Jeremiah 49:34 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

Against Elam— Concerning Elam. Elam we find to have been an independent kingdom in the days of Abraham. Genesis 14:1. But I am not of opinion with those writers, who hold that by Elam in Scripture Persia is always meant. There is no doubt but that, when the monarchy of Persia was established under Cyrus, Elam was blended into, and formed a part of it. But before that time Elam and Persia were two distinct kingdoms; of which this may be admitted for proof, that the kingdom of Persia, if Xenophon may be credited as an historian, was never subdued under the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar, but preserved its liberty in alliance with the Medes. Elam, on the contrary, is not only here prophesied of, as destined to become a part of the Babylonian conquests, but is actually spoken of, Daniel 8:2 as a province of the Babylonish empire over which Daniel seems to have presided, having Shushan for the seat of his government. We may therefore conclude Elam to have been, as the name itself would lead us to suppose, the country called by heathen writers Elymais, which Pliny, in conformity with Daniel, describes as separated from Susiana by the river Eulaeus, or Ulay; Nat. Hist. lib. 6: cap. 31. Strabo also gives it the same situation, and in two places mentions the wars that it had carried on with the Susians and Babylonians. Lib. 11: p. 524 lib. 16: p. 744. Shushan, or Susa, was, properly speaking, the capital of Susiana; but it is likely, that when the Babylonians in conjunction with the Susians conquered Elam, they might have annexed it to the government of Susiana, and so the provinces united might have gone indifferently by the name of either Elam or Susiana. If so, Abradates, whom Xenophon styles king of the Susians, and who in the course of the war between the Babylonians and Medes revolted from the former, and joined the latter with his forces (Xenophon. Cyropaed. lib. 6:) had Elam likewise, as well as Susiana, for his kingdom or government, conferred upon him by Nebuchadrezzar, who is said to have had an affection for him; and his revolt from the son of his benefactor will help us to account for the forces of Elam being joined with Media in besieging Babylon, as foretold by Isaiah, ch. Jeremiah 21:2 while the province or country itself may have still remained in the hands of the king of Babylon, who may have entrusted Daniel with the administration of it; till on the final subversion of the Babylonish monarchy it was restored again to its former possessors, who had fought under the banners of the Medes and Persians; as is intimated Jeremiah 49:39.