19<\/strong>. Pharaoh<\/em> ] a name belonging not to an individual but (cp. Kaiser<\/em> and Czar<\/em>) to the monarch as such. The word has been somewhat altered in shape by its transmission to us through Hebrew. It is the hieroglyph Per-a<\/em>, meaning great house<\/em> (cp. Sublime Porte<\/em>), and gradually became the title of the ruler himself.<\/p>\n The arrangement is remarkable. Jeremiah begins with the south, Egypt; next Uz on the southeast, and Philistia on the southwest; next, Edom, Moab, and Ammon on the east, and Tyre, and Sidon, and the isles of the Mediterranean on the west; next, in the Far East, various Arabian nations, then northward to Media and Elam, and finally the kings of the north far and near.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 19<\/span>. Pharaoh king of Egypt<\/B><\/I>] This was Pharaoh-necho<\/I>, who was the principal cause of instigating the neighbouring nations to form a league against the Chaldeans.<\/P> <\/p>\n The Egyptians being that people whom the Jews most trusted to for help, are named as the first to whom the prophet was sent with the wine-cup of Gods fury, to let the Jews know, that if they trusted to them, their confidence was vain; for they should themselves be destroyed, which was fulfilled within the twelve years after the death of Josiah unto the time of Jehoiachin, as appears from 2Ki 24:6<\/span>,7<\/span>, for the king of Egypt made Jehoiakim king, 2Ki 23:34<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 19. Pharaoh<\/B>put next afterJerusalem, because the Jews had relied most on him, and Egypt andJudea stood on a common footing (Jer 46:2<\/span>;Jer 46:25<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n Pharaoh king of Egypt<\/strong>,…. Who is mentioned first after the kings of Judah; not only because the Jews were in alliance with Egypt, and trusted to them; and therefore this is observed, to show the vanity of their confidence and dependence; but because the judgments of God first took place on the king of Egypt; for in this very year, in which this prophecy was delivered, Pharaohnecho king of Egypt was smitten by Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 46:2<\/span>; though the prophecy had a further accomplishment in Pharaohhophra, who was given into the hands of his enemies, as foretold, Jer 44:30<\/span>;<\/p>\n and his servants, and his princes, and all his people<\/strong>; his menial servants, his domestics, and his nobles and peers of the realm, and all his subjects. It expresses an utter destruction of the kingdom of Egypt; and the particulars of it may be the rather given, to show the vain trust of the Jews in that people.<\/p>\n The enumeration of the heathen nations begins with Egypt and goes northwards, the peoples dwelling to the east and west of Judah being ranged alongside one another. First we have in Jer 25:20<\/span> the races of Arabia and Philistia that bordered on Egypt to the east and west; and then in Jer 25:21<\/span> the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites to the east, and, Jer 25:22<\/span>, the Phoenicians with their colonies to the west. Next we have the Arabian tribes of the desert extending eastwards from Palestine to the Euphrates (Jer 25:23<\/span>, Jer 25:24<\/span>); then the Elamites and Medes in the distant east (Jer 25:25<\/span>), the near and distant kings of the north, and all kingdoms upon earth; last of all the king of Babylon (Jer 25:26<\/span>). , lxx: , and Jerome: cunctusque qui non est Aegyptius, sed in ejus regionibus commoratur <\/em>. The word means originally a mixed multitude of different races that attach themselves to one people and dwell as strangers amongst them; cf. Exo 12:38<\/span> and Neh 13:3<\/span>. Here it is races that in part dwelt on the borders of Egypt and were in subjection to that people. It is rendered accordingly “vassals” by Ew.; an interpretation that suits the present verse very well, but will not do in Jer 25:24<\/span>. It is certainly too narrow a view, to confine the reference of the word to the mercenaries or Ionian and Carian troops by whose help Necho’s father Psammetichus acquired sole supremacy (Graf), although this be the reference of the same word in Eze 30:5<\/span>. The land of Uz<\/em> is, acc. to the present passage and to Lam 4:21<\/span>, where the daughter of Edom dwells in the land of Uz, to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Idumaea and the Egyptian border. To delete the words “and all the kings of the land of Uz” as a gloss, with Hitz. and Gr., because they are not in the lxx, is an exercise of critical violence. The lxx omitted them for the same reason as that on which Hitz. still lays stress – namely, that they manifestly do not belong to this place, but to Jer 25:23<\/span>. And this argument is based on the idea that the land of Uz ( ) lies much farther to the north in Arabia Deserta, in the Hauran or the region of Damascus, or that it is a collective name for the whole northern region of Arabia Deserta that stretches from Idumaea as far as Syria; see Del. on Job 1:1<\/span>, and Wetzstein in Del.’s Job, S. 536f. This is an assumption for which valid proofs are not before us. The late oriental legends as to Job’s native country do not suffice for this. The kings of the land of the Philistines are the kings of the four towns next in order mentioned, with their territories, cf. Jos 13:3<\/span>; 1Sa 6:4<\/span>. The fifth of the towns of the lords of the Philistines, Gath<\/em>, is omitted here as it was before this, in Amo 1:7<\/span>. and Zep 2:4<\/span>, and later in Zec 9:5<\/span>, not because Gath had already fallen into premature decay; for in Amos’ time Gath was still a very important city. It is rather, apparently, because Gath had ceased to be the capital of a separate kingdom or principality. There is remaining now only a remnant of Ashdod; for after a twenty-nine years’ siege, this town was taken by Psammetichus and destroyed (Herod. ii. 157), so that thus the whole territory great lost its importance. Jer 25:21<\/span>. On Edom, Moab, and the Ammonites, cf. Jer 49:7-22; Jer 48:1<\/span>; Jer 49:1-6<\/span>. Jer 25:22<\/span>. The plural: “kings of Tyre and Sidon,” is to be understood as in Jer 25:18<\/span>. With them are mentioned “the kings of the island” or “of the coast” land, that is, beyond the (Mediterranean) Sea. is not (Cyprus), but means, generally, the Phoenician colonies in and upon the Mediterranean. Of the Arabian tribes mentioned in Jer 25:23<\/span>, the Dedanites are those descended from the Cushite Dedan<\/em> and living ear Edom, with whom, however, the Abrahamic Dedanite had probably mingled; a famous commercial people, Isa 21:13<\/span>; Eze 27:15<\/span>, Eze 27:20<\/span>; Eze 38:13<\/span>; Job 6:19<\/span>. Tema<\/em> is not Tm<\/em> beyond the Hauran (Wetzst. Reiseber<\/em>. S. 21 and 93ff.; cf. on the other hand, the same in Del.’s Job, S. 526), but Tem<\/em> situated on the pilgrims’ route from Damascus to Mecca, between Tebk<\/em> and Wadi el Kora<\/em>, see Del. on Isa 21:14<\/span>; here, accordingly, the Arabian tribe settled there. Buz<\/em> is the Arabian race sprung from the second son of Nahor. As to “hair-corners polled,” see on Jer 9:25<\/span>. – The two appellations and “the mixed races that dwell in the wilderness” comprehend the whole of the Arabian races, not merely those that are left after deducting the already (Jer 25:23<\/span>) mentioned nomad tribes. The latter also dwelt in the wilderness, and the word is a general name, not for the whole of Arabia, but for the nomadic Arabs, see on Eze 27:21<\/span>, whose tribal chieftains, here called kings, are in Ezek. called . In Jer 25:25<\/span> come three very remote peoples of the east and north-east: Zimri<\/em>, Elamites, and Medes. The name Zimri<\/em> is found only here, and has been connected by the Syr. and most comm. with Zimran<\/em>, Gen 25:2<\/span>, a son of Abraham and Keturah. Accordingly would stand for , and might be identified with , Ptol. vi. 7, 5, a people which occupied a territory between the Arabs and Persians – which would seem to suit our passage. The reference is certainly not to the in Ethiopia, in the region of the later priestly city Mero (Strabo, 786). On Elam<\/em>, see on Jer 49:34<\/span>.<\/p>\n Finally, to make the list complete, Jer 25:26<\/span> mentions the kings of the north, those near and those far, and all the kingdoms of the earth. with the article in stat. constr<\/em>. against the rule. Hence Hitz. and Graf infer that may not be genuine, it being at the same time superfluous and not given in the lxx. This may be possible, but it is not certain; for in Isa 23:17<\/span> we find the same pleonastic mode of expression, and there are precedents for the article with the nomen regens<\/em>. “The one to (or with) the other” means: according as the kingdoms of the north stand in relation to one another, far or near. – After the mention of all the kings and peoples on whom the king of Babylon is to execute judgment, it is said that he himself must at last drink the cup of wrath. is, according to Jer 51:41<\/span>, a name for Babylon, as Jerome states, presumably on the authority of his Jewish teacher, who followed the tradition. The name is formed acc. to the Canon Atbash<\/em>, in virtue of which the letters of the alphabet were put one for the other in the inverse order ( for , for , etc.); thus would correspond to and to . Cf. Buxtorf, Lex. talm. s.v.<\/em> and de abbreviaturis hebr <\/em>. p. 41. A like example is found in Jer 51:1<\/span>, where is represented by yb d . The assertion of Gesen. that this way of playing with words was not then in use, is groundless, as it also Hitz.’s, when he says it appeared first during the exile, and is consequently none of Jeremiah’s work. It is also erroneous when many comm. remark, that Jeremiah made use of the mysterious name from the fear of weakening the impression of terror which the name of Babylon ought to make on their minds. These assumptions are refuted by Jer 25:12<\/span>, where there is threatening of the punishment of spoliation made against the king of Babylon and the land of the Chaldeans; and by Jer 51:41<\/span>, where alongside of Sheshach<\/em> we find in parallelism Babylon. The Atbash is, both originally and in the present case, no mere playing with words, but a transposition of the letters so as to gain a significant meaning, as may plainly be seen in the transposition to , Jer 51:1<\/span>. This is the case with Sheshach<\/em> also, which would be a contraction of (see Ew. 158, c<\/em>), from , to sink (of the water, Gen 8:1<\/span>), to crouch (of the bird-catcher, Jer 5:26<\/span>). The sig. is therefore a sinking down, so that the threatening, Jer 51:64<\/span>: Babel shall sink and not rise again, constitutes a commentary on the name; cf. Hgstb. Christ<\/em>. iii. p. 377. The name does not sig. humiliation, in support of which Graf has recourse partly to , partly to the Arabic usage. For other arbitrary interpretations, see in Ges. thes<\/em>. p. 1486.<\/p>\n (Note: As has been done with the whole or with parts of Jer 25:12-14<\/span>, so too the last clause of Jer 25:26<\/span> is pronounced by Ew., Hitz., and Graf to be spurious, a gloss that had ultimately found its way into the text. This is affirmed because the clause is wanting in the lxx, and because the prophet could not fitly threaten Babylon along with the other nations (Hitz.); or because “the specification of a single kingdom seems very much out of place, after the enumeration of the countries that are to drink the cup of wrath has been concluded by the preceding comprehensive intimation, ‘all the kingdoms of the earth’ ” (Gr.). Both reasons are valueless. By “shall drink after them” Babylon is sufficiently distinguished from the other kings and countries mentioned, and the reason is given why Babylon is not put on the same footing with them, but is to be made to drink after them.)<\/p>\n It may here be asked, why he connects Pharaoh with the Jews, and assigns the second place to the Egyptians rather than to other nations? The reason is evident, — because the Jews expected deliverance from them; and the cause of their irreclaimable obstinacy was, that they could not be removed from that false confidence by which the devil had once fascinated them. They departed from God by making the Egyptians their friends; and when they found themselves unequal to the Assyrians, they turned their hopes to the Egyptians rather than to God; the prophets remonstrated with them, but with no success. <\/p>\n As, then, the occasion of ruin to the chosen people was Egypt, and as Pharaoh was, as it were, the fountain and cause of destruction to Jerusalem, as well as to the whole people, rightly does the Prophet, after having spoken of Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, immediately mention Pharaoh in the second place; for he was a friend to the Jews, and they were so connected together that they were necessarily drawn together into destruction; for they had corrupted one another, and encouraged one another in impiety, and with united minds and confederate hearts kindled God’s wrath against themselves. (139) The Prophet, then, could not have spoken of the Jews by themselves, but was under the necessity of connecting the Egyptians with them, for the state of both people was the same. <\/p>\n (139) Gataker observes that servants, princes, and people are mentioned together with the king, in order to preclude every hope of escape; for the king might have been removed, and the country left without being much disturbed. — Ed. <\/p>\n (19) Pharaoh king of Egypt . . .<\/strong>The list of the nations begins, it will be seen, from the south and proceeds northwards; those that lay on the east and west being named, as it were, literally, according to their position. The Pharaoh of the time was Nechoh, who had been defeated at Carchemish.<\/p>\n 19<\/strong>. <\/strong> Pharaoh<\/strong>, etc. The enumeration begins with Egypt and goes northward, mentioning Uz, Edom, Moab, and Ammon on the east, and Philistia, Tyre, Zidon, and the isles of the Mediterranean on the west. Then, to the far east, the kings of Arabia and Elam, with the Medes to the northward; and finally the enumeration terminates with all the kings of the north <\/strong> and all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth<\/strong>, but mentions last of all the king of Babylon by the name of Sheshach<\/strong>. (Jer 25:19-26<\/span>.)<\/p>\n Jer 25:19 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and his servants, and his princes, and all his people;<\/p>\n Ver. 19. Pharaoh king of Egypt.<\/strong> ] Pharaohhophra, Jer 44:30 of whom Herodotus a<\/em> writeth that he persuaded himself and boasted, that his kingdom was so strong that no god or man could take it from him. He was afterwards hanged by his own subjects. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Lib. ii.<\/p>\n Pharaoh: Jer 43:9-11, Jer 46:2, Jer 46:13-26, Eze 29:1 – Eze 32:32, Nah 3:8-10 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 12:15 – princes Isa 19:1 – Egypt Isa 19:17 – the land Jer 27:3 – Edom Jer 43:11 – he shall smite Eze 29:2 – against all<\/p>\n Jer 25:19. Another nation that was to drink from the cup of God’s wrath was the Egyptian. God had a grievance of long standing against it, for he never forgot the 4-century enslave-ment by that country of his people in the time of Moses, And down to the time of this writing It had and was still unfriendly toward them.<\/p>\n Pharaoh king of Egypt, and his servants, and his princes, and all his people; 19. Pharaoh ] a name belonging not to an individual but (cp. Kaiser and Czar) to the monarch as such. The word has been somewhat altered in shape by its transmission to us through Hebrew. It is the hieroglyph Per-a, meaning … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Jeremiah 25:19”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"