Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 51:59
The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And [this] Seraiah [was] a quiet prince.
59. Seraiah when he went with Zedekiah ] See introd. note.
chief chamberlain ] mg. (rightly) quartermaster, lit. captain of the camping place. His duty, as in attendance on the king in a journey, was to arrange that matters should be in readiness at the next halting place. The LXX, however, have commissary (lit. ruler) of the presents. The change involved in MT.’s reading is but slight.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
59 64. Seraiah’s mission
The rejection as non-Jeremianic of the preceding prophecy against Babylon (see introd. note to chs. 50, 51) by no means need involve suspicion of this section. Here impassioned denunciation finds no place and the forecast of the overthrow of the great Eastern power is quite in keeping with the attitude of the prophet in Jer 29:10 in limiting her dominion over Israel to seventy years. It is true that the latter part of Jer 51:60 identifies the prophecy conveyed by Seraiah to Babylon with the preceding utterances; but see note there. That Zedekiah should himself visit Babylon at the time here specified has been already shewn to be by no means improbable (see introd. note on Jer 27:2-11). Even those who doubt the king’s journey thither are mostly willing to accept that of Seraiah, who, as Baruch’s brother (cp. his ancestry here with that given in Jer 32:12 for Baruch), would very naturally bring a message of hope from Jeremiah to the exiles.
We may summarize the section as follows.
Jer 51:59-64. The directions given by the prophet to Seraiah when the latter accompanied Zedekiah to Babylon. He was to take with him a scroll containing the doom of the city, and after reading it aloud there, to attach to it a stone and sink it in the river as a symbol of Babylon’s approaching fall.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Historical appendix. In his fourth year Zedekiah journeyed to Babylon either to obtain some favor from Nebuchadnezzar, or because he was summoned to be present on some state occasion. Jeremiah took the opportunity of sending to the exiles at Babylon this prophecy.
Jer 51:59
Seraiah – Brother to Baruch.
A quiet prince – literally, prince of the resting place, i. e., quartermaster. It was his business to ride forward each day, and select the place where the king would halt and pass the night.
Jer 51:60
In a book – literally, in one book, on one scroll of parchment.
Jer 51:61
And shalt see, and shalt read – Or, then see that thou read etc.
Jer 51:62-64
The sinking of the scroll was not for the purpose of destroying it, but was a symbolic act (compare the marginal reference); and the binding of a stone to it signified the certainty of the hasty ruin of the city.
Jer 51:64
Thus far … – Whoever added Jer. 52, evidently felt it his duty to point out that it was not written by Jeremiah.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 59. The word which Jeremiah] On account of the message sent by Jeremiah to the Jewish captives in Babylon.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Of this
Seraiah we read no more than we have in this verse, though, Jer 36:26, there be mention made of another Seraiah.
When he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon: we no where read of any journey Zedekiah made into Babylon till he was carried a prisoner thither, it is therefore probable that with should be translated from, as the same particle is in other places, Gen 4:1; 44:4, it being not usual with great princes to make visits one to another at such distances, though the Jews tell us a story of some such thing.
In the fourth year of his reign: the expressing of this circumstance of time lets us know that this prophecy was many years before Babylon was destroyed, for it was seven years before Jerusalem was taken; so as it must be above sixty years before it was fulfilled in the first degree.
And this Seraiah was a quiet prince: the Hebrew word admits of various interpretations; some think that Menucha was a place over which Seraiah had some authority under Zedekiah, the same with Manahath, 1Ch 8:6. Others think it was a name of office, and signified lord chamberlain; but the best interpreters see no reason to vary from our translation, the sense of which is, that he was a man of a moderate, quiet temper, that persuaded to peace.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
59-64. A special copy of theprophecy prepared by Jeremiah was delivered to Seraiah, to consolethe Jews in their Babylonian exile. Though he was to throw it intothe Euphrates, a symbol of Babylon’s fate, no doubt he retained thesubstance in memory, so as to be able orally to communicate it to hiscountrymen.
went with Zedekiahrather,”in behalf of Zedekiah”; sent by Zedekiah to appeaseNebuchadnezzar’s anger at his revolt [CALVIN].
fourth yearso thatJeremiah’s prediction of Babylon’s downfall was thus solemnly writtenand sealed by a symbolical action, six whole years before the captureof Jerusalem by the Babylonians.
quiet princeCompare1Ch 22:9, “a man of rest.”Seraiah was not one of the courtiers hostile to God’s prophets, but”quiet” and docile; ready to execute Jeremiah’s commission,notwithstanding the risk attending it. GLASSIUStranslates, “prince of Menuchah” (compare 1Ch2:52, Margin). MAURERtranslates, “commander of the caravan,” on whom it devolvedto appoint the resting-place for the night. English Versionsuits the context best.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah,…. This word is no other than the above prophecy concerning the destruction of Babylon, contained in this and the preceding chapter; or rather the order the prophet gave this prince to take a copy of it with him to Babylon, and there read it, and their cast it into the river Euphrates, with a stone bound it. Of this Seraiah we read nowhere else: he is further described as
the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon, in the fourth year of his reign; the Jews say i that Zedekiah, in the fourth year of his reign, went to Babylon, to reconcile himself to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and took Seraiah with him, and returned and came to his kingdom in Jerusalem; but we have no account in Scripture of any such journey he took. The Septuagint and Arabic versions render it, “when he went from Zedekiah”; as this particle is sometimes k elsewhere rendered, Ge 4:1; and so the Targum explains it,
“when he went on an embassy of Zedekiah;”
and Abarbinel, by the command of the king; it seems he was ambassador from the king of Judah to the king of Babylon upon some business or another; and Jeremiah took this opportunity of sending a copy of the above prophecy by him, for the ends before mentioned: this was in the fourth year of Zedekiah’s reign, seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and sixty years before the taking of Babylon; so long before was it prophesied of. The Syriac version wrongly reads it “in the eleventh year”; the year of Jerusalem’s destruction; supposing that Seraiah’s going with Zedekiah to Babylon was his going with him into captivity:
and [this] Seraiah [was] a quiet prince; one of a peaceable disposition, that did not love war, or persecution of good men; and so a fit person for Zedekiah to send upon an embassy of peace; and for Jeremiah to employ in such service as he did; for, had he been a hot and haughty prince, he would have despised his orders and commands. Some render it, “prince of Menuchah” l; taking it to be the proper name of a place of which he was governor; thought to be the same with Manahath, 1Ch 8:6. The Targum and Septuagint version call him “the prince of gifts”: one by whom such were introduced into the king’s presence that brought treasure, gifts, or presents to him, as Jarchi interprets it; according to Kimchi, he was the king’s familiar favourite, with whom he used to converse and delight himself when he was at rest and at leisure from business. Some take him to be the lord of the bedchamber, or lord chamberlain; and others lord chief justice of peace. The first sense seems most agreeable.
i Seder Olam Rabba, c. 25. p. 72, 73. k Vid. L’Empereur, Not. in Mosis Kimchii, , p. 254, 255. & Noldii Concordant. Ebr, p. 114. No. 577. l “princeps Menuchae”, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Epilogue. – Jer 51:59. “The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Nerijah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon, in the fourth year of his reign. Now Seraiah was ‘quartermaster-general'” (Ger. Reisemarschall).
(Note: The Peshito renders by “chief of the camp,” evidently reading . Gesenius, following in this line, though that Seraiah held an office in the Babylonian army similar to that of quartermaster-general. It is evident, however, that he was rather an officer of the Jewish court in attendance on the king. Maurer, who is followed by Hitzig, and here by Keil, in his rendering “ Reisemarschall,” suggested the idea that he was a functionary who took charge of the royal caravan when on the march, and fixed the halting-place. – Tr.)
Seraiah the son of Nerijah was, no doubt, a brother of Baruch the son of Nerijah; cf. Jer 32:12. does not mean “a peaceful prince” (Luther), “a quiet prince,” English Version, but “prince of the resting-place” (cf. Num 10:33), i.e., the king’s “quartermaster-general.” What Jeremiah commanded Seraiah, or charged him with, does not follow till Jer 51:61; for the words of Jer 51:60, “And Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that was to come on Babylon, namely all these words which are written against Babylon” (in the preceding address, Jer 50 and 51), form a parenthetic remark, inserted for the purpose of explaining the charge that follows. This remark is attached to the circumstantial clause at the end of Jer 51:59, after which “the word which he commanded” is not resumed till Jer 51:61, with the words, “and Jeremiah spake to Seraiah;” and the charge itself is given in vv. 61 b -64: “When thou comest to Babylon, then see to it, and read all these words, and say, O Jahveh, Thou hast spoken against this place, to destroy it, so that there shall be no inhabitant in it, neither man nor beast, but it shall be eternal desolations. And it shall be, when thou hast finished reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates (v. 64), and say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again, because of the evil that I bring upon her; and they shall be weary.” does not mean, “when thou shalt have got near Babylon, so that thou beholdest the city lying in its full extent before thee” (Hitzig), but, according to the simple tenor of the words, “when thou shalt have come into the city.” The former interpretation is based on the erroneous supposition that Seraiah had not been able to read the prophecy in the city, from fear of being called to account for this by the Babylonians. But it is nowhere stated that he was to read it publicly to the Babylonians themselves in an assembly of the people expressly convened for this purpose, but merely that he is to read it, and afterwards throw the book into the Euphrates. The reading was not intended to warn the Babylonians of the destruction threatened them, but was merely to be a proclamation of the word of the Lord against Babylon, on the very spot, for the purpose of connecting with it the symbolic action mentioned in v. 63f. does not belong to (“when thou comest to Babylon, and seest”), but introduces the apodosis, “then see to it, and read,” i.e., keep it in your eye, in your mind, that you read (cf. Gen 20:10); not, “seek a good opportunity for reading” (Ewald). At the same time, Seraiah is to cry to God that He has said He will bring this evil on Babylon, i.e., as it were to remind God that the words of the prophecy are His own words, which He has to fulfil. On the contents of Jer 51:62, cf. Jer 50:3; Jer 51:26.
After the reading is finished, he is to bind the book to a stone, by means of which to sink it in the Euphrates, uttering the words explanatory of this action, “Thus shall Babylon sink,” etc. This was to be done, not for the purpose of destroying the book (which certainly took place, but was not the object for which it was sunk), but in order to symbolize the fulfilment of the prophecy against Babylon. The attachment of the stone was not a precautionary measure to prevent the writing from being picked up somewhere, and thus bringing the writer or the people of the caravan into trouble (Hitzig), but was merely intended to make sure that the book would sink down into the depths of the Euphrates, and render it impossible that it should rise again to the surface, thus indicating by symbol that Babylon would not rise again. the words which Seraiah is to speak on throwing the book into the Euphrates, contain, in nuce , the substance of the prophecy. The prophet makes this still more plain, by concluding the words he is likewise to utter with as the last word of the prophecy. Luther has here well rendered , “to weary,” by “succumb” ( erliegen). The Babylonians form the subject of .
(Note: Mistaking the meaning of the repetition of the word , Movers, Hitzig, and Graf have thereon based various untenable conjectures. Movers infers from the circumstance that the whole epilogue is spurious; Hitzig and Graf conclude from it that the closing words, “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah,” originally came after Jer 51:58, and that the epilogue, because it does not at all admit of being separated from the great oracle against Babylon, originally preceded the oracle beginning Jer 50:1, but was afterwards placed at the end; moreover, that the transposer cut off from Jer 51:58 the concluding remark, “Thus far,” etc., and put it at the end of the epilogue (Jer 51:64), but, at the same time, also transferred , in order to show that the words, i.e., the prophecies of Jeremiah, strictly speaking, extend only thus far. This intimation is, indeed, quite superfluous, for it never could occur to the mind of any intelligent reader that the epilogue, Jer 51:59-64, was an integral portion of the prophecy itself. And there would be no meaning in placing the epilogue before Jer 50:1.)
The symbolic meaning of this act is clear; and from it, also, the meaning of the whole charge to the prophet is not difficult to perceive. The sending of the prophecy through Seraiah, with the command to read it there, at the same time looking up to God, and then to sink it in the Euphrates, was not intended as a testimony to the inhabitants of Babylon of the certainty of their destruction, but was meant to be a substantial proof for Israel that God the Lord would, without fail, fulfil His word regarding the seventy years’ duration of Babylon’s supremacy, and the fall of this great kingdom which was to ensue. This testimony received still greater significance from the circumstances under which it was given. The journey of King Zedekiah to Babylon was, at least in regard to its official purpose, an act of homage shown by Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar, as the vassal of the king of Babylon. This fact, which was deeply humiliating for Judah, was made use of by Jeremiah, in the name of the Lord, for the purpose of announcing and transmitting to Babylon, the city that ruled the world, the decree which Jahveh, the God of Israel, as King of heaven and earth, had formed concerning the proud city, and which He would execute in His own time, that He might confirm the hope of the godly ones among His people in the deliverance of Israel from Babylon.
The statement, “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah,” is an addition made by the editor of the prophecies. From these words, it follows that Jer 52 does not belong to these prophecies, but forms a historical appendix to them.
Finally, if any question be asked regarding the fulfilment of the prophecy against Babylon, we must keep in mind these two points: 1. The prophecy, as is shown both by its title and its contents, is not merely directed against the city of Babylon, but also against the land of the Chaldeans. It therefore proclaims generally the devastation and destruction of the Chaldean kingdom, or the fall of the Babylonian empire; and the capture and destruction of Babylon, the capital, receive special prominence only in so far as the world-wide rule of Babylon fell with the capital, and the supremacy of the Chaldeans over the nations came to an end. 2. In addition to this historical side, the prophecy has an ideal background, which certainly is never very prominent, but nevertheless is always more or less to be discovered. Here Babylon, as the then mistress of the world, is the representative of the God-opposing influences on the earth, which always attempt to suppress and destroy the kingdom of God. The fulfilment of the historical side of this prophecy began with the capture of Babylon by the united forces of the Medes and Persians under the leadership of Cyrus, and with the dissolution of the Chaldean empire, brought about through that event. By this means, too, the people of Israel were delivered from the Babylonish captivity, while Cyrus gave them permission to return to their native land and rebuild the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem; 2Ch 36:22., Ezr 1:1. But Babylon was not destroyed when thus taken, and according to Herodotus, iii. 159, even the walls of the city remained uninjured, while, according to a notice of Berosus in Josephus, contra Ap. i. 19, Cyrus is said to have given orders for the pulling down of the outer wall. Cyrus appointed Babylon, after Susa and Ecbatana, the third city in the kingdom, and the winter residence of the Persian kings (according to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 6. 22). Darius Hystaspes, who was obliged to take the city a second time, in consequence of its revolt in the year 518 b.c., was the first who caused the walls to be lowered in height; these were diminished to 50 ells royal cubits – about 85 feet, and the gates were torn away (Herodotus, iii. 158f.). Xerxes spoiled the city of the golden image of Belus (Herodot. i. 183), and caused the temple of Belus to be destroyed (Arrian, vii. 17. 2). Alexander the Great had intended not merely to rebuild the sanctuary of Belus, but also to make the city the capital of his empire; but he was prevented by his early death from carrying out this plan. The decay of Babylon properly began when Seleucus Nicator built Seleucia, ion the Tigris, only 300 stadia distant. “ Babylon,” says Pliny, vi. 30, “ ad solitudinem rediit, exhausta vicinitate Seleuciae .” And Strabo (born 60 b.c.) says that, even in his time, the city was a complete wilderness, to which he applies the utterance of a poet: (xvi. l. 5). This decay was accelerated under the rule of the Parthians, so that, within a short time, only a small space within the walls was inhabited, while the rest was used as fields (Diodorus Siculus, ii. 9; Curtius, Ezr 1:4. 27). According to the statements of Jerome and Theodoret, there were still living at Babylon, centuries afterwards, a pretty considerable number of Jews; but Jerome ( ad Jerem. 51) was informed by a Persian monk that these ruins stood in the midst of a hunting district of the Persian kings. The notices of later writers, especially of modern travellers, have been collected by Ritter, Erdkunde, xi. S. 865f.; and the latest investigations among the ruins are described in his Expdition scient. en Msopotamie , i. pp. 135-254 (Paris, 1863).
(Note: Fresh interest in Babylonian archaeology has of late been awakened, especially in this country, by Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, who has collected and deciphered about eighty fragments of some tablets that had been brought from Assyria, and that give an account of the deluge different in some respects from the Mosaic one. The proprietors of the Daily Telegraph have also shown much public spirit in sending out, at their own cost, an expedition to Assyria, for further investigation of the ruins there. – Tr.)
John the evangelist has taken the ideal elements of this prophecy into his apocalyptic description of the great city of Babylon (Rev. 16ff.), whose fall is not to begin till the kingdom of God is completed in glory through the return of our Lord.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Prophecy Sent to the People. | B. C. 595. |
59 The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And this Seraiah was a quiet prince. 60 So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon. 61 And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words; 62 Then shalt thou say, O LORD, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever. 63 And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates: 64 And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
We have been long attending the judgment of Babylon in this and the foregoing chapter; now here we have the conclusion of that whole matter. 1. A copy is taken of this prophecy, it should seem by Jeremiah himself, for Baruch his scribe is not mentioned here (v. 60): Jeremiah wrote in a book all these words that are here written against Babylon. He received this notice that he might give it to all whom it might concern. It is of great advantage both to the propagating and to the perpetuating of the word of God to have it written, and to have copies taken of the law, prophets, and epistles. 2. It is sent to Babylon, to the captives there, by the hand of Seraiah, who went there attendant on or ambassador for king Zedekiah, in the fourth year of his reign, v. 59. He went with Zedekiah, or (as the margin reads it) on the behalf of Zedekiah, into Babylon. The character given of him is observable, that this Seraiah was a quiet prince, a prince of rest. He was in honour and power, but not, as most f the princes then were, hot and heady, making parties, and heading factions, and driving things furiously. He was of a calm temper, studied the things that made for peace, endeavoured to preserve a good understanding between the king his master and the king of Babylon, and to keep his master from rebelling. He was no persecutor of God’s prophets, but a moderate man. Zedekiah was happy in the choice of such a man to be his envoy to the king of Babylon, and Jeremiah might safely entrust such a man with his errand too. Note, it is the real honour of great men to be quiet men, and it is the wisdom of princes to put such into places of trust. 3. Seraiah is desired to read it to his countrymen that had already gone into captivity: “When thou shalt come to Babylon, and shalt see what a magnificent place it is, how large a city, how strong, how rich, and how well fortified, and shalt therefore be tempted to think, Surely, it will stand forever” (as the disciples, when they observed the buildings of the temple, concluded that nothing would throw them down but the end of the world, Matt. xxiv. 3), “then thou shalt read all these words to thyself and thy particular friends, for their encouragement in their captivity: let them with an eye of faith see to the end of these threatening powers, and comfort themselves and one another herewith.” 4. He is directed to make a solemn protestation of the divine authority and unquestionable certainty of that which he had read (v. 62): Then thou shalt look up to God, and say, O Lord! it is thou that hast spoken against this place, to cut it off. This is like the angel’s protestation concerning the destruction of the New-Testament Babylon. These are the true sayings of God, Rev. xix. 9. These words are true and faithful, Rev. xxi. 5. Though Seraiah sees Babylon flourishing, having read this prophecy he must foresee Babylon falling, and by virtue of it must curse its habitation, though it be taking root (Job v. 3): “O Lord! thou hast spoken against this place, and I believe what thou hast spoken, that, as thou knowest every thing, so thou canst do every thing. Thou hast passed sentence upon Babylon, and it shall be executed. Thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, and therefore we will neither envy its pomp nor fear its power.” When we see what this world is, how glittering its shows are and how flattering its proposals, let us read in the book of the Lord that its fashion passes away, and it shall shortly be cut off and be desolate for ever, and we shall learn to look upon it with a holy contempt. Observe here, When we have been reading the word of God it becomes us to direct to him whose word it is a humble believing acknowledgment of the truth, equity, and goodness, of what we have read. 5. He must then tie a stone to the book and throw it into the midst of the river Euphrates, as a confirming sign of the things contained in it, saying, “Thus shall Babylon sink, and not rise; for they shall be weary, they shall perfectly succumb, as men tired with a burden, under the load of the evil that I will bring upon them, which they shall never shake off, nor get from under,” Jer 51:53; Jer 51:64. In the sign it was the stone that sunk the book, which otherwise would have swum. But in the thing signified it was rather the book that sunk the stone; it was the divine sentence passed upon Babylon in this prophecy that sunk that city, which seemed as firm as a stone. The fall of the New-Testament Babylon was represented by something like this, but much more magnificent, Rev. xviii. 21. A mighty angel cast a great millstone into the sea, saying, Thus shall Babylon fall. Those that sink under the weight of God’s wrath and curse sink irrecoverably. The last words of the chapter seal up the vision and prophecy of this book: Thus far are the words of Jeremiah. Not that this prophecy against Babylon was the last of his prophecies; for it was dated in the fourth year of Zedekiah (v. 59), long before he finished his testimony; but this is recorded last of his prophecies because it was to be last accomplished of all his prophecies against the Gentiles, ch. xlvi. 1. And the chapter which remains is purely historical, and, as some think, was added by some other hand.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Vs. 59-64: JEREMIAH’S CHARGE TO SERAIAH
1. According to verse 59, this charge may be dated 594593 B.C.
2. Seraiah was a brother of Baruch (Jer 32:12), and a quartermaster officer on the king’s staff – in charge of selecting the resting place where the king would stop for the night.
3. No word is given concerning the purpose of this trip of Zedekiah to Babylon, but it appears that he has been summoned there to reaffirm his loyalty to Nebuchadnezzar.
4. On a scroll, Jeremiah has written messages of judgment against Babylon which he commissioned Seraiah to read publicly when he arrived in the proud city, (vs. 60-61).
5. Then he was to proclaim this to be the word of Jehovah, the God of Israel, concerning Babylon – to destroy it, (vs. 62; comp. Jer 25:12; Jer 50:3; Jer 50:13; Jer 50:39-40; Isa 13:19-22; Isa 14:22-23).
6. Then, In a symbolic act, he was to bind a stone to the scroll and cast it into the Euphrates – declaring that, in this manner, Babylon will sink (her power exhausted) and never rise again -because of the judgment Jehovah is bringing upon her sin, (vs. 63-64; comp. Rev 18:21).
7. “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah” suggests that the historical appendix (chapter 52) was added by another hand, to show (primarily from 2Ki) that Jeremiah’s basic prophecies had already been fulfilled.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
This is a remarkable sealing of the whole of what we have hitherto found said respecting the destruction of Babylon; for the Prophet not only spoke and promulgated what the Spirit of God had dictated, but also put it down in a book; and not contented with this, he delivered the book to Seraiah the son of Neriah, when he went to Babylon by the command of Zedekiah the king, that he might read it there, east it into the Euphrates, and strengthen himself in the hope of all those things which had been divinely predicted.
He says first that he commanded Seraiah what he was to do, even to read the volume and to throw it into the Euphrates, as we shall hereafter see. But he points out the time and mentions the disposition of Seraiah, that we might not think it strange that the Prophet dared to give an authoritative command to the king’s messenger, which a man of another character would have refused. As to the time, it was the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah; seven years before the city was taken, being besieged the ninth year and taken the eleventh. Then seven years before the destruction and ruin of the city, Seraiah was sent by the king to Babylon. There is no doubt but that the message was sent to pacify the king of Babylon, who had been offended with the fickleness and perfidy of King Zedekiah; an ambassador was then sent to seek pardon. But what the Jews say, that Zedekiah went to Babylon, is wholly groundless; and we know that Sederola, whence they have taken this, is full of all kinds of fables and trifles; and on such a point as this, sacred history would not have been silent, for it was a thing of great moment; and then the particle את, at, expresses no such thing, but may be rendered in this sense, that the messenger was sent for, or by, or in the place of Zedekiah. Let us then be satisfied with this simple and obvious explanation, that Seraiah was the king’s messenger sent to remove the offenses taken by the Babylonians. (110) And this happened in the fourth year of Zedekiah.
Now, by calling Seraiah a prince of quietness, I doubt not but that a reference is made to his gentleness and meekness; and I wonder that in so plain a thing interpreters have toiled so much. One renders it, even the Chaldean paraphrase, “the prince of the oblations,” as though he was set over to examine the presents offered to the king. Others imagine that he was a facetious man who amused the king in his fears; and others think that he was called “prince of quietness,” because he preserved the city in a quiet state. But all these things are groundless. (111) No other view, then, seems to me right, but that he was a prince of a quiet disposition. Therefore the word “quietness” ought not to be referred to any office, but a noun in the genitive case used instead of an adjective. He was, then, a quiet prince, or one of a placid disposition. And this commendation was not without reason added, because we know how haughtily the princes rejected everything commanded them by the servants of God. Seraiah might have objected, and said that he was sent to Babylon, not by a private person, and one of the common people, but by the king himself. He might then have haughtily reproved the Prophet for taking too much liberty with him, “Who art thou, that thou darest to command me, when I sustain the person of the king? and when I am going in his name to the king of Babylon? and then thou seekest to create disturbances by ordering me to read this volume. What if it be found on me? what if some were to suspect that I carry such a thing to Babylon? would I not, in the first place, carry death in my bosom? and would I not, in the second place, be perfidious to my king? for thus my message would be extremely disliked.”
As then Seraiah might have stated all these things, and have rejected the command which Jeremiah gave him, his gentleness is expressly mentioned, even that he was a meek man, and who withheld not his service — who, in short, was ready to obey God and his servant. What, in a word, is here commended, is the meekness of Seraiah, that he received the Prophet with so much readiness, — that he suffered himself to be commanded by him, and that he also hesitated not to execute what he had commanded, when yet it might have been a capital offense, and it might especially have been adverse to his mission, which was to reconcile the king of Babylon. And surely it is an example worthy of being noticed, that Seraiah was not deterred by danger from rendering immediate obedience to the Prophet’s command, nor did he regard himself nor the omee committed to him, so as to reject the Prophet, according to the usual conduct of princes, under the pretext of their own dignity; but laying aside his own honor and forgetting all his greatness, he became a disciple to Jeremiah, who yet, as it is well known, had been long despised by the people, and had sometimes been nearly brought to death. It was, then, a remarkable instance of virtue in Seraiah, that he received with so much modesty and readiness what had been said to him by the Prophet, and that he obeyed his command, to the evident danger of his own life. It now follows, —
(110) The Vulg. and Syr. have “with,” but the Sept. and Targ. give it the meaning of “from;” and את has often the meaning of מאת; see Gen 6:1; Gen 44:4; Gen 50:9. So Gataker, Venema, and Blayney. — Ed
(111) The variety in the early versions is remarkable; the Sept. and the Targ. have “the prince of gifts” or presents; the Vulg. , “the prince of prophecy;” and the Syr. , “the prince of warfare.” A similar phrase is found in 1Ch 22:9; Solomon is said to be “a man of rest,” איש מנוחה. The meaning most suitable to this passage is that if Calvin and of our version. So though Gataker; but Lowth and Parkhurst regarded the words as pointing out his office as the king’s chief chamberlain, “the prince of the resting-place,” or chamber; but the objection to this is, that the word is never used in this sense; it means not the rest of sleep, but the rest of peace and quietness. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
IV. THE HISTORY OF THE BABYLON PROPHECY Jer. 51:59-64
TRANSLATION
(59) The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah, king of Judah, to Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. Seraiah was the chief quartermaster. (60) NOW Jeremiah had written all of the misfortune which would come upon Babylon on one scroll, all of these words which are written concerning Babylon. (61) Jeremiah said to Seraiah: When you come to Babylon see that you read aloud all these words. (62) Then you shall say: O Lord, You have spoken concerning this place that you would cut it off so that there would be no living in it, neither man nor beast, because it shall be an everlasting desolation. (63) And it shall come to pass when you have finished reading aloud this scroll you shall bind a stone to it and cast it into the midst of Euphrates (64) and say: Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not arise because of the calamity which I am about to bring against her, and they shall be wearied. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
COMMENTS
In the fourth year of his reign king Zedekiah made a trip to Babylon to meet his overlord Nebuchadnezzar. The purpose of this trip is not stated and thus commentators are left to speculate as to why it was undertaken. In that same year a number of ambassadors from the neighboring countries had assembled in Jerusalem to map plans for a new rebellion against the Chaldeans hegemony (chap. 27). Hearing of this conclave, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Zedekiah to Babylon that he might reaffirm his loyalty and renew his vassal oath. Accompanying Zedekiah on the trip was Seraiah the chief chamberlain (not quiet prince as in KJV) whose job it was to prepare in advance the royal chambers. No doubt Seraiah would ride one days journey ahead of the royal party to make all necessary arrangements at the next halting place along the way. Seraiah was a brother of Baruch,[423] Jeremiahs faithful scribe, and a friend of the prophet (Jer. 51:59).
[423] Both Baruch (Jer. 32:12) and Seraiah are said to be sons of Neriah.
When Jeremiah learned of the trip to Babylon he seized the opportunity to secure the help of Seraiah in carrying out a very special mission. The prophet gathered together into one book-roll all the oracles against Babylon which he had written or uttered up until the fourth year of Zedekiah. Probably the reason Jeremiah was careful to use one roll (ASV mar) is because a single roll could be handled more easily and safely than two. The phrase even all these words which are written concerning Babylon points back to the content of chapters 5051. Seraiah was given the scroll and commanded to read it aloud in Babylonia (Jer. 51:61).
As he opens the scroll he is to summarize its contents (Jer. 51:62) before he begins to read. When the reading has been completed he is instructed to bind a stone about the scroll and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates (Jer. 51:63). As he does so he is to cry thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again (Jer. 51:64).
The words, they shall be weary (in Hebrew, one word) are the last words of the Babylon prophecy (cf. Jer. 51:58) of chapters 5051. The repetition of the word by Seraiah serves to join together the symbolic act and the prophecy which has just been read.
Some questions about this episode need to be answered. To whom was Seraiah to read the scroll? Probably not to the Babylonians or even to a large assembly of Jews as this would be fraught with great danger to Seraiah and possibly even to Zedekiah himself. Rather this whole action was performed before certain trustworthy witnesses who would be able to testify in later days as to what they had heard and seen. But what was the purpose of this reading? With respect to the city of Babylon it was an announcement of doom. In view of the circumstances of this journey to Babylon the announcement of judgment is even more significant. While the king of Judah was publicly casting himself in homage before the Chaldean throne, Seraiah was to cast a roll in the Euphrates on which was prophesied the destruction of Babylon and the deliverance of Israel. With respect to God the reading of the scroll was a pledge to His people that He would intervene on their behalf and bring them out of their bondage. Throughout the Years of the exile the people of God could call upon Him to make good the promises contained in this oracle. With respect to the Israelites the reading of the scroll would be a great comfort and no doubt those who heard the reading and witnessed the sinking were called upon to recite again and again the wonderful message.
Still another question which needs to be answered is why was the Babylon scroll sunk in the Euphrates river? The sinking of the scroll was not an act of sympathetic magic such as was practiced among the heathen. By dramatically acting out an event pagan religious leaders believed that they magically were setting the wheels of fate in motion which would actually bring the event to pass. But Jeremiah, the man of God, would certainly not authorize such a superstitious act. The sinking of the scroll in the Euphrates was simply a symbolic act such as was common to the prophetic ministries. The act was a visual aid to the message proclaimed in the scroll; it foretold the doom of Babylon.
A final question of importance: What is the relationship between the scroll sunk in the Euphrates river and the Babylon prophecy of Jer. 50:2 to Jer. 51:58? As already noted, some feel that the situation reflected in the Babylon oracle is not that of the fourth year of Zedekiah. They have therefore proposed that when Jeremiah rewrote the scroll which he sent to Babylon he added many similar threats against Babylon. For example, those words which suggested that the Temple has already been destroyed under this theory could be assigned to a date subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem. While this theory has much to command it the present writer does not feel that it is necessary. The impression left in Jer. 51:60 and in Seraiahs repetition of the last Hebrew word of Jer. 51:58 (cf. Jer. 51:64) is that the scroll which he read in Babylon was identical with the prophecy of Jer. 50:2 to Jer. 51:58.
SPECIAL STUDY[424]
[424] The material in this special study appeared originally in The Seminary Review, XVII (Fall, 1970).
THE FALL OF BABYLON: A PROBLEM IN PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION
In comparison with their treatment of other foreign nations Isaiah and Jeremiah had a great deal to say about the fall of Babylon.1 As regards the fulfillment of these prophecies two schools of thought have arisen. One view is that ancient Babylon will be restored, become once again the center of sin, and then he destroyed finally by eschatological judgments. This view might be called the futuristic view. Another view is that Babylon was destroyed once and for all and will never be restored. This might be designated as the historical view. The purpose of this study is to answer this question: Is the fall of Babylon as prophesied by Isaiah and Jeremiah an historical event of the past, or does it await a future fulfillment?
There are far-reaching involvements in the resolution of the question about to be considered. The ultimate issue underlying this whole discussion is: How literally are Old Testament prophecies to be interpreted? Some insight into this basic hermeneutical issue can be gained by presenting the arguments for and against the futuristic and historical views of the fall of Babylon.
I. THE FUTURISTIC VIEW OF BABYLONS FALL
The view that the destruction of Babylon is yet future is defended by Newton,2 Pember,3 Seiss,4 Newell,5 and others. Five lines of argument are offered in support of this position.
A. The Argument from Eschatology
It is the contention of the futuristic school of interpretation that in context the fall of Babylon is directly related to an eschatological setting. Certain passages relate the fall of Babylon to the Day of the Lord and to the Millennial Kingdom.
1. Babylons fall and the Day of the Lord
The futuristic interpreters insist that Isa. 13:6; Isa. 13:9; Isa. 13:13 definitely establish the setting for the fall of Babylon as the Day of the Lord. To these interpreters the Day of the Lord is always an eschatological event. Since in Isa. 13:2-16 the terminology Day of the Lord appears these verses must have a future fulfillment. But if these verses have a future fulfillment then it would seem to be impossible to interpret Jer. 51:17 through 20 which describe the overthrow of Babylon as having been fulfilled in the past.6 The conclusion is therefore offered that since the fall of Babylon as prophesied in Scripture is to take place in the setting of the Day of the Lord; and since the Day of the Lord is yet future, then it follows that the destruction of Babylon yet awaits fulfillment.
2. Babylons fall and the Millennial Kingdom
The futuristic interpreters point out that the prophecy of Babylons fall not only relates to the Day of the Lord but also to the events which mark the beginning of the Millennium. The passage which most clearly supports this contention is Isa. 14:1 to Isa. 7:7 James Gray argues that there are at least three things in these verses concerning Israels history which have not come to pass: (1) God has not yet set them in their own land (Jer. 14:1); (2) Israel does not yet possess the peoples of the earth for servants and handmaids (Jer. 14:2); (3) Israel has not yet taken them captive whose captives they were, nor ruled over their oppressors (Jer. 14:2).8 It is asserted that those who regard the fall of Babylon as historically complete must spiritualize these verses or pass them over completely. The futuristic interpreters categorically reject the suggestion that these promises of peace, prosperity and power have been fulfilled in the history of Israel.9
Thus Scripture makes Babylons fall contemporaneous with two concurrent eventsthe forgiveness of Israel and the coming Day of the Lord. Even if it could be shown that the desolation of Babylon and its land had reached a point which adequately answers to predictions of Scripture respecting it, a revival of Babylon would still be necessary in order for Scripture to be accomplished. Newton summarizes the argument when he writes: Babylon can only be finally destroyed at the time and under the circumstances specified in the Scripture.10
B. The Argument from History
A second line of argument used to support the futuristic view of Babylons fall is the argument from history. It is affirmed that the record of history and the prediction of Scripture are at variance with one another if the fall of Babylon is an event of the past. Scriptural prophecy is alleged to contradict the historical record on at least two points: (1) the suddenness of Babylons fall; and (2) the catastrophic nature of Babylons fall.
1. The suddenness of Babylons fall
The futuristic interpreters argue that the Scripture indicate a sudden destruction of Babylon whereas history records no such sudden destruction by which that city became a desolation. Isaiah 47, for example, indicates that the mistress of kingdoms would suffer loss of children and widowhood in one day. Both the loss of commercial relationships with other nations and depopulation would come upon Babylon suddenly and completely (in their full measure). But the continuous history of Babylon can be traced through many centuries subsequent to the capture of that city of Cyrus. This fact seems to contradict the prophetic picture of Babylons fall as given by Isaiah 47. Furthermore, Babylon will be destroyed as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah (Jer. 13:19).11 The destruction of these cities was not protracted through many centuries but was the result of a supernatural stroke. So Babylons destruction is to be brought about suddenly and the weapons of judgment are to be largely elemental. The heavens and earth will become disordered and water will swallow Up the site upon which the city stands (Isa. 13:13; Jer. 51:42).12 Because Babylon did not suddenly become a desolation, the futuristic interpreters argue that the prophecies concerning the fall of this city must await fulfillment in the future.
2. The catastrophic nature of Babylons fall
The catastrophic nature of Babylons fall is indicated in the following verses:
Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is taken shall fall by the sword. Their infants also shall be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be rifled, and their wives ravished (Isa. 13:15-16).
The language of these two verses is the most descriptive that could be employed to picture the total, pitiless and barbaric slaughter of the inhabitants of Babylon. The argument is advanced that nowhere in the history of Babylons downfall did a destruction of human life occur in any degree comparable to that which is pictured by these verses.13
A second passage indicates the catastrophic nature of the destruction of the city itself.
Come against her from the utmost border; open her store-houses; cast her up as heaps, and destroy her utterly; let nothing of her be left (Jer. 50:26).
This verse probably means that all the property found in Babylon would be collected and then burned with the city. But such a catastrophic destruction has not been literally fulfilled by any of Babylons conquerors.14
From the futuristic view point the prophecies of a sudden and yet complete destruction and desolation of Babylon have not been fulfilled. History reveals that Babylon never was the object of such a judgment but on the contrary has persisted as a commercial center and political community even to the present.15 In view of this argument from history Newell concludes it appears impossible that the great prophecies concerning Babylons final overthrow . have been finally fulfilled.16
C. The Argument from the Present
The third line of evidence advanced to support the futurity of Babylons fall is the argument from the present. It is affirmed that many passages which refer to Babylons desolation present a picture which seems to contradict the existing condition of the city. The following excerpts from the Babylon prophecies make clear what the existing state of Babylon should be if the prophecies have been fulfilled.
It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall shepherds make their flocks to lie down there. For out of the north there cometh a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein: they are fled, they are gone, both man and beast. And they shall not take of you a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the Lord (Isa. 13:20; Jer. 50:3; Jer. 51:26).
The futuristic interpreters do not feel that the present condition of the site of ancient Babylon corresponds to this prophetic picture of desolation. To be sure Babylon has experienced widespread ruin and damage and these interpreters do not wish to undervalue or hide the extent of the ruin. But thus far only premonitory blows have fallen against Babylon.17 Seiss maintains that Babylon, in all the deep calamities and desolations which have come upon her, never yet experienced all that has been thus prophesied.18
In contradiction to the prophecies of the perpetual desolation of Babylon flourishing villages exist today on the site of that metropolis. One city of more than ten thousand population probably lies within the walls of the ancient city.19 Larkin argues that it has never been true that neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there (Isa. 13:20). Nor can it be said and they shall not take of you a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations (Jer. 51:26) for many towns and cities have been built from the ruins of Babylon. Hillah was entirely constructed from debris of the city, and even in the houses of Bagdad Babylonian-stamped brick may be frequently noticed.20 Newton emphasizes the fact that the LAND of Babylon has never yet experienced the desolation predicted and he cites numerous travelers who attest to the fertility of the LAND of Babylon.21
The futuristic interpreters feel that the prophecies concerning the destruction of Babylon have not yet passed into history. This being the case, they argue, three alternatives are left to the interpreter: (1) he can deny the inspiration of the prophets themselves; (2) he can boldly deny the facts and argue against realities; (3) he can speak the truth and say that Babylon has not yet received its final blow.22 Whether or not this exhausts the possible alternatives must be decided after the case for the historical view of Babylons fall is heard.
D. The Argument from Revelation 17-18
A more positive argument supporting the futuristic interpretation is found in Revelation 17-18. It is important to note that most of those who hold that Babylon is yet to be destroyed expound this view in exegeting Revelation 1718.23 The argument is that two Babylons are described in the Book of Revelationmystical Babylon and literal Babylon. Literal Babylon will be restored at the end of time and then destroyed by eschatological judgments.
1. The two Babylons of Revelation
The key point in the argument from the Book of Revelation is that John is describing two Babylons. In Revelation 17 John speaks of a woman called Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth. In chapter 18 John speaks of a city called Babylon the Great. Pember argues that the woman and the city cannot symbolize the same thing because what is said of the one does not apply to the other. The woman is destroyed by the ten kings, (Jer. 17:16) while the kings of the earth in the next chapter bewail and lament (Jer. 18:9) the destruction of the city. The city is not destroyed by the kings but by a sudden visitation by God in the form of a fire and earthquake. Furthermore, the first verse of chapter 18 (after these things) indicates that it is after the destruction of the woman that the destruction of the city occurs.24 Newell adds the following distinction: The particular sin of Babylon in chapter 17 is spiritual fornication; of Babylon in chapter 18, evil commercialism.25 By such lines of argumentation the conclusion is reached that the woman and the city are not one and the same. Pember states that whatever may be intended by the Babylon of the seventeenth chapter, it is, at least, something altogether distinct from that of the eighteenth.26 These interpreters make a distinction between Mystic Babylon and Literal Babylon (Newell); Ecclesiastical Babylon and Eshatological Babylon (Bloomfield); Mystical Babylon and Commercial Babylon (Larkin). Mystical Babylon is the Devils church through the ages; commercial Babylon is the ancient city on the Euphrates restored.
2. The restoration of literal Babylon
According to the futuristic school, Revelation 18 describes the reconstructed Babylon of the last days. In chapter 17 John dealt chiefly with symbols and an angel added an explanation. According to this view, no symbols are used in chapter 18 and no explanation is therefore needed. Govett insists that this means the chapter must be taken literally.27 Larkin contends that since symbolical Babylon was destroyed in chapter 17 the city of chapter 18 must be literal Babylon. Since no such city exists today, the city of Babylon must be rebuilt at some point in the future.28 The last world monarchy, with Antichrist at its head will make the restored city the seat of its government and the center of a federation of the God-defying nations of the earth.29
3. The final destruction of Babylon
According to the futuristic interpreters, Revelation 18 also describes the overthrow of the future metropolis of restored Babylon. The chapter begins with the angelic announcement of doom: Fallen, Fallen is Babylon the Great: Gods people (in this case, godly Jews) are warned to flee out of Babylon.30 The direct and catastrophic nature of Babylons final fall is indicated. Babylons destruction will come in one hour (Jer. 51:10) and in that one hour the city shall be made desolate (Jer. 51:19). The city will be destroyed by fire (Jer. 51:8-9; Jer. 51:18) which harmonizes with Isa. 13:19 As when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. The awful, perpetual curse of desolation that will follow the execution of the judgment (Jer. 51:2; Jer. 51:22-23). The kings and merchants of the earth mourn over the destruction of the great commercial metropolis (Jer. 51:9-11; Jeremiah 15-19).
Little harmony exists among the interpreters as to who will destroy eschatological Babylon. Seiss believes that the final judgment upon great Babylon is so miraculous and direct from heaven that earthly agents have but little to do with it, if anything.31 Govett believes the judgment will be executed by Israel just before the nation is swallowed up by God.32 Bloomfield, on the other hand, feels that the city will be destroyed by the soldiers of Antichrist probably by means of an atomic bomb.33
Such then is the argument from the Book of Revelation. After the fall of ecclesiastical Babylon, literal Babylon will be rebuilt, will become a great commercial center, and will be destroyed by echatological judgments.
E. The Argument from Zechariahs Vision
Another line of positive testimony which is brought forth in support of the futuristic interpretation is Zechariahs vision of the woman in an ephah (Jer. 5:5-11). The prophet sees a woman called wickedness sitting in an ephah (symbol of commerce) carried to the land of Shinar by two winged women. According to Bloomfield the woman symbolizes a wicked, universal system or Satans church.34 This prophecy was delivered subsequent to Babylons captivity and at least half a lifetime after Babylon had been conquered by the Medes and Persians. Newell supposes this vision to portray the final concentration of wickedness in the reconstructed Babylon in the land of Shinar.35 This passage is regarded as confirmatory proof that the ancient city of Babylon is to be rebuilt and become the commercial center of the world.36
The strength or weakness of these five lines of argument offered by the futuristic school of interpreters must be evaluated in the light of the case put forward by the historical school of interpretation.
II. THE HISTORICAL VIEW OF BABYLONS FALL
In contrast to the futuristic view of Babylons fall the historical school holds that the Old Testament prophecies relating to the fall of Babylon have already been fulfilled. Among the advocates of this view are Alexander37 Franz Delitzach,38 Ironsides,39 and George Adam Smith.40 In order to appreciate this view it will first be necessary to set forth concisely the hermeneutical framework within which these scholars interpret the Babylon prophecies.
A. Hermeneutical Perspective of the Historical School
This historical view of Babylons fall is set forth within a very different hermeneutical framework from that of the futuristic view. Three important principles govern the interpretation of the Babylon prophecies by those who hold the historical view.
1. The principle of generic prophecy
One principle which is employed by the historical school is that predictive prophecy is sometimes generic. Alexander speaks of the difficulty of harmonizing all the details of the Babylon prophecies with the capture of that city by Cyrus. He then adds:
The true solution of this difficulty is that the prediction is generic, not specific; that it is not a detailed account of one event exclusively, but a prophetic picture of the fall of Babylon considered as a whole, some of the traits being taken from the first, and some from the last stage of the fatal process, while others are indefinite or common to all.41
On this principle of an ideal event the historical school feels itself under no obligation to demonstrate a complete coincidence of prophecy and history in regard to the fall of Babylon.
2. Principle of perspective shortening
A second rule of interpretation employed by the historical school is the principle of perspective shortening. According to this principle events which are widely separated in time are sometimes blended as though they were continuous. Naegelsbach believes that the Babylon prophecies are an example of that prophetic gaze which, as it were, sees in one plain that which in reality is extended through many successive stages of time.42 The prophet brings together in one paragraph, and sometimes one verse, the conquest, destruction, and desolation of Babylon whereas in reality these were accomplished in the course of centuries.43 Because of this principle the historical school does not feel compelled to find the fulfillment of every detail of the prophecies of Babylons fall in the capture of Cyrus or anyone particular calamity which befell the city.
3. Principle of poetic license
A third principle which undergirds the historical interpretation of Babylons fall is this: Allowance must be made for imagery, hyperbolic expression, and poetic diction in predictive prophecy. This must be the case, for instance, in such passages as Isa. 13:10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine. This must be understood as metaphorical because the revolutions and destructions of nations are often represented in the Scriptures under this image.44 It is therefore considered to be unfair for anyone to argue that the prophecy of Babylons fall is unfulfilled because there was no celestial disruption when that city fell to the Medo-Persian armies. Hyperbolic elements might be also found in the prophecies that Babylon will become an uninhabited desolation; that not a stone from the city will be used in building; that the fall of the city will be accompanied by a slaughter of man, women and children.
B. Rebuttal to the Futuristic Arguments
It is necessary now to ask this question: What rebuttal does the historical school of interpretation have to offer to the five lines of argument advanced by the futuristic school?
1. The eschatological argument
The futuristic school holds that since the fall of Babylon is prophesied in connection with the Day of the Lord and the Millennial Kingdom it must be a future event. The historical school argues in reply that the Day of the Lord as described in Isa. 13:2-16 is not an eschatological event. The prophet is relating the burden of Babylon (Jer. 13:1) in these verses. Hence the logical inference from context is that the language Day of the Lord as here used refers to the calamity of Babylons fall. As for the Millennium the historical interpreters would simply insist that such passages as Isa. 14:1-7 refer to the return from Babylonian captivity and not to any eschatological restoration of Israel.
2. The argument from history
The historical school of interpretation contends that the prophecies regarding Babylons fall do not relate to one specific historical situation but to an ideal fall of the city. These interpreters feel that when the principles of generic prophecy, perspective shortening, and hyperbolic utterance are applied to the Babylon prophecies it is evident that they have been fulfilled as much as they shall ever be. The definite historical beginning of the ideal fall of Babylon is indicated in the prophecies of the coming of the Medes (Isa. 13:17; Isa. 21:2-3; Jer. 51:11; Jer. 51:28). Cyrus is named as the leader in the expedition against Babylon (Isa. 44:28; Isa. 45:1). Because of these definite historical allusions the historical school of interpreters cannot see how the fall of Babylon could be an eschatological event.45
3. Argument from the present
The futuristic school argues that the existing condition of the site of ancient Babylon does not completely fulfill the picture of utter desolation described by the prophets. The historical school grants that there are some predictions against Babylon which have not been literally fulfilled but this they consider unnecessary. Cheyne contends that the veracity of prophecy is not dependent upon circumstantial fulfillment.46 The following statement of Orelli reflects the general attitude of the historical school toward the town of Hillah which is located on or near the site of Babylon.
In sight of the ruined plains of Babylon it would be petty dogmatism to point to the present settlements there which are only important through their contrast to the former greatness and splendor of the imperial capital.47
Even more straightforward is the contention of Newman, a nineteenth-century visitor to the site of Babylon.
In no sense is the Moslem town of Hillah, with its ten thousand inhabitants, the restoration of the ancient city. The walls, the temples, the palaces, the dwellings of Babylon, have not been rebuilt. The Once proud city is a desolation without an inhabitant.48
4. Babylon in the Book of Revelation
While the futuristic interpreters distinguish between the Babylon of Revelation 17 and that of chapter 18 the historical interpreters, as a rule, do not. Whatever interpretation is given to the harlot of Revelation 17 is also given to the metropolis of chapter 18. Among the interpreters who reject any reference to literal Babylon in Revelation, three views prevail. Some hold that Johns Babylon is the figurative application of that name to a totally different city, viz., Rome.49 Others hold that the New Testament Babylon is the apostate church.50 A third group holds that the term Babylon in Revelation applies to a system or civilization rather than to any specific geographical center.51
However diverse their explanations of Johns Babylon may be, these interpreters are convinced that no reference to literal Babylon is intended by the Patmos Seer. They feel that the notion that literal Babylon is to be rebuilt is in conflict with the Old Testament prophecies which indicate Babylon is to be destroyed and never again inhabited.52 Furthermore, Johns Babylon is contrasted with that of the Chaldees in that the latter was built upon a plain while the former is characterized by the seven mountains on which it sits.53 For these reasons the literalistic interpretation is rejected and a symbolical application for the name Babylon in the Book of Revelation is suggested.
5. Zechariahs vision
The futuristic interpreters understand the vision of the woman in an ephah to indicate that the land of Shinar will become a great center of evil commercialism. The historical interpreters regard this vision as simply an illustration that iniquity is now removed from the Holy Land and taken to Babylonia. Shinar in this passage is a symbol of the secular world which wars against the truth, viz., Satans kingdom of wickedness.54
III. THE HISTORICAL DECLINE OF BABYLON
Because of considerations of space only a brief outline of the stages in the decline of Babylon can be given here.
A. The Persian Period
1. The capture of Babylon by Cyrus (539 B.C.). The armies of Babylon were crushed at Opis on the Tigris. The seizure of Babylon itself was relatively peaceful. The city remained a great metropolis.
2. The capture of Babylon by Darius (522521 B.C.) Herodotus (III. 151159) reports a siege of almost two years. Darius destroyed one of the three broad walls which guarded the city and tore down the hundred gates of which Babylon was so proud.
3. The capture of Babylon by Xerxes (482 B.C.). The temple E-sagila was torn down. Quarters of the city that had been pillaged remained uninhabited and fell into ruins. Commerce dwindled; industry flagged. So thoroughly did Xerxes ravage Babylon that barely a half-dozen tablets have survived from the remainder of his reign over that city. Babylonia lost its identity through incorporation with Assyria and was henceforth ferociously taxed.55
At. Under the later Persian kings Babylon experienced a brief revival but was not completely restored.
B. The Greek Period
1. Alexander the Great attempted to restore Babylon in 331 B.C. With the death of that great king the project was abandoned.
2. In the twenty-five years after the death of Alexander Babylon was sacked and put to the torch at least seven times.56
3. The founding of Seleucia sometime between 307 and 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator I (312281 B.C.). The new city, some ninety miles away from Babylon, was populated with colonists from Babylon.
4. Between 160 and 140 B.C. the city was taken by rival armies at least four times.57 With the capture of the city by the Parthian king Mithridates I, the period of Greek dominance in Babylonia came to an end.
C. The Parthian Period
1. Nine years after the Parthians gained control of Babylonia the city fell once again, this time into the hands of Antiochus VII Sidetes (130 B.C.).
2. In 127126 B.C. Babylon was conquered by Hyspaosines, the fifth conquest of the city since July 141 B.C.
3. Between 126 and 123 B.C. Himeros, a Parthian, dealt a death blow to the ancient city. He burned the marketplace of Babylon and some of the temples and completely destroyed the better part of the city. Many of the inhabitants were sent to Media as slaves.
4. In 122 B.C. Mithridates II recaptured the city.
The preceding survey has indicated that subsequent to the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. that city suffered innumerable sieges, captures and calamities. No fewer than eighteen times did Babylon fall to an enemy. With few exceptions each successive conqueror treated the mighty metropolis with more severity than did his predecessor. At 10 B.C. all primary information about the city of Babylon disappears. From this time on classical historians, geographers, naturalists, travelers and commentators must supply the information concerning the city of Babylon. The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus in the first century B.C. relates that only a small part of ancient Babylon was inhabited in his day (II. 9.9). Strabo the Greek geographer (63 B.C.-19 A.D.) describes Babylon as being in great part deserted (XVI. 1.5). Pausanias, the Greek traveler and geographer of the second Christian century, declares that nothing remained of Babylon except the temple of Belus and the walls of the city (VIII. 33.3). Lucian (ca. 129180 A.D.) the Greek sophist and satirist says that Babylon will soon have to be searched for like Nineveh of which not a trace remained in his day.58
Among the Latin writers the testimony concerning the condition of Babylon is similar. Pliny (2379 A.D.), the Roman polymath, states that while the temple of Bel is still standing in all other respects the place has gone back to a desert.59 The Roman historian Dio Cassius describes Trajans visit to Babylon in which he found only mounds and stones and ruins.60
Jewish sources confirm the picture of the desolate state of Babylon in the first centuries B.C. and A.D. Josephus describes how the Jews at Babylon were subjected to persecution by the native people and abandoned the city in the middle of the first Christian century (Ant. XV. 9.8, 9). The Talmud prescribed certain benedictions which one was to utter when he saw the ruins of Babylon (Berakoth 57b).61
In Christian literature Babylon is mentioned in 1Pe. 5:13. This passage has been used to prove that Babylon in the first century was a thriving city with a Jewish population sufficiently large enough to demand the ministry of the apostle Peter. For a number of reasons62 it is best to reject the literal interpretation of Babylon in this passage and to regard Babylon here as a cryptogram for Rome.
The only Christian reference to Mesopotamian Babylon is found in Jeromes commentary on Isaiah 63 He makes reference to the fact that Babylon in his day had been made a game preserve by one of the Parthian kings.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon the basis of the evidence heretofore presented the conclusion is reached that the fall of Babylon as prophesied by Isaiah and Jeremiah has already taken place. The conclusion that Babylon has fallen once and for all time has much in its favor:
1. The view that Babylon has fallen in fulfillment of prophecy is based upon sound principles of prophetic interpretation. The entire problem of whether the fall of Babylon is past or future is a hermeneutical one in which the factor of literally is a major issue. In the final analysis each individual must decide how literally he is going to understand these Babylon prophecies. But examples of prophetic interpretation by inspired New Testament writers seems to indicate that the principles of generic prophecy, perspective shortening, and poetic imagery must be taken into account in properly understanding predictive prophecy.
2. The opinion that Babylon has once and for all time fallen avoids a slavish but inconsistent literalism. The futuristic interpreters while insisting on a literalistic interpretation for such phrases as none shall dwell therein, shall not be inhabited, they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner do not so interpret other passages in the prophecies. They do not, for example, insist that the eschatological conquerors of Babylon must be Medes, ride on horses, and attack the city with the bow and spear. In fact they talk of Babylon being destroyed in the future by an atomic bomb or by a supernatural stroke from heaven. This is entirely foreign to the picture of besieging armies presented in the Old Testament prophecies. The view that the destruction of Babylon has taken place recognizes all the numerous points where the prophecy was literally fulfilled but at the same time does not insist that every detail must have had circumstantial fulfillment before the prophecy against Babylon can be viewed as accomplished.
3. The view that the prophecies of Babylons fall have been fulfilled is justified in the light of the historical evidence. It is difficult to understand how anyone acquainted with the history of Babylon between the years 538 and 10 B.C. could say that the things prophesied against Babylon have never come to pass. The city changed hands again and again and with each new conquest suffered un told damage. Certainly it was literally true that many kings (Jer. 50:42) took part in accomplishing Gods will against Babylon.
4. The opinion that Babylon has fallen is consistent with the testimony of the ancient writers. A careful study of the Greek and Roman writers in regard to the condition of Babylon subsequent to the first century B.C. reveals that they unconsciously employ the language of the prophets in describing the desolate condition of Babylon in their day. Diodorus Siculus described the city as in ruins. Strabo calls it a great desert. Pausanias says that it has been reduced to nothing. Pliny says the place has gone back to a desert. In the light of these statements it is difficult to see how it could be affirmed that what has already befallen Babylon is but a premonitory blow.
5. The theory that Babylon has been destroyed in accord with prophecy is most consistent with the long silence of history respecting Babylon. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, Babylon and Nineveh were only names. People read about them in the Bible, but no visible trace remained. Some were even skeptical that such places only existed in the imagination of ancient scribes.64 Robert Lowth could write in 1778
Upon the whole, Babylon is so utterly annihilated that even the place where this wonder of the world stood, cannot now be determined with any certainty.65
Babylon was for centuries a desolate heap of ruins. Hillah is not Babylon. Even if it were built upon the site of the ancient city, Hillah would not be Babylon. Babylon, the city ceased to exist in the first century A.D. or shortly thereafter.
The Babylon passages, if already fulfilled, have a definite apologetic value. The believer can direct the attention of the skeptic to these prophecies as a concrete example of fulfilled predictive prophecy. The amazing detail in which these Babylon prophecies were fulfilled centuries after they were recorded can be explained only on the hypothesis that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
FOOTNOTES
1.
Isaiah 13-14; Isa. 21:1-10; chaps. 4048; Jer. 25:12-14; Jer. 25:26; Jer. 27:7; chaps. 5051.
2.
Benjamin Wills Newton, Babylon: Its Future History and Doom (third edition; 1890), pp. 1144.
3.
G. H. Pember, The Antichrist, Babylon, and the Coming of the Kingdom, (second edition, 1888), pp. 67124.
4.
J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (eighth edition, 1901), III, 107212.
5.
William R. Newell, The Book of Revelation (1935), pp. 263281.
6.
Harry Goehring, The Fall of BabylonHistorical or Future? Grace Journal, II (Winter, 1961), 29.
7.
Other passages alleged to support this relationship are Isa. 48:14; Isa. 48:20; Jer. 50:3-5; Jeremiah 18-20; Hab. 2:14; Hab. 2:20.
8.
James M. Gray, Prophecy and the Lords Return (1917), p. 114.
9.
Goehring, op. cit., p. 30.
10.
Newton, op. cit., p. 29.
11.
Pember (op. cit., pp. 8788) argues that the reference here is to the act of destruction, not to its permanent effects.
12.
Herbert Mackenzie, The Destruction of Babylon, Bibliotheca Sacra, XCII (1935), p. 228.
13.
Goehring, op. cit., pp. 2526.
14.
Ibid., p. 27.
15.
Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation (1919), p. 157; and Pember, op. cit., p. 94. Cf. Goehring (op. cit., p. 27) who grants that Babylon did come to an end about 1100 A.D. but feels that this gradual decline is not in accord with the prophecies of the fall of the city.
16.
Newell, op. cit., p. 265.
17.
Newton, op. cit., p. 11.
18.
Seiss, op. cit., III, 141.
19.
Goehring, op. cit., p. 28.
20.
Larkin op. cit., pp. 15758.
21.
Newton, op. cit., p. 53. Cf. Jer. 50:1; Jer. 51:2; Jer. 51:29; Jer. 51:43.
22.
Newton, op. cit., p. 29.
23.
Cf. A. C. Gaebelein, The Revelation (1915), pp. 978. Gaebelein denies that Babylon described in Revelation is literal Babylon but still holds that ancient Babylon will be rebuilt because the Old Testament prophecies have not yet been literally fulfilled.
24.
Pember, op. cit., pp. 7174.
25.
Newell, op. cit., pp. 26364.
26.
Pember, op. cit., p. 97.
27.
Robert Govett, The Apocalypse Expounded by Scripture (1920), p. 466; Cf. Seiss, op. cit., III, 147; there is no intimation whatever that this city of Babylon does not mean the city of Babylon.
28.
Larkin, op. cit., p. 155.
29.
Gray, op. cit., pp. 111119.
30.
Newell (op. cit., p. 267) argues that Jeremiah must have been speaking of this final destruction when he warned his people to flee out of the midst of Babylon (Jer. 51:45-46; Jer. 51:50) for when Cyrus took the city the Jews did not flee.
31.
Seiss, op. cit., III 172.
32.
Govett, op. cit., p. 474.
33.
Arthur E. Bloomfield, All Things New (1959), p. 231. Ac cording to Bloomfield the angel in Jer. 51:21 acts out the scene as he drops a bomb from the sky. The torment which the kings are afraid of (Jer. 51:9-10) may be fall out.
34.
Bloomfield, op. cit., p. 229. He also believes the two carrying women to represent a church. Babylon will be rebuilt by a church.
35.
Newell, op. cit., p. 268.
36.
Larkin, op. cit., p. 161; cf. Newton, op. cit., pp. 6280.
37.
Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the prophecies of Isaiah. Two volumes in one. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1953. A reprint from 1847.
38.
Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Trans. James Martin. Two vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.
39.
H. A. Ironsides, Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah. New York: Loizeaux, 1952.
40.
George Adam Smith, The Book of Isaiah, The Expositors Bible. Two vols. London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.
41.
Alexander, op. cit., I, 267.
42.
C. Edward Naegelsbach, Isaiah, Langes Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, p. 181.
43.
C. von Orelli, The Prophecies of Isaiah (1895)., p. 376.
44.
43.Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (1950), I, 252, Cf. Isa. 34:4; Eze. 32:7-8; Amo. 8:9.
45.
Cf. William Richard Foster, The Eschatological Significance of the Assyrian, (unpublished Doctors Thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1956), pp. 16465. Foster maintains that the Medo-Persian empire represents in prophecy the Messianic kingdom which overthrows the kingdom of antichrist and allows the remnant of Gods people to return in restoration of their national economy. Goehring (op. cit., pp. 3031) goes so far as to say that the term Mede cannot refer to the historical Medes under Cyrus.
46.
Cheyne, Isaiah, op. tit., I, 550.
47.
Orelli, Isaiah, op. cit., p. 377.
48.
John P. Newman, The Thrones and Palaces of Babylon and Nineveh (1876), p. 175. It should be noted however that Newman places Hillah in the very center of the. ancient site of Babylon (p. 163) and admits that this town was built from the ancient ruins of Babylon (p. 148).
49.
R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (1920). II 54; Friedrich Dusterdieck, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Revelation of John (1887). p. 428; Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (1954). p. 226; Edward A. McDowell, The Meaning and Message of the Book of Revelation (1951). pp. 166174; Charles M. Layman, The Book of Revelation (1960), pp. 113123.
50.
The Papal Rome interpretation. J. G. Encell, The Exiled Prophet (1898), p. 215; B. W. Johnson, A Vision of the Ages (fifth edition; 1915), p. 282; H. C. William, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (1917), pp. 28997. The apostate church in abstracto: A. Plummer, Revelation, Pulpit Commentary, p. 413; William A. Spurgeon, The Conquering Christ (1936), pp. 24041; J. L. Martin, The Voice of the Seven Thunders (1870), p. 250.
51.
Philip Mauro, The Patmos Vision (1926), pp. 24344; Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (1957), pp. 8283; C. H. Little, Explanation of the Book of Revelation (1950), pp. 170190; W. Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (1961), pp. 199220; M. R. DeHaan, Revelation (1946), pp. 214231.
52.
C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible, Comments on Revelation 18; Cf. Tenny, op. cit., p. 86.
53.
William Kelly, An Exposition of the Book of Isaiah (fourth edition; 1947), pp. 164ff.
54.
E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (1885), II, 36869; Cf. Theodore Laetsch, Bible Commentary: The Minor Prophets (1956), p. 434; C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets (1951), II, p. 285; and Charles H. H. Wright, Zechariah and His Prophecies (1874), pp. 111120.
55.
A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire (1948), pp. 23637.
56.
S. A. Pallis, The Antiquity of Iraq (1956), pp. 2629.
57.
Ibid., pp. 3235.
58.
Charon or Inspectors, p. 443 of Vol. II of Lucians works in the Loeb Classical Library.
59.
Natural History, VI. 30.
60.
History of Rome, LXVIII. 30.
61.
Certain passages in the Talmud which seem to picture Babylon as a thriving city are best regarded as referring to Sura which was in the neighborhood of the old Babylon.
62.
That Babylon in 1Pe. 5:13 is the famous Mesopotamian city is unlikely for the following reasons (1) Peter is, nowhere else associated with this region; (2) the Eastern Church did not until a late period claim any association with Peter in its church origins; (3) the area itself was very sparsely populated, especially in the period subsequent to the migration in A D. 41 and the resultant massacre of large numbers of Jews at Seleucia; (4) Mark who is present with Peter in Babylon is connected with Rome in Pauls letters and with Peter in Rome by early Christian tradition. (5) Widespread tradition exists that Peter worked in Rome, (6) the term Babylon was used as a mystical designation for Rome by the Jews before it was inherited by the Christians, (7) until the time of Calvin no writer suggested that Babylon in 1Pe. 5:13 referred to the city on the Euphrates.
63.
Commentary on Isaiah, XIII. 2022, XIV. 2223. In Vol XXIV of J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina.
64.
David Masters, The Romance of Excavation (1923), p. 119.
65.
Lowth, op. cit, p. 220.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(59) Seraiah the son of Neriah.The great prophecy has reached its close, and the remainder of the chapter is of the nature of an historical appendix. The mention of both father and grandfather leaves no doubt that Seraiah was the brother of Jeremiahs friend and secretary, Baruch (Jer. 32:13). It was, therefore, natural that the prophet should select him as the depository of the great prediction. The term quiet prince, which the Authorised version adopts from Luther, means really prince of the resting-place, and describes an office like that of our quartermaster-general. He would seem to have been attendant on Zedekiah, probably appointed by Nebuchadnezzar to regulate the details of the journey to Babylon, and arrange the resting-places at its several stages. The versions seem to have been perplexed by the unusual title, the LXX. giving ruler of the gifts, and the Vulgate prince of prophecy. The prediction would seem to have been of the nature of a parting gift to him.
In the fourth year of his reign.The date is significant as giving a missing link in the history. The beginning of Zedekiahs reign was memorable for the gathering at Jerusalem of ambassadors from the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Zidon, obviously for the purpose of forming a confederacy against Nebuchadnezzar, and Jeremiah had condemned all such schemes as contrary to the will of Jehovah (Jer. 27:1-13). It is probable that Nebuchadnezzar summoned the king of Judah to Babylon to question him as to this scheme, and to demand an act of renewed homage. On this journey he was accompanied by the brother of the prophets friend and fellow-worker, and Jeremiah takes the opportunity of committing to his charge what we may call an esoteric prophecy, lifting up the veil of the future. He counselled submission for the present, because resistance was premature, and would prove futile. He looked forward to the time when the law of retribution would be fulfilled in Babylon as it had been fulfilled in Jerusalem. The whole proceeding was in perfect harmony with the prediction of Jer. 27:7, that all nations should serve Nebuchadnezzar and his son and his sons son till the very time of his land should come. It lies in the nature of the case that a duplicate copy was kept by Baruch or Jeremiah, of which the present text of Jeremiah 50, 51 is a transcript.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
59. The word, etc. This is the caption of the brief historical appendage comprised in Jer 51:59-64, which was sent to the captives at Babylon by Zedekiah. As to the reasons of Zedekiah’s visit to Babylon we have no intimation. In the Records of the Past, 3: 107, 120, we have a copy of a document from which we learn that Esar-haddon assembled twenty-two kings of Syria at the commencement of his great palace in Nineveh, and this may suggest how, for some similar reason of pomp and state, Zedekiah may have been summoned to Babylon. Or it may be, that his fidelity was suspected, and so he had to go to Babylon to vindicate himself.
A quiet prince Literally, prince of the resting place. The plural of this word is rendered “resting places” in Isa 32:18. This officer answers to the modern quarter-master, his duty being to go forward and select the places where the king and his train would stop for refreshments, and also where they would pass the night.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jeremiah Hands To One Of The Godly Leaders Who Is Going With King Zedekiah On A Journey To Babylon A Scroll Containing His Prophecies About Babylon. This Was To Be Used Symbolically To Denote The Certain Judgment Coming On Babylon By Being Thrown Into The Euphrates ( Jer 51:59-64 ).
In what may be seen as a postscript to the section on the judgment coming on Babylon, Jeremiah hands to Seriah, the quarter-master general (‘prince of the resting place’) who was going on a journey to Babylon with King Zedekiah, (presumably in order to swear fealty and pay tribute), a scroll which contained his prophecies declaring all the evil that was coming on Babylon. This serves to confirm that these prophecies were given prior to this date (the fourth year of Zedekiah).
The scroll was then to be read aloud in Babylon, no doubt to a select group, declaring God’s judgment on Babylon, prior to its being thrown into the Euphrates as a symbol of what was coming on Babylon. This would be seen by those who knew of it as making certain the fulfilment of the prophecies.
Jer 51:59
‘The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. Now Seraiah was the quarter-master general (‘prince of the resting place’).’
This incident arises out of a journey made to Babylon by King Zedekiah of Judah, in the fourth year of his reign (594/3 BC), presumably required in order to swear fealty and pay tribute. He may also have been subject to questioning about the gathering of ambassadors from neighbouring countries at the beginning of his reign (Jer 27:3), which may well have been seen as having in it a hint of rebellion, for although it would be quite normal for neighbouring countries to send ambassadors at the commencement of a new reign there is a hint in chapter 27 of possible rebellion brewing.
Accompanying King Zedekiah was Seraiah, a man who came from an important family in Judah, and whose responsibility would be to see to all the preparations for the journey, and the best place for ‘resting’ each night on the journey. He is called ‘the prince of the resting places’. He was brother to Baruch, Jeremiah’s friend and secretary (see Jer 32:12; Jer 36:8-32; Jer 45:1), which may well explain why Jeremiah chose him for the assignment that he had for him. The importance of Seraiah comes out in that not only his father’s name is given, but also his grandfather’s. A stamp seal has been discovered bearing the name of ‘Seraiah the son of Neriah’.
The date given, the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah (594-3 BC), suggests that all the above prophecies to the nations were given prior to that date.
Jer 51:60
‘And Jeremiah wrote in a scroll all the evil that should come on Babylon, even all these words which are written concerning Babylon.’
We are clearly intended to see from ‘all these words which are written concerning Babylon’ that the above prophecies against Babylon were included in the scroll, which was an accumulation of prophecies against Babylon. The purpose of taking them to Babylon would be in order to ensure that the prophecies were declared in the place in which they would be fulfilled, giving added impact to their proclamation. This would probably be seen by the people as ensuring that the prophecies would be fulfilled. The word of YHWH was being released in Babylon. We can compare with this act Jeremiah’s own prophetic action in Babylon (Jer 13:1-11), which in that case affected Israel/Judah.
Jer 51:61-62
‘And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, “When you come to Babylon, then see that you read all these words, and say,
‘O YHWH,
You have spoken concerning this place,
To cut it off,
That none shall dwell in it,
Neither man nor beast,
But that it shall be desolate for ever.’
The words were seemingly to be read aloud in Babylon, presumably to a select company of reliable people who would act as witnesses. It is very unlikely that it was to be read to the Babylonians, who anyway would hardly be likely to take any notice of the prophecies of an obscure Judean prophet. It could, however, have been construed as treason if heard in the wrong quarters.
Having read the words he was then to lift them before YHWH, calling on YHWH to heed what He had promised, namely the cutting off of Babylon; and the removal of its inhabitants and its permanent desolation.
Jer 51:63-64
“And it shall be, when you have made an end of reading this scroll, that you shall bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates, and you will say,
‘Thus will Babylon sink,
And will not rise again,
Because of the evil that I will bring on her,
And they will be weary.’
Having carried through the ceremony in due form he was to take the scroll to the Euphrates, bind it to a stone (so that it would sink), and hurl it in, and as he did so he was to proclaim that Babylon would sink in like measure, never to rise again. And this was because of the evil that YHWH Himself would bring on her. Note the words ‘and they will be weary’ repeated from Jer 51:58, the final words of the judgment section on Babylon. The indication is that all that association with Babylon finally produces is permanent weariness.
So ends the two chapters of judgments on Babylon, the city which summed up all that was anti-God in the world. Apocalyptically Babylon represented all that was bad in the world (compare Isaiah 14; Revelation 17). These chapters were a guarantee that one day God would bring it all into judgment.
Jer 51:64
‘Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.’
This statement seals off Jeremiah’s prophecies. It may well have been penned by Baruch as he accumulated Jeremiah’s prophecies together. It is also preparation for the historical narrative that follows, separating it off from the prophecies of Jeremiah. There is no real reason for doubting that it covers all that has gone before of his words in chapters 1-51, and it has been pointed out that ‘the words of Jeremiah’ echoes the opening words of the book (Jer 1:1 a) forming an inclusio.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jer 51:59. The word, &c. This was the commandment which Jeremiah the prophet gave to Seraiah,when he went in the retinue of Zedekiah, &c. But this Seraiah was the chief chamberlain, Jer 51:60. For Jeremiah, after he had written, &c. Jer 51:61, said to Seraiah, &c. Houbigant.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
21. HISTORICAL CONCLUSION
Jer 51:59-64
59The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And this Seraiah was a quiet prince [caravan-marshall]. 60So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come39 upon Babylon, 61even all these words that are written against Babylon. And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt [see that thou]40 62read all these words; then shalt thou say, O Lord [and say, O Jehovah], thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither 63man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever. And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast 64it into the midst of Euphrates: And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink,41 and shall not rise from [because of] the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary [exhausted].42 Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
When King Zedekiah, in the fourth year of his reign, made a journey to Babylon, Jeremiah gave to Seraiah, the brother of Baruch, the marshall, the prophecy against Babylon to take with him and read in Babylon, and then with prayer to the Lord to cast it into the Euphrates.
Jer 51:59. The word caravan-marshall. The commission which Seraiah receives really forms the chief part of this section. For after Jer 51:60, in which the restoration of the roll forming the basis of this commission is described, all the rest contains only the words in which Jeremiah imparts the commission.Seraiah, according to Jer 32:13, must be a brother of Baruch, the friend and assistant of our prophet, which explains why the commission was given to him. Other persons named Seraiah are mentioned in this book, Jer 36:26; Jer 40:8; Jer 52:24. It seems to have been a common name among the priests. Comp. 1Ch 7:6; 1Ch 7:14; Ezr 7:1; Ezr 7:4; Neh 10:2; Neh 11:11; Neh 12:1; Neh 12:12.It is not perfectly clear why Zedekiah went to Babylon. His fourth year is the same in which the envoys of the neighboring nations met in Jerusalem, to treat concerning a defensive alliance against the Chaldean power. Comp. rems. on Jer 27:1 and Jer 28:1. Niebuhr thinks that the diversion then made by Nebuchadnezzars war with Media was the occasion of this meeting (Ass. u. Bab., S. 211). The journey to Babylon shows that nothing came of the project, whether that the reports from the East caused the matter to appear too dangerous, or that the warnings of Jeremiah made some impression.A quiet prince (). This expression has been interpreted in the most various and strangest ways, concerning which comp. Rosenmueller and J. D. Michaelisad loc. The latter was the first to give the substantially correct rendering in his Translation of the Old Testament, 1778, Leader of the caravan. Maurer first proposed Reisemarschall, marshall of the journey. Literally it denotes Prince of the resting-place. Comp. Num 10:33.
Jer 51:60-64. So Jeremiah wrote . exhausted. We may assume that this journey of Zedekiah was the occasion of the prophecy against Babylon. For homage, if not the only object, was certainly one of the objects, of the journey, and it therefore involved a deep disgrace to the theocracy. How fitting it was that the prophet should make use of this journey to furnish the medal with an appropriate reverse. While the king of Judah, in view of all, was casting himself in homage before the throne of the Chaldean king, Seraiah was to cast a roll in the Euphrates, on which was recorded as a divine decree the destruction of Babylon and deliverance of Israel.That Jeremiah copied the prophecy from the book-roll mentioned in Jer 36:32 (Graf) is only supposable, in case Jeremiah successively increased that collection of writings begun in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, first inserting the present prophecy in it, and thus giving Seraiah a copy, a confirmation of which hypothesis may be found in the expression in a [, one] book. It is, however, possible that Jeremiah would thus intimate that he purposely wrote the prophecy upon one roll, in antithesis to the many rolls forming the main collection. The reason of the prophets care to write the whole on one roll, would then doubtless be that one could be handled more easily and safely than two.The reading was evidently for a threefold purpose: 1. With respect to the city of Babylon it was an announcement of judgment (Hitzig), which appears the more significant, as the announcers were not in a condition to make a declaration against Babylon, coming, as they did in all humility, to do homage. 2. With respect to God, it was to be affirmed that the people of Israel had taken solemn notice of the divine promise. Hence after the reading the Lord is to be expressly addressed and reminded of the word of His promise in its main features (comp. Jer 51:62 with Jer 50:3; Jer 51:26). He is thus, as it were, to be taken at His word and pledged. 3. To the Israelites there was naturally a great comfort in all this, which must have been of special value to them in that moment of deep shame.The sinking of the roll in the Euphrates is added to the reading as supplementary and confirming the words by a visible symbolic action. The roll being compelled to sink by the stone and thus outwardly given up to destruction, suggests the thought that this external part was no longer necessary after, by the reading, the purport had been received into the living spiritual archives of the consciousness. At the same time, as is expressly stated in Jer 51:64, the sinking by the weight of the stone is to represent symbolically the ruin of Babylon.Shall not rise, as the roll with the stone will not.From the evil does not designate the element in which Babylon is to sink, but the figure is here forsaken and the transition made to literal speech. then=in consequence of [because of, the evil].Shall be weary. These words might certainly be dispensed with, as they rather injure than promote the clearness of the sense. As is well understood, however, the easier reading is by no means always the more correct. The question depends on whether the finer and more hidden sense which may be contained in the words is able to balance the formal reasons which favor their spuriousness. Comp. the Textual remarks.
Thus far the words of Jeremiah. These words, which I cannot regard as misplaced (comp. rems. on Jer 51:64) have simply the object of indicating that ch.52 does not proceed from Jeremiah himself, but is the addition made by another person.
Footnotes:
[39]Jer 51:60.On the sense of the Imperfect comp. Naegelsb. Gr., 87, 1.
[40]Jer 51:61.. This word cannot mean and when thou seest it (for the first time). The suffix would certainly not be wanting in that case. Nor can we see why the reading should take place at the first sight of the city. Both time and place might then be vary unfavorable. It is rather the apodosis; then see to it. It is inculcated upon him that he discharge his commission with circumspection. Comp. 1Ki 12:16; Psa 37:37; Isa 22:11.
[41]Jer 51:64., demergi, desidere, in Jeremiah here only. Comp. Amo 8:8; Amo 9:5.
[42]Jer 51:64.If the word is not genuine, it can have come here only through the transposition of the following words, Thus far, etc., with which the copyist, through carelessness or of purpose, connected this. This, however, involves the inauthenticity of Jer 51:59-64 or their original position before Jer 50:1. Hitzig says the passage bears some marks of genuineness, none of the contrary, and it is incredible that it stood before Jer 50:1, since it would then appear that this great prophecy was only of secondary importance. If, then, Jer 51:59-64 are genuine and in their original position, the same must be said of the concluding words, since they could never have had their position before Jer 51:59. A copyist could not have added by mistake. Jeremiah, then, must have done it. His object probably was to give a token of identity to the sinking prophecy by an unmistakable quotation from it. The ancient translations, with the exception of the LXX., which is of no authority, all express the word. Comp. Naegelsb. Jer. u. Bab., S. 96.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Daniels Babylonian empire resumes, as it were, the thread which was broken off with the tower-erection and kingdom of Nimrod. In the Babylonian tower-building the whole of the then existing humanity was united against God; with the Babylonian kingdom began the period of the universal monarchies, which again aspired after an atheistical union of entire humanity. Babylon has since and even to the Revelation (Jeremiah 18) remained the standing type of this world. Auberlen, Der proph. Daniel, S. 230.
2. For what reason does Babylon appear as a type of the world? Why not Nineveh, or Persepolis, or Tyre, or Memphis, or Rome? Certainly not because Babylon was greater, more glorious, more powerful or prouder and more ungodly than those cities and kingdoms. Nineveh especially was still greater than Babylon (comp. Duncker, Gesch. d. Alterth. I. S. 474, 5), and Assyria was not less hostile to the theocracy, having carried away into captivity the northern and larger half of the people of Israel. Babylon is qualified for this representation in two ways: 1. because it is the home of worldly princedom and titanic arrogance (Gen 10:8; Gen 11:1-4); 2. because Babylon destroyed the centre of the theocracy, Jerusalem, the temple and the theocratic kingdom, and first assumed to be the single supreme power of the globe.
3. When God has used a superstitious, wicked and tyrannical nation long enough as His rod, He breaks it in pieces and finally throws it into the fire. For even those whom He formerly used as His chosen anointed instruments He then regards as but the dust in the streets or as chaff before the wind. Cramer.
4. No monarch is too rich, too wicked, too strong for God the Lord. And He can soon enlist and engage soldiers whom He can use against His declared enemies. Cramer.
5. Israel was founded on everlasting foundations, even Gods word and promise. The sins of the people brought about that it was laid low in the dust, but not without hope of a better resurrection. Babylon, on the other hand, must perish forever, for in it is the empire of evil come to its highest bloom. Jeremiah owns the nothingness of all worldly kingdoms, since they are all under this national order to serve only for a time. We are to be subject to them and seek their welfare for the sake of the souls of men, whom God is educating therein; a Christian however cannot be enthusiastic for them after the manner of the ancient heathen nor of ancient Israel, for here we have no abiding city, our citizenship is in heaven. The kingdoms of this world are no sanctuaries for us and we supplicate their continuance only with the daily bread of the fourth petition. Jeremiah applies many words and figures to Babylon which he has already used in the judgments on other nations, thus to intimate that in Babylon all the heathenism of the world culminates, and that here also must be the greatest anguish. What, however, is here declared of Babylon must be fulfilled again on all earthly powers in so far as, treading in its footprints, they take flesh for their arm and regard the material of this world as power, whether they be called states or churches. Diedrich.
6. On Jer 50:2. In putting into the mouth of Israel, returning from Babylon, the call to an everlasting covenant with Jehovah, the prophet causes them 1. to confess that they have forgotten the first covenant; 2. he shows us that the time of the new covenant begins with the redemption from the Babylonish captivity. He was far, however, from supposing that this redemption would be only a weak beginning, that the appearance of the Saviour would be deferred for centuries, that Israel would sink still deeper as an external , and that finally the Israel of the new covenant would itself appear as a , (1Pe 1:9-12).
7. From what Jeremiah has already said in Jer 31:31-34 of the new covenant we see that its nature and its difference from the old is not unknown to him. Yet he knows the new covenant only in general. He knows that it will be deeply spiritual and eternal, but how and why it will be so is still to him part of the .
8. On Jer 50:6. Jeremiah here points back to Jeremiah 23. Priests, kings and prophets, who should discharge the office of shepherds, prove to be wolves. Yea, they are the worst of wolves, who go about in official clothing. There is therefore no more dangerous doctrine than that of an infallible office. Jer 14:14; Mat 7:15; Mat 23:2-12.
9. On Jer 50:7. It is the worst condition into which a church of God can come, when the enemies who desolate it can maintain that they are in the right in doing so. It is, however, a just nemesis when those who will not hear the regular messengers of God must be told by the extraordinary messengers of God what they should have done. Comp. Jer 40:2-3.
10. On Jer 50:8. Babylon is opened, and it must be abandoned not clung to, for the captivity is a temporary chastisement, not the divine arrangement for the children of God. Gods people must in the general redemption go like rams before the herd of the nations, that these may also attach themselves to Israel, as this was fulfilled at the time of Christ in the first churches and the apostles, who now draw the whole heathen world after them to eternal life. Here the prophet recognizes the new humanity, which proceeds from the ruins of the old, in which also ancient Israel leads the way; thus all, who follow it, become Israel. Diedrich.The heathen felt somewhat of the divine punishment when they overcame so easily the usually so strongly protected nation. But Jeremiah shows them still how they deceived themselves in thinking that God had wholly rejected His people, for of the eternal covenant of grace they certainly understood nothing. Heim and Hoffmann on the Major Prophets.
11. On Jer 50:18. The great powers of the world form indeed the history of the world, but they have no future. Israel, however, always returns home to the dear and glorious land. The Jews might as a token of this return under Cyrus; the case is however this, that the true Holy One in Israel, Christ, guides us back to Paradise, when we flee to His hand from the Babylon of this world and let it be crucified for us. Diedrich.
12. On Jer 50:23. Although the Chaldeans were called of God for the purpose of making war on the Jewish nation on account of their multitudinous sins, yet they are punished because they did it not as God with a pure intention, namely, to punish the wrong in them and keep them for reformation; for they were themselves greater sinners than the Jews and continued with impenitence in their sins. Therefore they could not go scot-free and remain unpunished. Moreover, they acted too roughly and dealt with the Jews more harshly than God had commanded, for which He therefore fairly punished them. As God the Lord Himself says (Isa 47:6): When I was angry with My people I gave them into thine hands; but thou shewedst them no mercy. Therefore it is not enough that Gods will be accomplished, but there must be the good intention in it, which God had, otherwise such a work may be a sin and call down the divine punishment upon it. Wrtemb. Summ.
13. On Jer 50:31-34. God calls Babylon Thou Pride, for pride was their inward force and impulse in all their actions. But worldly pride makes a Babylon and brings on a Babylons fate . Pride must fall, for it is in itself a lie against God, and all its might must perish in the fire; thus will the humble and meek remain in possession of the earth: this has a wide application through all times, even to eternity. Diedrich.
14. On Jer 51:33. Israel is indeed weak and must suffer in a time of tyranny; it cannot help itself, nor needs it to do so, for its Redeemer is strong, His name The Lord Zebaothand He is, now, having assumed our flesh, among us and conducts our cause so that the world trembles. Diedrich.
15. On Jer 50:45. An emblem of the destruction of anti-christian Babylon, which was also the true hammer of the whole world. This has God also broken and must and will do it still more. And this will the shepherd-boys do, as is said here in Jer 51:45 (according to Luthers translation), that is, all true teachers and preachers. Cramer.
16. On Jeremiah 51. The doctrines accord in all points with the previous chapter. And the prophet Jeremiah both in this and the previous chapter does nothing else but make out for the Babylonians their final discharge and passport, because they behaved so valiantly and well against the people of Judah, that they might know they would not go unrecompensed. For payment is according to service. And had they done better it would have gone better with them. It is well that when tyrants succeed in their evil undertakings they should not suppose they are Gods dearest children and lean on His bosom, since they will yet receive the recompense on their crown, whatever they have earned. Cramer.
17. [Though in the hand of Babylon is a golden cup; she chooses such a cup, in order that mens eyes may be dazzled with the glitter of the gold, and may not inquire what it contains. But mark well, in the golden cup of Babylon is the poison of idolatry, the poison of false doctrines, which destroy the souls of men. I have often seen such a golden cup, in fair speeches of seductive eloquence: and when I have examined the venomous ingredients of the golden chalice, I have recognized the cup of Babylon. Origen in Wordsworth.S. R. A.]
The seat and throne of Anti-christ is expressly named Babylon, namely, the city of Rome, built on the seven hills (Rev 17:9). Just as Babylon brought so many lands and kingdoms under its sway and ruled them with great pomp and pride (the golden cup, which made all the world drunk, was Babylon in the hand of the Lord (Jer 51:7), and all the heathen drank of the wine and became mad)so has the spiritual Babylon a cup in its hand, full of the abomination and uncleanness of its whoredom, of which the kings of the earth and all who dwell on the earth have been made drunk. As it is said of Babylon that she dwells by great waters and has great treasures, so writes John of the Romish Babylon, that it is clothed in silk and purple and scarlet and adorned with gold, precious stones and pearls (Rev 18:12). Of Babylon it is said that the slain in Israel were smitten by her; so also the spiritual Babylon is become drunk with the blood of the saints (Rev 17:6). Just, however, as the Chaldean Babylon is a type of the spiritual in its pride and despotism, so also is it a type of the destruction which will come upon it. Many wished to heal Babylon but she would not be healed; so many endeavor to support the ruinous anti-christian Babylon, but all in vain. For as Babylon was at last so destroyed as to be a heap of stones and abode of dragons, so will it be with anti-christian Babylon. Of this it is written in Rev 14:8 : She is fallen, fallen, that great city, for she has made all nations drink of the wine of her fornication. And again, Babylon the great is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils and a hold of all foul and hateful birds (Rev 18:2). As the inhabitants of Babylon were admonished to flee from her, that every man might deliver his soul (Jer 51:6)and again, My people, go ye out from the midst of her and deliver every man his soul, etc. (Jer 51:45)so the Holy Spirit admonishes Christians almost in the same words to go out from the spiritual Babylon, that they be not polluted by her sins and at the same time share in her punishment. For thus it is written in Rev 18:4, I heard, says John, a voice from heaven saying, Go ye out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues, for her sins reach unto heaven and God remembers her iniquities. Wurtemb. Summarien.
18. On Jer 51:5. A monarch can sooner make an end of half a continent than draw a nail from a hut which the Lord protects.And if it is true that Kaiser Rudolph, when he revoked the toleration of the Picards and the same day lost one of his principal forts, said, I thought it would be so, for I grasped at Gods sceptre (Weismanni, Hist. Eccl. Tom. II. p. 320)this was a sage remark, a supplement to the words of the wise. Zinzendorf.
19. On Jer 51:9. We heal Babylon, but she will not be healed. Babylon is an outwardly beautiful but inwardly worm-eaten apple. Hence sooner or later the foulness must become noticeable. So is it with all whose heart and centre is not God. All is inwardly hollow and vain. When this internal vacuity begins to render itself externally palpable, when here and there a rent or foul spot becomes visible, then certainly come the friends and admirers of the unholy form and would improve, cover up, sew up, heal. But it does not avail. When once there is death in the body no physician can effect a cure.
20. On Jer 51:17; Jer 51:19-20. The children of God have three causes why they may venture on Him. 1. All men are fools, their treasure is it not; 2. The Lord is their hammer; He breaks through everything, and 3, they are an instrument in His hand, a heritage; in this there is happiness. Zinzendorf.
21. On Jer 51:41-44. How was Sheshach thus won, the city renowned in all the world thus taken? No one would have thought it possible, but God does it. He rules with wonders and with wonders He makes His church free. Babylon is a wonder no longer for its power, but for its weakness. We are to know the worlds weakness even where it still appears strong. A sea of hostile nations has covered Babylon. Her land is now a desolation. God takes Bel, the principal idol of Babylon, symbolizing its whole civil powers in hand, and snatches his prey from his teeth. Our God is stronger than all worldly forces, and never leaves us to them. Diedrich.
22. On Jer 51:58. Yea, so it is with all walls and towers, in which Gods word is not the vital force, even though they be entitled churches and cathedrals Gods church alone possesses permanence through His pure word. Diedrich.
23. On Jer 51:60-64. When we wish to preserve an archive safely, we deposit it in a record-office where it is kept in a dry place that no moisture may get to it. Seraiah throws his book-roll into the waters of the Euphrates, which must wash it away, dissolve and destroy it. But this was of no account. The main point was that he, Seraiah, as representative of the holy nation had taken solemn stock of the word of God against Babylon, and as it were taken God at His word, and reminded Him of it. In this manner the matter was laid up in the most enduring and safest archive that could be imagined; it was made a case of honor with the omniscient and omnipotent God. Such matters can, however, neither be forgotten, nor remain in dead silence, nor be neglected. They must be brought to such an end as the honor of God requires.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. On Jer 50:2. This text may be used on the feast of the Reformation, or any other occasion with reference to a rem bene gestam. The Triumph of the Good Cause, 1. over what enemies it is gained; 2. to what it should impel us; (a) to the avoidance of that over which we new triumph; (b) to the grateful proclamation of what the Lord has done for us, by word and by deed.
2. On Jer 50:4-8. The deliverance of Israel from the Babylonian captivity a type of the deliverance of the Church. 1. The Church must humbly acknowledge the captivity suffered as a judgment of God. 2. She must turn like Israel inwardly with an upright heart unto the Lord; 3. She must become like Israel to all men a pattern and leader to freedom.
3. On Jer 50:5. A confirmation sermon. What is the hour of confirmation? 1. An hour which calls to separation; 2. an hour which leads to new connections; 3. an hour which fixes forever the old covenant with the souls friend. Florey, 1853.
4. On Jer 50:18-20. Assyria and Babylon the types of all the spiritual enemies of the church as of individual Christians. Every one has his Assyria and his Babylon. Sin is the destruction of men. Forgiveness of sins is the condition of life, for only where forgiveness of sins is, is there life and blessedness. In Christ we find the forgiveness of sins. He destroys the handwriting. He washes us clean. He is also the good shepherd who leads our souls into green pastures, to the spiritual Carmel.
5. On Jer 50:31-32. Warning against pride. Babylon was very strong and powerful, rich and splendid. It seemed invincible by nature and by art. Had it not then a certain justification in being proud, at least towards men? No; for no one has to contend only with men. Every one who contends has the Lord either for his friend or his enemy. It is the Lord from whom cometh victory (Pro 21:31). He it is who teacheth our hands to fight (Psa 18:35; Psa 144:1). His strength is made perfect in weakness (2Co 12:9). He can make the lame (Isa 33:23; Mic 4:7) and mortally wounded (Jer 37:10) so strong that they overmaster the sound (comp. Jer 51:45). He can make one man put to flight a thousand (Deu 32:30; Isa 30:17). With him can one dash in pieces a troop and leap over a wall (Psa 18:29). No one accordingly should be proud. The word of the Lord, I am against thee, thou proud one! is a terrible word which no one should conjure up against himself.
6. On Jer 50:33-34. The consolation of the Church in persecution. 1. It suffers violence and injustice. 2. Its redeemer is strong.
7. On Jer 51:5. God the Lord manifests such favor to Israel as to declare Himself her husband (Jer 2:2; Jer 3:1). But now that Israel and Judah are in exile, it seems as if they were rejected or widowed women. This, however, is only appearance. Israels husband does not die. He may well bring a period of chastisement, of purification and trial on His people, but when this period is over, the Lord turns the handle, and smites those through whom He chastised Israel, when they had forgotten that they were not to satisfy their own desire, but only to accomplish the Lords will on Israel.
8. On Jer 51:6. A time may come when it is well to separate ones self. For although it is said in Pro 18:1; he who separateth himself, seeketh that which pleaseth him and opposeth all that is goodand therefore separation, as the antipodes of churchliness, i.e., of churchly communion and humble subjection to the law of the co-operation of members (1Co 12:25 sqq.) is to be repudiated, yet there may come moments in the life of the church, when it will be a duty to leave the community and separate ones self. Such a moment is come when the community has become a Babylon. It should, however, be noted that one should not be too ready with such a decision. For even the life of the church is subject to many vacillations. There are periods of decay, obscurations, as it were, comparable to eclipses of the stars, but to these, so long as the foundations only subsist, must always follow a restoration and return to the original brightness. No one is to consider the church a Babylon on account of such a passing state of disease. It is this only when it has withheld the objective divine foundations, the means of grace, the word and sacrament, altogether and permanently in their saving efficacy. Then, when the soul can no longer find in the church the pure and divine bread of life; it is well to deliver the soul that it perish not in the iniquity of the church. From this separation from the church is, however, to be carefully distinguished the separation within the church, from all that which is opposed to the healthy life of the church, and is therefore to be regarded as a diseased part of the ecclesiastical body. Such separation is the daily duty of the Christian. He has to perform it with respect to his private life in all the manifold relations, indicated to us in Mat 18:17; Rom 16:17; 1Co 5:9 sqq.; 2Th 3:6; Tit 3:10; 2Jn 1:10-11.Comp. the article on Sects, by Palmer in Herzog, R.-Enc., XXI., S. 21, 22.
9. On Jer 51:10. The righteousness which avails before God. 1. Its origin (not our work or merit, but Gods grace in Christ); 2. Its fruit, praise of that which the Lord has wrought in us (a) by words, (b) by works.
10. On Jer 51:50. This text may be used at the sending out of missionaries or the departure of emigrants. Occasion may be taken to speak 1, of the gracious help and deliverance, which the Lord has hitherto shown to the departing; 2, they may be admonished to remain united in their distant land with their brethren at home by (a) remembering the Lord, i.e., ever remaining sincerely devoted to the Lord as the common shield of salvation; (b) faithfuly serving Jerusalem, i.e., the common mother of us all (Gal 4:26), the church, with all our powers in the proper place and measure, and ever keeping her in our hearts.
IV. Conclusion
Historical Appendix, Containing A Brief Survey Of The Events From The Beginning Of The Reign Of Zedekiah, To The Death Of Jehoiachin (Jeremiah 52)
By the concluding words of Jer 51:64 (Thus far, etc.) the final editor of the book evidently wished to indicate that the words of Jeremiah cease with Jeremiah 51, and that, therefore, what follows is not from him, but some other. We are thus expressly warned by those concluding words against the mistake of attributing chap. 52 to the prophet. Nevertheless the chapter has been considered by D. Kimchi, Abarbanel and many others, as a work of Jeremiah. Seb. Schmidt, e.g., in opposition to the opinion of Abarbanel, says that the men of the great synagogue took the history of the destruction of Jerusalem from the Book of Kings and inserted it here, ne forte erremus in eo, quod supra scriptum est. And afterwards Contrarium potius statuimus, scripta hc esse a Jeremia propheta et transsumta in librum Regum, sicut in eum historia Hiski ex Jesaja translata est, cum aliqua tamen variatione, ut appareat, utrumque scriptorem habere quod sibi proprium et a Spiritu sancto inspiratum. All orthodox commentators of the older period do not however adopt this view. The strict Lutheran Frster, e.g., says in his Commentary, which appeared in 1672, Hucusque fuit prophetia Jeremi. Caput istud ultimum ab alio quodam viro pio et sancto quasi loco superadditum fuit vel huc transscriptum ex II. Reg. c. 25.Among the more modern authors Haevernick adopts the view that Jeremiah wrote the history of Jehoiachin and Zedekiah just as Isaiah wrote that of Hezekiah. He then, as editor of the Book of Kings allotted its natural place to this description in 2 Kings 25. (Einl. II., 1, S. 172) while Jeremiah 52 was added to these by the collectors of the prophecies. He afterwards (II. 2, S. 248) modifies this view, at least declaring Jer 51:31-34 to be a subsequently added notice, which, however, passed naturally and probably at the same time to 2 Kings 25Keil (Einl. II., Aufl., S. 261; Comm. ber die proph. Geschichtsbcher des A. T., III. Bd., 1865, S. 378, 9) is of opinion that an extended history of the last times of the kingdom of Judah, composed perhaps by Jeremiah or Baruch (in the Einl., etc., it is either by Jeremiah or by Baruch), was in existence. The two narratives of Jeremiah 52 and 2 Kings 25 were brief extracts from this. Most commentators, however, are of opinion that the present passage belonged originally to the Book of Kings, and was inserted by a later hand with several lesser and one great modification (the insertion of Jer 52:28-30, in the place of 2Ki 25:22-26). I also adopt this view in substance, for the following reasons: 1. The introduction of the passage (Jer 52:1-2) contains the standing formula of the Book of Kings, with which the succession of a new king is usually recorded. This introduction is thus undoubtedly original in the Book of Kings. For whoever composed it, and from whatever source it may have been drawn, it was at any rate, as it now reads, written originally for the Book of Kings, and in Jeremiah 52 is only a transposition from thence. 2. The rest also is so composed that it cannot be said there is anything contained in it contrary in form or purport to the usual character of the Books of the Kings. 3. There is, therefore, a strong presumption that the narrative also thus introduced was originally written for the Book of Kings, to which it is essential and indispensable, and which, without it, would be so much mutilated, while the Book of Jeremiah receives in it a conclusion however useful, yet essentially foreign. 4. The transference from the Book of Kings is made purposely and with consideration. This is evident from the fact that the brief section, Jer 51:28-30, was inserted instead of the narrative concerning the fate of the Jews remaining in the country, which is only a brief extract from Jeremiah, chh. 3943, and therefore in the Book of Jeremiah would have been an unnecessary repetition. 5. As to the form of the text the relation is as follows: (a) in Jer 51:1-5, Jeremiah 52 has some traces of an older form of the text, not yet purified from roughnesses. Comp. , Jer 51:3, with 2Ki 24:20. Likewise the older form [Illigible] Jer 51:4, with 2Ki 25:1. On the other hand ib. betrays the hand of an emendator, (b) In Jer 51:6-11, the text of Jeremiah 52. is in general, especially as regards completeness and correctness much better; Jer 51:6 contains the indispensable statement of the month, which is strangely lacking in 2Ki 25:3; so also Jer 52:7 contains the verbs indispensable to the sense, . Jer 51:10 b contains the statement concerning princes of Judah, Jer 51:11 a similar one concerning the imprisonment of Zedekiah, which are both wanting in 2 Kings 25. The text of 2 Kings 25. thus appears here to be more than contracted (comp. also , 2Ki 25:5 with Jer 52:8, whereby the harshness occasioned in 2Ki 25:7 by a change of subjects is removed). The absence of those essential parts of speech in Jer 51:3-4, can be the result only of the transformations which the text has suffered. Thus also the other wants of the text may be explained, and there is no necessity for assuming the common use of a third source. (e). From Jer 51:12-23 the Book of Kings shows in Jer 51:8-17 a text variously emended and purged from real or apparent offences. In Jer 51:8 Nebuchadnezzar, ib. for , and for , in Jer 51:9 for the more difficult . In Jer 51:10 the superfluous is absent before ; in Jer 51:11 for the same reason is wanting ; the rare word is altered into the more current , in Jer 51:12 we read for , which does not occur elsewhere; ib. the name Nebuzaradan seemed superfluous; ib. Chethibh for , not occurring elsewhere; in Jer 51:14 , and likewise in Jer 51:15 and , because otherwise these names would be mentioned twice, also in Jer 51:15 the two neighboring words to the two last mentioned have disappeared; in Jer 51:16 with perfect justice the statement concerning the twelve oxen is absent; ib. we find the easier ; in Jer 51:17 the apparently superfluous is wanting in the beginning, then all from , perhaps because these statements were already to be found in 1Ki 7:15-16; in Jer 51:17 is wanting after ; ib. is an evident mistake; after Jer 51:17 that is entirely wanting which forms Jer 52:23, perhaps because its main import had been already expressed in 1Ki 7:20.(d). In verses 2427 again the text of Jeremiah 52. shows itself to have been emended, but not, happily; in Jer 51:24 is only an apparent improvement; in Jer 51:25 is certainly plainer; ib. is doubtful; the absence of the article before seems to proceed from ignorance. (e). In the concluding section, Jer 51:31-34; again the text of the book of Kings betrays the hand of the emendator; in Jer 51:27 (2 Kings 25.) is obscure, but seemed evidently superfluous; instead of the rarer form stands the more usual , is a simplification; in Jer 51:29 is a later Aramaic form; in Jer 51:30 is wanting as superfluous, for the same reason also
From all this it seems to follow that Jeremiah 52. is certainly a transposition of 2 Kings 25. but that in the former passage we have a better text, neither disfigured by needless correction nor by other injuries. Whether the author of the book of Kings is Jeremiah himself, or whether especially at the close of his history he made use of this prophets writings, I leave undecided. This much, however, is certain, that this chapter neither stood originally in this place, nor is it an extract made by another person from the same source, from which 2Ki 25:18-25; 2Ki 25:30 was derived. Whatever opinion, however, may be held regarding the sources, Jeremiah 52. was not drawn therefrom by another person, but transposed from the book of Kings, and yet has preserved the text more pure than the original passage.
The object of the transposition was evidently first to furnish the reader of the prophecies with the necessary historical guidance. The object may also have been prominent to show how completely and exactly the threatenings of the prophet against the stiff-necked people were fulfilled.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Here the subject closeth, both to Jeremiah’s prophecy, and the predictions against Babylon; and a solemn close it is. The best and truest explanation we find to the whole is in the Book of Revelation; to which I refer. Rev 18:20-21 . What follows, in the following Chapter, is purely the history of the event, so that as this scripture saith, Thus far and no farther respecting prophecy, are the words of Jeremiah. The Lord God of the Prophet be adored for what he gave this faithful servant of his to record!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Jer 51:59 The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And [this] Seraiah [was] a quiet prince.
Ver. 59. The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah. ] This is now the last part, viz., a type used for confirmation of this long time preceding prophecy, uttered at Jerusalem haply in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and now to be read at Babylon in the fourth year of Zedekiah, which was seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and above sixty years before the destruction of Babylon. God loveth to foresignify, but Babylon would not be warned, which was a just both desert and presage of her ruin.
When he went with Zedekiah.
And this Seraiah was a great prince.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Jer 51:59-64
59The message which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the grandson of Mahseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. (Now Seraiah was quartermaster.) 60So Jeremiah wrote in a single scroll all the calamity which would come upon Babylon, that is, all these words which have been written concerning Babylon. 61Then Jeremiah said to Seraiah, As soon as you come to Babylon, then see that you read all these words aloud, 62and say, ‘You, O Lord, have promised concerning this place to cut it off, so that there will be nothing dwelling in it, whether man or beast, but it will be a perpetual desolation.’ 63And as soon as you finish reading this scroll, you will tie a stone to it and throw it into the middle of the Euphrates, 64and say, ‘Just so shall Babylon sink down and not rise again because of the calamity that I am going to bring upon her; and they will become exhausted.’ Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
Jer 51:59-64 This is a concluding prose section relating a message sent by Jeremiah by the hand of Seraiah (possibly Baruch’s brother, cf. Jer 32:12) to the exiles already in Babylon (i.e., 605, 597 B.C.).
When the visit occurred in 594/3 B.C. (Zedekiah began to reign in 597 B.C., see Special Topic: Kings of the Divided Monarchy This is the only mention of this visit in the Bible. Possibly it was when Zedekiah tried to convince Nebuchadnezzar of his loyalty and denial of any duplicity in the alliances/revolts of the far western nations.
Jer 51:63 This was done for one of two reasons (or maybe both).
1. as a symbol of Babylon’s destruction
2. as a way to protect the message from causing a reaction from the Babylonian captors (i.e., note the ciphers of Jer 25:26; Jer 51:1; Jer 51:41).
One wonders how much of Jeremiah 50-51 was included on that scroll. It seems that many poems from different periods of Jeremiah’s life were brought together by topic in these two chapters.
Also note the cultural emphasis on oral presentation versus written. The ANE was made up of oral societies (for the most part).
Jer 51:64
MT, NASB,
NKJV, NRSVThus far are the words of Jeremiah
TEVThe words of Jeremiah end here
REBThus far are the collected sayings of Jeremiah
LXX, JPSOA – omit –
There is no verb. Many scholars believe this is an editorial comment to separate chapter 52 (destruction of Jerusalem, cf. 2Ki 24:10 to 2Ki 25:30) from Jeremiah’s writings. The faith presupposition of inspiration must cover the editing and compiling of OT books (see Special Topic: Inspiration and Special Topic: Illumination ).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
The Fifty-First Prophecy of Jeremiah (see book comments for Jeremiah).
Seraiah. The brother of Baruch(Jer 32:12. Compare Jer 45:1).
when he went, &c. Probably to renew his oath of allegiance. Compare Jer 27:1; Jer 28:1.
quiet prince. Probably chief chamberlain. Revised Version margin, “quartermaster. “Hebrew = quiet resting-place (Isa 32:18). Probably his office was to prepare the night’s camping place during the journey to Babylon.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Jer 51:59-64
Jer 51:59-64
The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. Now Seraiah was chief chamberlain. And Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written concerning Babylon. And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, then see that thou read all these words, and say, O Jehovah, thou hast spoken concerning this place, to cut it off, that none shall dwell therein, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever. And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates: and thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again because of the evil that I will bring upon her; and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
Seraiah… the chamberlain…
(Jer 51:59). This man was a brother of Baruch; and his being called the chamberlain indicates that he had charge of such things as accommodations and travel arrangements when Zedekiah made that trip to Babylon in the fourth year of his tenure as vassal king under Nebuchadnezzar, in 593 B.C.
“Jeremiah gave Seraiah a scroll upon which was written a prophecy against Babylon.” This comment is incorrect, because the scroll had not “a prophecy” against Babylon, but, it had all that Jeremiah said, “even all these words” (Jer 51:60). This proves that all the prophecies of Jeremiah against Babylon came early in the reign of Zedekiah (593 B.C.). Jeremiah wrote many other prophecies after that date, but all the prophecies against Babylon were concluded before the event mentioned in this paragraph. “There is no valid reason for questioning either the act recorded here or the account of it. It is dated in the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah (594-593 B.C.).
As he did in Jer 18:1-17 when he visited the house of the potter, and again in Jer 32:6-15 when he bought a field, Jeremiah here reinforced his prophecy against Babylon by a symbolical action carried out for him by Seriah who read the prophecies first (publicly) and then tied a stone to the scroll and cast it into the middle of the Euphrates.
The importance of this action is seen in the Book of Revelation (Rev 18:21), where a similar action by a mighty angel of God symbolized the overthrow and destruction of Mystery Babylon the Great.
With regard to that trip which Zedekiah made to Babylon on that occasion in his fourth year as king, Smith sheds some light.
“Zedekiah made that trip possibly with the hope of receiving some favor from Nebuchadnezzar, or because Nebuchadnezzar summoned him to be present for some state occasion; and it is even possible that Nebuchadnezzar suspected the loyalty of Zedekiah and demanded that he appear in Babylon with an explanation of why the ambassadors that year (Jer 27:3) were assembled in Jerusalem from Moab, Ammon, Edom and Phoenicia.”
Thus far the words of Jeremiah…
(Jer 51:64). This is called a Colophon, i.e., an editorial note probably inserted by the scribe who connected Jeremiah 52 to Jeremiah as an historical appendix. Very frequently in our Bible studies, we encounter allegations that editors, redactors, and interpolators have added this or that; but here we really have such an example; and let it be noted, that the addition is clearly distinguished from the words of the author. Whoever it was that added Jeremiah 52 evidently felt that it was his duty to point out that it was not written by Jeremiah. It is an instance of the scrupulous care the Jews took in guarding the integrity of their sacred books, which God committed to their keeping.
The fact of this comment’s appearance here demonstrates that the postulation widely accepted by radical critics that all kinds of comments and additions were added to the original writings of the prophets is simply false. The attitude of the nameless scribe who wrote the final sentence of Jer 51:64 effectively disproves it.
THE HISTORY OF THE BABYLON PROPHECY Jer 51:59-64
In the fourth year of his reign king Zedekiah made a trip to Babylon to meet his overlord Nebuchadnezzar. The purpose of this trip is not stated and thus commentators are left to speculate as to why it was undertaken. In that same year a number of ambassadors from the neighboring countries had assembled in Jerusalem to map plans for a new rebellion against the Chaldeans hegemony (chap. 27). Hearing of this conclave, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Zedekiah to Babylon that he might reaffirm his loyalty and renew his vassal oath. Accompanying Zedekiah on the trip was Seraiah the chief chamberlain (not quiet prince as in KJV) whose job it was to prepare in advance the royal chambers. No doubt Seraiah would ride one days journey ahead of the royal party to make all necessary arrangements at the next halting place along the way. Seraiah was a brother of Baruch, Jeremiahs faithful scribe, and a friend of the prophet (Jer 51:59). Both Baruch (Jer 32:12) and Seraiah are said to be sons of Neriah.
When Jeremiah learned of the trip to Babylon he seized the opportunity to secure the help of Seraiah in carrying out a very special mission. The prophet gathered together into one book-roll all the oracles against Babylon which he had written or uttered up until the fourth year of Zedekiah. Probably the reason Jeremiah was careful to use one roll (ASV mar) is because a single roll could be handled more easily and safely than two. The phrase even all these words which are written concerning Babylon points back to the content of chapters 50-51. Seraiah was given the scroll and commanded to read it aloud in Babylonia (Jer 51:61).
As he opens the scroll he is to summarize its contents (Jer 51:62) before he begins to read. When the reading has been completed he is instructed to bind a stone about the scroll and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates (Jer 51:63). As he does so he is to cry thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again (Jer 51:64).
The words, they shall be weary (in Hebrew, one word) are the last words of the Babylon prophecy (cf. Jer 51:58) of chapters 50-51. The repetition of the word by Seraiah serves to join together the symbolic act and the prophecy which has just been read.
Some questions about this episode need to be answered. To whom was Seraiah to read the scroll? Probably not to the Babylonians or even to a large assembly of Jews as this would be fraught with great danger to Seraiah and possibly even to Zedekiah himself. Rather this whole action was performed before certain trustworthy witnesses who would be able to testify in later days as to what they had heard and seen. But what was the purpose of this reading? With respect to the city of Babylon it was an announcement of doom. In view of the circumstances of this journey to Babylon the announcement of judgment is even more significant. While the king of Judah was publicly casting himself in homage before the Chaldean throne, Seraiah was to cast a roll in the Euphrates on which was prophesied the destruction of Babylon and the deliverance of Israel. With respect to God the reading of the scroll was a pledge to His people that He would intervene on their behalf and bring them out of their bondage. Throughout the Years of the exile the people of God could call upon Him to make good the promises contained in this oracle. With respect to the Israelites the reading of the scroll would be a great comfort and no doubt those who heard the reading and witnessed the sinking were called upon to recite again and again the wonderful message.
Still another question which needs to be answered is why was the Babylon scroll sunk in the Euphrates river? The sinking of the scroll was not an act of sympathetic magic such as was practiced among the heathen. By dramatically acting out an event pagan religious leaders believed that they magically were setting the wheels of fate in motion which would actually bring the event to pass. But Jeremiah, the man of God, would certainly not authorize such a superstitious act. The sinking of the scroll in the Euphrates was simply a symbolic act such as was common to the prophetic ministries. The act was a visual aid to the message proclaimed in the scroll; it foretold the doom of Babylon.
A final question of importance: What is the relationship between the scroll sunk in the Euphrates river and the Babylon prophecy of Jer 50:2 to Jer 51:58? As already noted, some feel that the situation reflected in the Babylon oracle is not that of the fourth year of Zedekiah. They have therefore proposed that when Jeremiah rewrote the scroll which he sent to Babylon he added many similar threats against Babylon. For example, those words which suggested that the Temple has already been destroyed under this theory could be assigned to a date subsequent to the fall of Jerusalem. While this theory has much to command it the present writer does not feel that it is necessary. The impression left in Jer 51:60 and in Seraiahs repetition of the last Hebrew word of Jer 51:58 (cf. Jer 51:64) is that the scroll which he read in Babylon was identical with the prophecy of Jer 50:2 to Jer 51:58.
Prophecies about Foreign Nations – Jer 46:1 to Jer 51:64
Open It
1. What, in your mind, is a good example of a situation in which justice was served?
2. In what strategic defense or weapon would you have the most confidence during a personal attack?
Explore It
3. Why did Jeremiah say that the mighty warriors of Egypt would cower before Nebuchadnezzar? (Jer 46:13-17)
4. Despite the judgment coming on Egypt, what did God promise them eventually? (Jer 46:25-26)
5. What promises did God make to Israel with honesty, justice, and hope? (Jer 46:27-28)
6. To what terrifying natural disaster did God compare the Egyptian conquest of Philistia? (Jer 47:2-5)
7. Where did the people of Moab misplace their trust, sending themselves and their idols into captivity? (Jer 48:6-9)
8. In the context of judging the nations, what curse did Jeremiah pronounce on the lax or merciful? (Jer 48:10)
9. Why would it be particularly appropriate when Moab became an object of scorn and ridicule? (Jer 48:26-27)
10. What brought about Moabs destruction as a nation? (Jer 48:42)
11. What was the source of Ammons false sense of security? (Jer 49:4)
12. What did God promise to the Ammonites when their punishment was complete? (Jer 49:6)
13. How did God say He would treat the helpless, even within the borders of His enemy, Edom? (Jer 49:11)
14. Why did Edom think its location made it invincible? (Jer 49:15-16)
15. How would Damascus along with Kedar and the kingdoms of Hazor also fall under Gods judgment? (Jer 49:23-33)
16. What would eventually happen to the nation of Elam after it was defeated and taken into exile? (Jer 49:37-39)
17. With their enemies facing Gods wrath, what did Jeremiah predict Israel and Judah would do? (Jer 50:4-5)
18. What attitude of the Babylonians in relation to Gods people convinced God to leave them desolate? (Jer 50:11-13)
19. Since the Babylonians had exiled many of the peoples they conquered from their own land, what would happen when God punished them? (Jer 50:16)
20. When Babylon was made accountable to God, what would become of Israels guilt? (Jer 50:20)
21. What did Jeremiah tell us about Israels Redeemer? (Jer 50:34)
22. To what historic event did God compare the coming destruction of Babylon? (Jer 50:39-40)
23. What were the Babylonians failing to take into account about Gods relationship to Israel? (Jer 51:5)
24. What nation was to become Gods instrument of justice against Babylon? (Jer 51:11-14)
25. How did Jeremiah contrast the God of Israel with the idols of the other nations? (Jer 51:17-19)
26. What religious disgrace of the people of Israel would be remedied by God Himself? (Jer 51:51-53)
27. What message about Babylon was Seraiah to deliver to the exiles in Babylon? (Jer 51:59-64)
Get It
28. Why was it important for the Jews exiled in Babylon to know that Babylons great power would soon fall?
29. Why was it important that each instrument of Gods wrath not be lax?
30. In what ways does modern society practice some of the same evil and rebellious attitudes that brought on Gods punishments for these nations?
31. What will become of those who rejoice when one of Gods servants stumbles morally?
32. How does our worship become acceptable to God?
Apply It
33. In what situation can you demonstrate a new attitude toward a Christian who has stumbled?
34. Through what difficult circumstance will you ask God to give you perspective, patience, and (eventually) freedom?
Questions On Jeremiah Chapter Fifty-One
By Brent Kercheville
1 What hope does God give in Jer 51:5? What lessons do we learn about us and about God?
2 What hope does God give in Jer 51:10? What lessons do we learn about us and about God?
3 Who is God using to destroy the Babylonians (Jer 51:11-13)?
4 Describe the imagery God gives about himself (Jer 51:14-16).
Why does God say these things about himself?
What is the audience to understand?
5 Why is idolatry foolish (Jer 51:17-19)?
6 What is the call for Gods people (Jer 51:45-48)? How is this to give the people hope?
7 What hope does God give in Jer 51:52-58? How does this give hope for us?
8 What instructions does Jeremiah give to Seraiah? Whats the message?
TRANSFORMATION:
How does this relationship change your relationship with God?
What did you learn about him?
What will you do differently in your life?
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Neriah: Jer 32:12, Jer 36:4, Jer 45:1
with: or, on the behalf of
quiet prince: or, prince of Menucha, or chief chamberlain
Reciprocal: Isa 14:27 – the Lord 1Pe 3:4 – quiet
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Jer 51:59. Jeremiah wrote a special copy of his predictions to be used as herein directed. We know it was a special copy, for it was to be destroyed, while we still have the major writing of the prophet. This was done in the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah which was only seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Went with Zedekiah means he went on behalf of the king since Zedekiah never went to Babylon until after his reign came to an end. Quiet prince is properly translated according to the lexicon of Strong. The point is that Seraiah was a chamberlain who was not active in any of the disturbances of the city and would be the most dependable kind of man for such a delicate mission,
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jer 51:59. The word which Jeremiah commanded Seraiah. when he went with Zedekiah The Hebrew , is rendered by the LXX., , when he went from Zedekiah, on his behalf, or by virtue of his commission; which seems to be the meaning of the clause; for we have no reason to suppose that Zedekiah went in person to Babylon at that time. Instead of, This Seraiah was a quiet prince, as our translators render , the LXX. read, , a prince, or chief master of gifts, which Blaney interprets to mean, chief of the embassy, or who had the principal charge of the present sent from Zedekiah to the king of Babylon, judging, that in these words is specified the business on which Seraiah was sent. He was employed to carry the present, or customary tribute, which Zedekiah was obliged to pay to the king of Babylon, in acknowledgment of his subjection and vassalage.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
51:59 The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the {k} fourth year of his reign. And [this] Seraiah [was] a quiet prince.
(k) This was not in the time of his captivity but seven years before, when he went either to congratulate Nebuchadnezzar or to intreat of some matters.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
16. Babylon’s fall dramatized 51:59-64
This oracle closes with a symbolic action against Babylon.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The following message was one that Jeremiah gave to Seraiah the son of Neriah when he accompanied King Zedekiah on a visit to Babylon in 593 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar may have summoned his vassal kings to Babylon, at this time, in order to reaffirm their loyalty, following an attempted revolt in his empire a year earlier. [Note: William H. Shea, "Daniel 3 : Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura," Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Spring 1982):29-52.] Seraiah was Baruch’s brother (cf. Jer 32:12). The title he held, "quartermaster," probably describes the official responsible for providing quarters for the king and his companions, each night as they traveled on their journey.