Movatterモバイル変換

Isaiah 20:5
And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.

Jeremiah 46:9
Come up, ye horses; and rage, ye chariots; and let the mighty men come forth; the Ethiopians and the Libyans, that handle the shield; and the Lydians, that handleand bend the bow.

Put.

Genesis 10:6
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

1 Chronicles 1:8
The sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan.

Ezekiel 27:10
They of Persia and of Lud and of Phut were in thine army, thy men of war: they hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy comeliness.

thy helpers.

Put and Libya were her allies.
Put is generally associated with the region west of Egypt, possibly modern-day Libya or parts of North Africa. Libya, mentioned alongside Put, further emphasizes the geographical spread and the political alliances of the time. These regions were known for their skilled warriors and were often mercenaries in ancient armies. The mention of these allies indicates a coalition of nations that supported each other militarily and politically. This alliance reflects the common practice of forming coalitions for mutual defense and expansion in the ancient world. The prophetic message here serves as a reminder of the limitations of such alliances when they stand in opposition to God's will. The reliance on these allies, despite their strength, ultimately could not prevent the downfall that God had decreed, illustrating the sovereignty of God over nations and their destinies.

“Cush and Egypt were her boundless strength” (Nahum 3:9) introduces two powerful regions south of Israel. Together they represented:

• Military might –Isaiah 20:4-5 shows Egypt and Cush paraded in chains after defeat, yet they were once feared armies.

• Economic wealth –Ezekiel 29:19 describes Egypt’s treasures being plundered, highlighting vast resources.

• Political prestige –2 Chronicles 14:9-13 records a huge Cushite force confronting Judah, underlining their reputation.

By naming these dominant neighbors, the Lord reminds Nineveh that even the greatest earthly powers could not save Thebes (Nahum 3:8).

Thebes trusted limitless human support, but:

•Psalm 20:7 cautions that chariots and horses cannot replace reliance on the Lord.

•Isaiah 31:1 condemns looking to Egypt for help instead of to God.

•Jeremiah 17:5 warns, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man.”

The word “boundless” signals confidence without restraint—yet in 663 BC the Assyrians still toppled Thebes. Strength apart from God proves illusionary.

“Put and Libya were her allies.” These western North-African peoples (Ezekiel 30:5) formed a coalition with Egypt:

• Put supplied mercenaries—Jeremiah 46:9 lists them rushing with shield and bow.

• Libya (also called Lud or Lehabim) contributed skilled warriors—Ezekiel 38:5 pairs them with Persia.

Their distance and diversity show Thebes’ far-reaching network. From south (Cush) to west (Put, Libya) she assembled an impressive circle that looked unbeatable.

Alliances can be blessings when centered on righteousness (1 Samuel 18:3-4), but here they were:

• Human insurance policies against judgment.

• Fragile agreements dismantled by God’s decree—Obadiah 7 notes allies turning against each other.

• Incapable of withstanding divine justice—Psalm 33:16-17 says “a king is not saved by his army.”

Nahum’s message is simple: if Thebes, flanked by such partners, crumbled, then Nineveh—proud yet alone—would certainly fall (Nahum 3:11).

Nahum 3:9 points to Thebes, once shielded by mighty Cush and Egypt and backed by distant Put and Libya. Although her strength seemed limitless and her alliances extensive, she collapsed under God’s judgment. The verse warns that no amount of military power, wealth, or political networking can protect a nation defiantly opposed to the Lord. Trusting in human defenses invites ruin; trusting in the Lord alone ensures true security.