Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 43:13
He shall break also the images of Beth-shemesh, that [is] in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.
13. Beth-shemesh ] Probably Heliopolis or On. The reference of the v. is to the temple of the sun, at the city called by the Greeks Heliopolis ( city of the sun), about six miles N.E. of Cairo. The temple had in front of it an avenue of obelisks, one of which remains in situ. It was erected by Thothmes III ( c. b.c. 1500). “Cleopatra’s Needle,” placed on the Thames Embankment in 1878, is another.
the houses with fire ] A fragmentary inscription of Nebuchadnezzar states that he invaded Egypt in the 37th year of his reign (b.c. 568), and defeated king Amasis (b.c. 570 526) with slaughter of men and horses. See Dr.’s note.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Images – Rather, pillars (compare the Isa 19:19 note), obelisks.
Beth-shemesh – Heliopolis, famous for its obelisks.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 13. He shall break also the images of Beth-shemesh] beith shemesh is, literally, the house or temple of the sun; which was worshipped here, and whose images are said to have been of solid gold. These Nebuchadnezzar was to break and carry away; and the houses of the gods-all the temples of Egypt, he was to burn with fire. Beth-shemesh is the same as Heliopolis.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Beth-shemesh signifies the house of the sun, and it is also the name of a city in Egypt; so most take it here, as the name of a city which had its name from a famous temple builded in it to the honour of the sun. This idol is called On, Gen 41:45. By this it appears that the Egyptians, as well as other pagans, paid Divine adoration to the creature. God threatens not only the destruction of the idolatrous temples, but the houses of the inhabitants of Egypt. by the king of Babylon; from whence these Jews, would they have believed, might have understood, that they would not have the security which they promised themselves in the land of Egypt.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. imagesstatues orobelisks.
Beth-shemeshthat is,”the house of the sun,” in Hebrew; called by theGreeks “Heliopolis”; by the Egyptians, “On” (Ge41:45); east of the Nile, and a few miles north of Memphis.Ephraim Syrus says, the statue rose to the height of sixty cubits;the base was ten cubits. Above there was a miter of a thousand poundsweight. Hieroglyphics are traced around the only obelisk remaining inthe present day, sixty or seventy feet high. On the fifth year afterthe overthrow of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar, leaving the siege ofTyre, undertook his expedition to Egypt [JOSEPHUS,Antiquities, 10.9,7]. The Egyptians, according to the Arabs,have a tradition that their land was devastated by Nebuchadnezzar inconsequence of their king having received the Jews under hisprotection, and that it lay desolate forty years. But see on Eze29:2; Eze 29:13.
shall he burnHere theact is attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, the instrument, which inJer 43:12 is attributed toGod. If even the temples be not spared, much less private houses.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh, that [is] in the land of Egypt,…. Or, “of Heliopolis”, as the Septuagint; the “city of the sun”; and so “Bethshemesh” here signifies the “house of the sun”; either it designs the temple of the sun, or the city where it was worshipped; as Heliopolis was famous for the worship of the sun, and for a magnificent temple in it, built for that purpose, and where abundance of persons resorted on that account, as Herodotus l observes; here were many images of the sun; and these now should be broke to pieces, when this city should become the city of destruction, as is foretold it should by Isaiah, Isa 19:18; where the Targum expressly calls it the city Bethshemesh, that is to be destroyed;
[See comments on Isa 19:18]. This is the same city that was formerly called On, and had a priest in Joseph’s time, Ge 41:45;
and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire; which is repeated, that it might be taken notice of, and for the confirmation of it; though the words may be rendered, so as to remove the tautology, “and with the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn [it] with fire” m; that is, Bethshemesh, or “the house of the sun”, that shall not escape, being a principal temple. The gods they worshipped were Mnevis and Apis, which were oxen consecrated to the sun and moon n. So says Porphyry o, speaking of the Egyptians,
“they consecrate oxen to the sun and moon: that which is sacred to the sun at Heliopolis is called Mnevis, and is the greatest of them: it is very black, because much sun makes human bodies black; and the hairs of its tail, and of its whole body, contrary to other oxen, turn upwards, as the sun makes its course contrary to the pole; its testicles are the largest, because by the heat of the sun venereal desires are excited; hence the sun is said to make nature fruitful. To the moon they dedicate Taurus (or the bull), which they call Apis, and is blacker than others, bearing the signs of the sun and moon, because the light of the moon is from the sun; and the sign of the sun is the blackness of its body, and also the beetle that is under its tongue;”
and these were the images and gods of Bethshemesh or Heliopolis, that were to be destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Of his expedition into Egypt, whereby this prophecy was fulfilled, not only Josephus makes mention, but some Heathen writers gave plain hints of it. The Jewish historian says p, that Nebuchadnezzar, five years after the destruction of Jerusalem, led his army into Coelesyria, and took it; and made war with the Ammonites and Moabites; and, having subdued these nations, made a push into Egypt, in order to destroy that, and slew the king of it: and Berosus says q, that
“Nebuchadnezzar having settled his affairs in Egypt, and other countries; and having committed to his friends the captives of the Jews, Phoenicians, Syrians, and the nations about Egypt, went to Babylon:”
and Megasthenes r relates, that
“he conquered the greatest part of Lybia (or Africa) and Iberia;”
or, as it is elsewhere s expressed,
“he led his army into Lybia and Iberia; and, having subdued these, carried colonies of them to the right of Pontus.”
l Euterpe, sive l. 2. c. 59. m So Schmidt. n Vid. Aelian. de Animal. l. 11. c. 11. o Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 3. c. 13. p. 117. p Joseph. Antiqu. l. 10. c. 9. sect. 7. q Apud Josph. Antiqu. ib. c. 11. sect 1. & contra Apion. l. 1. sect. 19. & Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 40. p. 455. r Apud Joseph. Antiqu. ib. & contra Apion. l. 1. sect. 20. s Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 41. p. 456.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In conclusion, mention is further made of the destruction of the famous temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, to show the fulfilment of the prophecy that all Egypt would fall under the power of Nebuchadnezzar. , “House of the Sun,” is the Hebrew rendering of the Egyptian Pe – ra , i.e., House of the Sun, the sacred name of the city vulgarly called On; see on Gen 41:45. It lay north-east from Cairo, near the modern village of Matarieh, and thus pretty far inland; it was renowned for its magnificent temple, dedicated to Ra , the Sun-god. At the entrance to this building stood several larger and smaller obelisks, of which the two larger, added to the two older ones by Pheron the son of Sesostris, were about 150 feet high. One of these the Emperor Augustus caused to be brought to Rome; the other was thrown down in the year 1160; while one of the more ancient but smaller obelisks still stands in its original position, raising its head in the midst of a beautiful garden over a mass of dense foliage. These obelisks are signified by . The additional clause, “which is in the land of Egypt,” does not belong to Beth-shemesh, as if it were appended for the purpose of distinguishing the city so named from Beth-shemesh in the land of Judah; the words are rather connected with , and correspond with in the parallel member of the verse. The obelisks of the most famous temple of the Egyptian Sun-god are well known as the most splendid representatives of the glory of the Egyptian idolatry: the destruction of these monuments indicates the ruin of all the sanctuaries of the ancient kingdom of the Pharaohs. The last clause is a kind of re-echo from Jer 43:12; is strengthened by the addition of for the purpose of giving a sonorous ending to the whole. – The king of Egypt is not named in the prophecy, but according to Jer 44:30 it is Pharaoh-Hophra, who is to be given into the power of Nebuchadnezzar.
When we inquire as to the fulfilment of this prediction, we find M. Duncker, in his Gesch. des Alterthums, i. 841, giving a reply in these words: “Nebuchadnezzar did not fulfil these expectations (of Jeremiah, Jer 43:8-13; Jer 44:30, and of Ezekiel, Jer 29:32). He contented himself with having repelled the renewed attack of Egypt. The establishment of his dominion in Syria did not depend on his conquering Egypt; but Syria must obey him, throughout its whole extent. The capture of Jerusalem followed the siege of the island-town of Tyre (b.c. 586), the last city that had maintained its independence. The army of the Chaldean slay thirteen years before Tyre without being able to bring the king Ethbaal (Ithobal) under subjection. At last, in the year 573, a treaty was concluded, in which the Tyrians recognised the supremacy of the king of Babylon.” That Tyre was brought into subjection is inferred by Duncker (in a note, p. 682), first, from the generally accepted statement of Berosus, that the whole of Phoenicia was subdued by Nebuchadnezzar (Josephus’ Ant. x. 11. 1, and contra Ap. i. 19); secondly, from Josephus’ statement ( contra Ap. i. 21), that the kings Merbal and Hiram had been brought by the Tyrians from Babylon; and lastly, from the fact that, with the close of the siege, the reign of Ithobal ends and that of Baal begins. “It would thus appear that Ithobal was removed, and his family carried to Babylon.” These facts, which are also acknowledged by Duncker, sufficiently show (what we have already pointed out in Ezekiel) that the siege of Tyre ended with the taking of this island-city. For, unless the besieged city had been taken by storm, or at least compelled to surrender, the king would not have let himself be dethroned and carried to Babylon. – But whence has Duncker derived the information that Nebuchadnezzar had no concern with the subjugation of Egypt, but merely with the establishment of his authority in Syria? Although Nebuchadnezzar began the siege of the island-city of Tyre soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and required thirteen years to reduce it, yet it does not by any means follow from this that he had only to do with the strengthening of his authority in Syria, and no connection with the subjugation of Egypt; all that we can safely infer is, that he thought he could not attempt the conquest of Egypt with any certain prospect of success until he had subdued the whole of Syria. Besides, so long as such an one as Pharaoh-Hophra occupied the throne of Egypt, – who had not only sent an army to Zedekiah king of Judah to raise the siege of Jerusalem, but also (according to Herodotus, ii. 161, who draws from Egyptian sources) led an army to Sidon and fought a naval battle with the Tyrians; who (as Diod. Sic. i. 68 relates, also following Egyptian tradition) set out for Cyprus with abundant war-material and a strong army and fleet, and took Sidon by storm, while the rest of the towns submitted through fear; who, moreover, had defeated the Phoenicians and Cyprians in a naval engagement, and had returned to Egypt with immense spoil; – how could Nebuchadnezzar possibly think that his rule in Syria was firmly established? Such statements as those now referred to even Duncker does not venture to reject. We must, however, view them with a regard to the usual exaggerations by which the Egyptians were accustomed to extol the deeds of their Pharaohs; but after making all due allowance, we are led to this, that, after the fall of Tyre, Hophra sought to prevent the island of Cyprus as well as Tyre from becoming a dependency of Nebuchadnezzar. Could Nebuchadnezzar leave unmolested such an enemy as this, who, on the first suitable opportunity, would attempt to wrest the whole of Syria from him? So short-sighted a policy we could not attribute to such a conqueror as Nebuchadnezzar. Much more considerate is the judgment previously expressed regarding this by Vitringa, on Isa 19: “Etiamsi omnis historia hic sileret, non est probabile, Nebucadnezarem magnum dominatorem gentium, post Palaestinam et Phoeniciam subactam, non tentasse Aegyptum, et si tentaverit, tentasse frustra; et qu parte Aegyptum occupavit, eam non vastasse et desolasse.”
It is also to be borne in mind that the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, which is denied by Hitzig and Graf as well as Duncker, as it formerly was by Volney, is vouched for by the trustworthy testimony of Berosus (in Josephus, contra Ap. i. 19), who says that Nebuchadnezzar took Egypt ( , , … ); the denial, too, rests on a mere inference from the account given by Herodotus from the traditions of the priests regarding the reign of Apris (Hophra). If the witness of Berosus regarding the conquest of Syria and Phoenicia be trustworthy, why should his testimony concerning Egypt be unreliable? The account of Josephus ( Ant. x. 9. 7), that Nebuchadnezzar, in the fifth year after the capture of Jerusalem, and the twenty-third year of his reign, invaded Egypt, killed the king (Hophra), put another in his place, and led captive to Babylon the Jews that had fled to Egypt, – this account will not admit of being brought forward (as has often been attempted, and anew, of late, by Mrc. von Niebuhr, Assur und Babel, S. 215) as sufficient testimony for a successful campaign carried on by Nebuchadnezzar against Egypt during the siege of Tyre. The difficulty in the way of proving that such a campaign actually took place is not so much that the death of Hophra in battle with Nebuchadnezzar, or his execution afterwards, contradicts all authenticated history, as that the particular statements of Josephus regarding this campaign, both as to the date and the carrying away to Babylon of the Jews that had fled to Egypt, are simply conclusions drawn from a combination of Jer 43:8-13 and Jer 44:30 with Jer 52:20; besides, the execution of King Hophra by Nebuchadnezzar is foretold neither by Jeremiah nor by Ezekiel. Ezekiel, in Jer 29-32, merely predicts the decline of the Egyptian influence, the breaking of the arm of Pharaoh, i.e., of his military power, and his fall into Sheol; but he does it in so ideal a manner, that even the words of Jer 30:13, “there shall be no more a prince out of the land of Egypt,” – i.e., Egypt shall lose all her princes, just as her idols have been destroyed, – even these words cannot well be applied to the execution of Pharaoh-Hophra. But Jeremiah, in Jer 43:1-13 and in Jer 46:13., predicts merely the downfall of the pride and power of Pharaoh, and the conquest, devastation, and spoiling of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. And even in the words of Jer 44:30, “I (Jahveh) will deliver Pharaoh-Hophra into the hand of his enemies, and of those who seek his life, just as I delivered Zedekiah the king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar his enemy, and of those who sought after his life,” there is nothing definitely stated regarding Hophra’s being executed by Nebuchadnezzar, or killed in battle with him. Such a reference cannot be made out from the words, even though we lay no emphasis on the plural “his enemies,” in contrast with the expression “Nebuchadnezzar his enemy,” and, according to Jer 46:26, understand Nebuchadnezzar and his servants as being included under the “enemies;” for certainly Zedekiah was not killed by Nebuchadnezzar, but merely taken prisoner and carried to Babylon. Besides, there was no need of special proof that the prophecies of Jeremiah regarding Egypt declare much more important matters than merely an expedition of Chaldean soldiers to Egypt, as well as the plunder of some cities and the carrying away of the Jews who resided there; and that, in Jer 44, what the Jews who went to Egypt against the will of God are threatened with, is not transportation to Babylon, but destruction in Egypt by sword, hunger, and pestilence, until only a few individuals shall escape, and these shall return to Judah (Jer 44:14, Jer 44:27-28).
But if we compare with the prophecy of Jeremiah in Jer 43:8-13, and in Jer 46:13-26, that of Ezekiel in Jer 29:17-21, which was uttered or composed in the twenty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, i.e., in the year 573, it becomes abundantly evident that Nebuchadnezzar cannot have invaded and conquered Egypt before that year, and not till after the fall of Tyre, which immediately ensued. And that this was actually the case, is put beyond doubt by the statement of Herodotus, ii. 161ff., regarding Apris, that he lost his throne and his life in consequence of being defeated in battle with the Cyrenians. What Herodotus assigns as the cause of the fall of Apris, is insufficient to account for the unhappy end of this king. Herodotus himself states, ii. 169, that the Egyptians were filled with the most intense hatred against Apris; the monuments also bear witness to this fact. This bitter feeling must have had a deeper source than merely the unsuccessful issue of a war with Cyrene; it receives its explanation only when we find that Apris, by his attempts against Nebuchadnezzar, had deserved and brought on the subjugation of Egypt by the king of Babylon; cf. Hvernick on Ezekiel, p. 500. By sending an auxiliary army to Judah, for the purpose of driving back the Chaldeans, and by forming an expedition to Cyprus and the cities of Phoenicia, which was evidently directed against the establishment of the Chaldean power in Phoenicia, Apris had so provoked the king of Babylon, that the latter, immediately after the subjugation of Tyre, entered on the campaign against Egypt, which he invaded, subdued, and spoiled, without, however, killing the king; him he preferred allowing to rule on, but as his vassal, and under the promise that he would recognise his authority and pay tribute, just as had been done with King Jehoiakim when Jerusalem was first taken. If all this actually took place (which we may well assume), Apris might probably have begun another war against Cyrene, after the Chaldeans had departed, in the hope of procuring some small compensation to the Egyptians for the defeat they had suffered from the Chaldeans, by subduing that province in the west; in this war the king might have lost his life, as Herodotus relates, through want of success in his attempt. In this say, the account of Herodotus regarding the death of Apris quite agrees with the conquest of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar. But that Herodotus makes no mention of the conquest of Egypt, is sufficiently accounted for when we remember that he derived his information from the stories of the priests, who carefully omitted all mention of a struggle between Egypt and the power of Chaldea, since this had ended in the humiliation of Egypt; hence also mention was made only of the victories and mighty deeds of Necho II, while his defeat at Carchemish was passed over in silence.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
WE stated yesterday why Jeremiah spoke especially of the temples of the gods, even that the Jews might understand that nothing would escape destruction: for even the cruel-est enemies have usually withheld their hands from the temples of gods. If sanctity and religion would not preserve the temples, what then would become of private houses? He intimates, in short, that such would be the ruin of Egypt, that no part would escape.
But as Heliopolis was then in the greatest repute, he says, that the statues of all the gods in that city would be broken, for there the gods were especially worshipped. All heathen writers call it Heliopolis, to which the Hebrew word corresponds; for Bethsemes means the city of the sun; and Heliopolis means the same. As then this was the chief place where the gods of Egypt were found, the Prophet, in order to shew that the ruin of the whole land would be extreme, says that no temple would be there inviolate. So also Isaiah says, when speaking of the ruin of Egypt,
“
Behold, God will come into Egypt, and will cut down before him all the idols.” (Isa 19:1)
He spoke of God’s coming, because, under his guidance it was, that Nebuchadnezzar led there his army, as it has been stated. God did not, indeed, appear from heaven, but the army of Nebuchadnezzar was a living representation of God’s power, when he punished the Egyptians. Now, he says, that when God came there armed, and carried on a warlike expedition, all the idols would be destroyed; for God would thus shew that the gods in whom the Egyptians trusted were false, that they were mere fictions, which could give no help when things came to an extremity. Now follows, —
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(13) He shall break also the images of Bethshe-mesh.This name, which means Home of the Sun (so the Vulgate renders it here by domus solis), was naturally not an uncommon one where sun-worship had prevailed, and we find it accordingly in Judah (Jos. 15:10; 1Sa. 6:9; 1Sa. 6:12), in Issachar (Jos. 19:22), and in Naphtali (Jos. 19:38; Jdg. 1:33). Here the context shows that it was the name of an Egyptian city. The LXX. renders the words he shall break the pillars of Heliopolis, which are in On, and so identifies it with the city of that name on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, just below the point of the Delta, and about twenty miles north-east of Memphis. Under the name of On it appears in Gen. 41:45. The images or pillars are now represented by a solitary obelisk of red granite, sixty-eight feet high, its companion having been brought to Rome and erected in the Vatican Circus in front of St. Peters (Herod. II., III.; Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 11). There were at one time many others, besides colossal statues. The fulfilment of the prediction, as far as it referred to the defeat and death of Pharaoh-hophra, is related by Josephus (Ant. x. 9, 7).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
13. Images Obelisks. Two of these (of which there were several before the famous “temple of the sun”) were each one hundred and fifty feet high.
Beth-shemesh Literally, house of the sun; the name of the temple being given to the city. It is also called in the Old Testament “On:” it was also known to the Greeks as Heliopolis. It was situated about twenty miles northeast from Memphis. The one famous obelisk now marking the site of this city is dated about 2050 B.C.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jer 43:13. The images of Beth-shemesh. The solar statues of Heliopolis: or, The images of the house of the sun.
REFLECTIONS.1st, To a message so plain, there seemed no room for objection; but the devil will never fail to help sinners to an excuse for their infidelity and disobedience.
1. They pretend that Jeremiah imposed on them, and that this declaration was not from God. Johanan and Azariah, with all the proud men, dare give the prophet the lie, and impute to Baruch’s influence the answer that he reported as from God, as if they two had formed a design to give them into the hands of the Chaldeans to destroy them: a suggestion not only utterly improbable, but most malicious, as well as ungrateful, when these very men had rather foregone all the comforts which they might have enjoyed in Babylon, than desert their own country in its distressed situation. Note; (1.) Pride is among the most damning sins, the root of infidelity, and the sure road to hell. (2.) The truest friends of their country, are often thus branded as the betrayers of it. (3.) They who are full of ill designs themselves are the first to represent others in the same malignant colours. The ministers of God, who labour purely for the good of men’s souls, are thus usually calumniated, as meaning only to serve themselves; but their judgment is with their God.
2. They march without delay for Egypt, resolved not to abide in Judaea, as God enjoined them; and all the Jews who had returned thither in hopes of a peaceable habitation are persuaded or compelled to accompany them; and, among the rest, Jeremiah and Baruch. Tahpanhes, the royal residence, was the place whither they bent their course; and, as Egypt was then their ally, they probably met with a friendly reception. Note; (1.) Proud men hate contradiction, and will have their way: if they cannot obtain consent, they will force compliance. (2.) They who go out of God’s way have only themselves to blame for the consequences.
2nd, Though Jeremiah was now against his will in this strange land, God comforts him with the visits of his grace, and employs him to denounce his wrath: since they have rejected him as their teacher, he must be their troubler. They sought refuge in Egypt, hoping to be there protected from the Chaldeans; but thither shall the Chaldeans pursue them, and destroy both them and the Egyptians who have received them.
1. By a sign the destruction of Egypt is set forth. God commands Jeremiah to take great stones, and hide them in the brick-kiln, which was not far from Pharaoh’s house, in the sight of the men of Judah, who would observe the sign, and be inquisitive about the meaning.
2. This is at large declared. The king of Babylon, employed as God’s servant, who had destroyed Jerusalem, shall prosecute his victories, and Egypt fall before him: on these very stones should his throne be set, and his pavilion spread over it. By famine, pestilence, and the sword, those doomed to death must fall, and others be led into a miserable captivity; and, so far from being ableto defend their votaries, the numerous gods of Egypt shall not be able to defend themselves; their temples with the idols burnt, or the precious materials carried away among the spoils. As easily as a shepherd puts on his coat, and so adorned, shall Nebuchadrezzar and his army return laden with the wealth of Egypt, and leave the country in peace, intirely subjected to his government. Note; (1.) It is dangerous to admit those into our friendship, whom God pursues as an enemy, lest we share in their plagues. (2.) God often makes one wicked nation a scourge to another; and, while the conquerors mean nothing less, they are but the instruments that his providence employs.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
REFLECTIONS
MY soul! do not close this book of God, neither pass away from this Chapter, without first dropping in prayer before the mercy seat, for the continual leadings, and preventing, and restraining influences of the Holy Spirit. Who can read the astonishing hardness of the human heart, as set forth in the relation of Johanan and his followers, without trembling? Who would have supposed it possible, that when a nation for its impiety had been given up by the Lord to the sword, the remnant should have set forth yet more outrages and marks of rebellion against God! But, alas! what is man, in his highest attainments, if for a moment left of God! The best of men are but men, and are equally capable of falling: for corruption is the same in all men, by nature. And, my soul, never for a moment lose sight of that most certain and unquestionable truth, that they that are kept, are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation. And that thou art not like Johanan and his party, is not owing to thee; or to thy prudence, but wholly to the merciful grace of the Lord. Oh! for grace to seek grace; and to be on the lookout for the sweet visits of him and his love, who alone keepeth from falling, and will present his people before his throne faultless, with exceeding great joy. Precious Jesus! Do thou keep me, and I shall be kept. And grant Lord, that I may never grieve the Holy Spirit of God; whereby thy people are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jer 43:13 He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh, that [is] in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.
Ver. 13. He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh. ] Or, Heliopolis, where the sun was worshipped with great superstition, as Herodotus a writeth. The Hebrews also called this city On, or Aven – that is, vanity or iniquity – as well they might, for the abominable idolatry there committed. Josephus b saith, that five years after this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar, who had Egypt given him as pay for his pains at Tyre, invaded Egypt; and the king thereof being slain, he set up another there, and took the Jews that remained alive away into Babylon.
a Lib. ii.
b Antiq., lib. x. cap. 11.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
images = standing images, or obelisks. Probably Asherim. See App-42.
Beth-shemesh. Hebrew = House (or Temple) of the Sun; Greek, “Heliopolis”; Egyptian, “On”; about ten miles northeast of Cairo.
that is in the land of Egypt. This is to distinguish it from the Beth-shemesh of Jos 15:10. Jdg 1:33. 1Sa 6:9, 1Sa 6:19. See note on Isa 19:19; and App-81.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
images: Heb. statues, or standing images
Bethshemesh: or, the house of the sun. Isa 19:18, *marg.
and the: Jer 43:12
Reciprocal: Exo 12:12 – against 1Ch 6:59 – Bethshemesh Isa 46:2 – but Jer 46:25 – with their Jer 50:2 – her idols Jer 51:18 – in the Eze 6:4 – images Eze 30:13 – I will also Dan 11:8 – their gods Hos 8:6 – the calf Hos 10:2 – break down Hos 10:6 – carried
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jer 43:13, A general prediction was made against the gods of Egypt in the preceding verse. This specifies a place called Beth-shemesh which was con-sidered as a holy city by the Egyptians because of the houses therein erected to the gods.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Nebuchadnezzar would also break down the obelisks that stood at On (Gr. Heliopolis), the Egyptian city of the sun about five miles northeast of modern Cairo. And he would burn the temples of the gods of Egypt. Heliopolis was the site of the famous temple of Amon-Re, the sun god, which people approached by passing between two rows of obelisks. [Note: Thompson, p. 671.] Only one of these obelisks still stands on the site. One of them is now in Central Park in New York City, and another is on the Thames Embankment in London. Both are wrongly called "Cleopatra’s Needle." [Note: Graybill, p. 686.] Egyptian obelisks were sacred monuments that honored various pagan gods. As Moses, the servant of the Lord, had humiliated the gods of Egypt at the Exodus, so Nebuchadnezzar, a Gentile servant of the Lord, would humiliate them again.