. And all the kingdoms. ] See on Jer 25:16 .
And the king of Sheshak,
a Shesac, id est poculum laetitiae aut vanitatis, vel sericum tuum.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
the world. Hebrew. ‘erez (with Art.), the earth.
the earth = the ground, or soil. Hebrew. ‘adamah (with Art.)
Sheshach. The Massorah explains that this word is “Babel”, being a cypher by which the last letter of the alphabet is put for the first, and the next to the last for the second, &c., by which Sh. Sh. Ch. becomes B. B. L. “Babel” (Compare Jer 51:41, where both words are used). There is another example in Jer 51:1. See note there. Four classes of nations are to drink of this cup of the fury of Jehovah Elohim of Israel (Jer 25:15): (1) Jerusalem and Judah (Jer 25:18); (2) Egypt, &c. (Jer 25:19); (3) the mingled nations (verses: 20-22); and (4) the more distant nations (vv- 23-25). Daniel fills in these “times of the Gentiles”, which are not within the scope of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But the point here is that the final judgment of the nations is yet future: when “Great Babylon” comes into remembrance, it will “drink after them”. Compare Jer 49:12. For this, “Sheshach” must be rebuilt and restored.
the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel. See note on Jer 7:3.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Sheshach
A name for Babylon. Jer 51:41.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
all the kings: Jer 25:9, Jer 50:9, Eze 32:30
and the: Jer 51:41
drink: Jer 25:12, Jer 50:1 – Jer 51:64, Isa 13:1 – Isa 14:32, Isa 47:1-15, Dan 5:1-31, Hab 2:16, Rev 18:1-24
Reciprocal: Isa 14:6 – is persecuted Isa 63:6 – make Jer 30:16 – General Jer 45:5 – I will bring Jer 50:12 – the hindermost Rev 16:19 – in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jer 25:26. The north is a general reference to the various peoples who lived north and east of Palestine, and who generally appeared from the north when coming into the land. Among ail these peoples one is especially named for obvious reasons and that is Sheshach. According to Strong, Moffatt and Smiths Bible Dictionary this is a symbolic name for Babylon. It is Interesting that in this group of verses mentioning the heathen people who were to drink of the cup of Gods wrath, the list begins with Egypt and ends with Babylon. That agrees with the history because Egypt was the first nation to enslave Israel as a people and Babylon was the last.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
25:26 And all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another, and all the kingdoms of the world, which [are] upon the face of the earth: and the king of {u} Sheshach shall drink after them.
(u) That is of Babylon, as in Jer 51:41 .