Now in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. He did that which was right in Yahweh’s eyes, according to all that David his father had done. He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah. He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, because in those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan. He trusted in Yahweh, the God of Israel; so that after him was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among them that were before him. For he joined with Yahweh. He didn’t depart from following him, but kept his commandments, which Yahweh commanded Moses. Yahweh was with him. Wherever he went, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria, and didn’t serve him. He struck the Philistines to Gaza and its borders, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city.
In the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. At the end of three years they took it. In the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. The king of Assyria carried Israel away to Assyria, and put them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes, because they didn’t obey Yahweh their God’s voice, but transgressed his covenant, even all that Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded, and would not hear it or do it.
Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, “I have offended you. Return from me. That which you put on me, I will bear.” The king of Assyria appointed to Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in Yahweh’s house, and in the treasures of the king’s house. At that time, Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of Yahweh’s temple, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
The king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great army to Jerusalem. They went up and came to Jerusalem. When they had come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field. When they had called to the king, Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder came out to them. Rabshakeh said to them, “Say now to Hezekiah, ‘The great king, the king of Assyria, says, “What confidence is this in which you trust? You say (but they are but vain words), ‘There is counsel and strength for war.’ Now on whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me? Now, behold, you trust in the staff of this bruised reed, even in Egypt. If a man leans on it, it will go into his hand, and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust on him. But if you tell me, ‘We trust in Yahweh our God;’ isn’t that he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?’ Now therefore, please give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. How then can you turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put your trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? Have I now come up without Yahweh against this place to destroy it? Yahweh said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it.’ ” ’ ”
Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, Shebnah, and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in the Syrian language, for we understand it. Don’t speak with us in the Jews’ language, in the hearing of the people who are on the wall.”
But Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master and to you, to speak these words? Hasn’t he sent me to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own urine with you?” Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spoke, saying, “Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria. The king says, ‘Don’t let Hezekiah deceive you; for he will not be able to deliver you out of his hand. Don’t let Hezekiah make you trust in Yahweh, saying, “Yahweh will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.” Don’t listen to Hezekiah.’ For the king of Assyria says, ‘Make your peace with me, and come out to me; and everyone of you eat from his own vine, and everyone from his own fig tree, and everyone drink water from his own cistern; until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and of honey, that you may live, and not die. Don’t listen to Hezekiah, when he persuades you, saying, “Yahweh will deliver us.” Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of my hand, that Yahweh should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?’ ”
But the people stayed quiet, and answered him not a word; for the king’s commandment was, “Don’t answer him.” Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, came with Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and told him Rabshakeh’s words.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 8, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 35 Although they of Judah were given to idolatry and…
Although they of Judah were given to idolatry and impiety, as they of Israel were, yet God for his promise sake was merciful unto the throne of David, and yet by his judgment toward the other, provoked to repentance.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–37 2Ki 18:1 Now it came to pass in the…
2Ki 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, [that] Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
Ver. 1. Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea.] Reckoning as 2Ki 17:1. {See Trapp on "2Ki 17:1"}
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 36 In the third year; in the third of those…
In the third year; in the third of those nine years mentioned 2Ki 17:1, of which see there. See 2Ki 18:10.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 9, 17 We have here a general account of the reign…
We have here a general account of the reign of Hezekiah. It appears, by comparing his age with his father's, that he was born when his father was about eleven or twelve years old, divine Providence so ordering that he might be of full age, and fit for business, when the measure of his father's iniquity should be full. Here is,
I. His great piety, which was the more wonderful because his father was very wicked and vile, one of the worst of the kings, yet he was one of the best, which may intimate to us that what good there is in any is not of nature, but of grace, free grace, sovereign grace, which, contrary to nature, grafts into the good olive that which was wild by nature (Rom 11:24), and also that grace gets over the greatest difficulties and disadvantages: Ahaz, it is likely, gave his son a bad education as well as a bad example; Urijah his priest perhaps had the tuition of him; his attendants and companions, we may suppose, were such as were addicted to idolatry; and yet Hezekiah became eminently good. When God's grace will work what can hinder it?
Read full note →
1. He was a genuine son of David, who had a great many degenerate ones (Kg2 18:3): He did that which was right, according to all that David his father did, with whom the covenant was made, and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of it. We have read of some of them who did that which was right, but not like David, Kg2 14:3. They did not love God's ordinances, nor cleave to them, as he did; but Hezekiah was a second David, had such a love for God's word, and God's house, as he had. Let us not be frightened with an apprehension of the continual decay of virtue, as if, when times and men are bad, they must needs, of course, grow worse and worse; that does not follow, for, after many bad kings, God raised up one that was like David himself.
2. He was a zealous reformer of his kingdom, and as we find (Ch2 29:3) he began betimes to be so, fell to work as soon as ever he came to the crown, and lost no time. He found his kingdom very corrupt, the people in all things too superstitious. They had always been so, but in the last reign worse than ever. By the influence of his wicked father, a deluge of idolatry had overspread the land; his spirit was stirred against this idolatry, we may suppose (as Paul's at Athens), while his father lived, and therefore, as soon as ever he had power in his hands, he set himself to abolish it (Kg2 18:4), though, considering how the people were wedded to it, he might think it could not be done without opposition. (1.) The images and the groves were downright idolatrous and of heathenish original. These he broke and destroyed. Though his own father had set them up, and shown an affection for them, yet he would not protect them. We must never dishonour God in honour to our earthly parents. (2.) The high places, though they had sometimes been used by the prophets upon special occasions and had been hitherto connived at by the good kings, were nevertheless an affront to the temple and a breach of the law which required them to worship there only, and, being from under the inspection of the priests, gave opportunity for the introducing of idolatrous usages. Hezekiah therefore, who made God's word his rule, not the example of his predecessors, removed them, made a law for the removal of them, the demolishing of the chapels, tabernacles, and altars there erected, and the suppressing of the use of them, which law was put in execution with vigour; and, it is probable, the terrible judgments which the kingdom of Israel was now under for their idolatry made Hezekiah the more zealous and the people the more willing to comply with him. It is well when our neighbours' harms are our warnings. (3.) The brazen serpent was originally of divine institution, and yet, because it had been abused to idolatry, he broke it to pieces. The children of Israel had brought that with them to Canaan; where they set it up we are not told, but, it seems, it had been carefully preserved, as a memorial of God's goodness to their fathers in the wilderness and a traditional evidence of the truth of that story, Num 21:9, for the encouragement of the sick to apply to God for a cure and of penitent sinners to apply to him for mercy. But in process of time, when they began to worship the creature more than the Creator, those that would not worship images borrowed from the heathen, as some of their neighbours did, were drawn in by the tempter to burn incense to the brazen serpent, because that was made by order from God himself and had been an instrument of good to them. But Hezekiah, in his pious zeal for God's honour, not only forbade the people to worship it, but, that it might never be so abused any more, he showed the people that it was Nehushtan, nothing else but a piece of brass, and that therefore it was an idle wicked thing to burn incense to it; he then broke it to pieces, that is, as bishop Patrick expounds it, ground it to powder, which he scattered in the air, that no fragment of it might remain. If any think that the just honour of the brazen serpent was hereby diminished they will find it abundantly made up again, Joh 3:14, where our Saviour makes it a type of himself. Good things, when idolized, are better parted with than kept.
3. Herein he was a nonesuch, Kg2 18:5. None of all the kings of Judah were like him, either before or after him. Two things he was eminent for in his reformation: - (1.) Courage and confidence in God. In abolishing idolatry, there was danger of disobliging his subjects, and provoking them to rebel; but he trusted in the Lord God of Israel to bear him out in what he did and save him from harm. A firm belief of God's all-sufficiency to protect and reward us will conduce much to make us sincere, bold, and vigorous, in the way of our duty, like Hezekiah. When he came to the crown he found his kingdom compassed with enemies, but he did not seek for succour to foreign aids, as his father did, but trusted in the God of Israel to be the keeper of Israel. (2.) Constancy and perseverance in his duty. For this there was none like him, that he clave to the Lord with a fixed resolution and never departed from following him, Kg2 18:6. Some of his predecessors that began well fell off: but he, like Caleb, followed the Lord fully. He not only abolished all idolatrous usages, but kept God's commandments, and in every thing made conscience of his duty.
II. His great prosperity, Kg2 18:7, Kg2 18:8. He was with God, and then God was with him, and, having the special presence of God with him, he prospered whithersoever he went, had wonderful success in all his enterprises, in his wars, his buildings, and especially his reformation, for that good work was carried on with less difficulty than he could have expected. Those that do God's work with an eye to his glory, and with confidence in his strength, may expect to prosper in it. Great is the truth and will prevail. Finding himself successful, 1. He threw off the yoke of the king of Assyria, which his father had basely submitted to. This is called rebelling against him, because so the king of Assyria called it; but it was really an asserting of the just rights of his crown, which it was not in the power of Ahaz to alienate. If it was imprudent to make this bold struggle so soon, yet I see not that it was, as some think, unjust; when he had thrown out the idolatry of the nations he might well throw off the yoke of their oppression. The surest way to liberty is to serve God. 2. He made a vigorous attack upon the Philistines, and smote them even unto Gaza, both the country villages and the fortified town, the tower of the watchmen and the fenced cities, reducing those places which they had made themselves masters of in his father's time, Ch2 28:18. When he had purged out the corruptions his father had brought in he might expect to recover the possessions his father had lost. Of his victories over the Philistines Isaiah prophesied, Isa 14:28, etc.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–14 Now it came to pass in the third year…
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel,.... That is, in the third year of his rebelling against the king of Assyria, when he shook off his yoke, and refused to be tributary to him any longer, see Kg2 17:1,
that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign; having finished the account of the kingdom of Israel, and the captivity of the people, the historian returns to the kingdom of Judah, and the things of it.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31 Hezekiah reforms his kingdom, ver. 1-6. Prospers in all…
Hezekiah reforms his kingdom, ver. 1-6. Prospers in all his undertakings, even at the time the ten tribes are led captive, ver. 7- 12. Yet is invaded, and his country put under contribution by Sennacherib, ver. 13-16. Jerusalem is besieged, ver. 17. The virulent speech of Rabshakeh, ver. 18-25. He incites the people to revolt, ver. 26-37.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37 Hezekiah begins to reign; he removes the high places,…
CHAPTER XVIII
Hezekiah begins to reign; he removes the high places, breaks to
Read full note →
pieces the brazen serpent, and walks uprightly before God, 1-6.
He endeavours to shake off the Assyrian yoke, and defeats the
Philistines, 7, 8.
Shalmaneser comes up against Samaria, takes it, and carries the
people away into captivity, 9-12.
And then comes against Judah, and takes all the fenced cities,
13.
Hezekiah sends a message to him at Lachish to desist, with the
promise that he will pay him any tribute he chooses to impose;
in consequence of which Shalmaneser exacts three hundred
talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold; to pay which
Hezekiah is obliged to take all his own treasures, and those
belonging to the temple, 14-16.
The king of Assyria sends, notwithstanding, a great host against
Jerusalem; and his general, Rab-shakeh, delivers an insulting
and blasphemous message to Hezekiah, 17-35.
Hezekiah and his people are greatly afflicted at the words of
Rab-shakeh, 36, 37.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVIII
Verse 1. Now - in the third year of Hoshea] See the note on 2Kg 16:1, where this chronology is considered.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 36 2Ki 18:1-2. In the third year of Hoshea, Hezekiah…
2Ki 18:1-2. In the third year of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign — Namely, in the third of those nine years, mentioned 2Ki 17:1; of which see the note there, and below, 2Ki 18:10. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign — To this it is objected, that Ahaz his father lived only thirty-six years, and therefore, according to this account, begat Hezekiah when he was but eleven years old, which seems incredible. Various explications of this difficulty have been given; but the most probable are, either, 1st, That some error in regard to the numerals has crept into the text, and that Hezekiah was not so old when he began to reign: or, 2d, That the sixteen years which Ahaz reigned are to be computed, not from the first beginning of his reign, when he reigned with his father, (as it is probable he did,) which was at the twentieth year of his age, but from the beginning of his reigning alone, in which case Ahaz would be as many years of age more than thirty-six when he died, as he had reigned with his father, before he came into the sole possession of the kingdom.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34 In the third year - If Hoshea ascended the…
In the third year - If Hoshea ascended the throne toward the close of the 12th year of Ahaz 2Ki 17:1, and if Ahaz reigned not much more than 15 years 2Ki 16:2, the first of Hezekiah might synchronise in part with Hoshea’s third year.
Hezekiah - The name given by our translators follows the Greek form, Ἐζεκίας Ezekias, rather than the Hebrew, which is Hizkiah. Its meaning is “strength of Yahweh.”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37 Third, far advanced, as he was associated by his…
Third, far advanced, as he was associated by his father in the last year of his reign, (Calmet) or three years before its termination. (Du Hamel)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 (727–588 b.c.)
THIRD PERIOD
(727–588 b.c.)
Read full note →
THE MONARCHY IN JUDAH AFTER THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL
(2 Kings 18-25)
FIRST SECTION
the monarchy under hezekiah
(2 Kings 18-20)
A.—The Reign of Hezekiah; the Invasion by Sennacherib, and Deliverance from it
2 Kings 18, 19 (Isaiah 36, 37)
1Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign [became king]. 2Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign [became king]; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that David his father did. 4He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves [Astarte-statues], and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he [they]1 called it Nehushtan. 2 5He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6For he clave to the Lord, and departed not [did not swerve] from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses. 7And the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth [in all his goings-forth;—i.e., in everything which he went out to do]: and [omit and—Insert—] he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not. [;] [and] 8He smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
9And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. 10And at the end of three years they took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. 11And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in [on the] Habor [,] by 12the river of [omit of] Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes [Media]: Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them.
13Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.3 14And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended [erred]; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto [put upon] Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. 15And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house. 16At that time did Hezekiah cut off [strip] the gold from [omit the gold from] the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from [omit from] the pillars4 which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it [them] to the king of Assyria.
17And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem: and they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field. 18And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the 19son of Asaph the recorder. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? 20Thou sayest, (but they are but [omit they are but] vain words, [it is a saying of the lips only]) [:] I have [There is] counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? 21Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him. 22But if ye say unto me, We trust in the Lord our God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem? 23Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to [make a bargain with] my lord the king of Assyria, and I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. 24How then wilt thou turn away the face of [i.e., repulse, put to flight] one captain of [amongst] the least of my master’s servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? 25Am I now come up without the Lord [uninstigated by Jehovah] against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it. 26Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews’ 27language in the ears of the people that are on the wall. But Rab-shakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may 28eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? Then Rab-shakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria: 29Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you out of his [my]5 hand: 30Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us, and this city6 shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 31Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement [terms,] with me by a present [omit by a present], and come out to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern: 32Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die: and hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadeth you, saying, The Lord will 33deliver us. Hath [Have] any of [omit any of] the gods of the nations delivered at all [omit at all] [each] his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? 34Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand [that 35any delivered Samaria out of mine hand ]? Who are they [there] among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand? 36But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word: for the king’s commandment was, saying, Answer him not. 37Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rab- 2Ki_19:1 shakeh. And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the Lord. 2And he sent Eliakim, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. 3And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble [distress], and of rebuke [chastisement], and blasphemy [rejection]; for the children are come to the birth [opening of the womb],7 and there is not strength to bring forth. 4It may be the Lord thy God will hear all the words of Rab-shakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach [blaspheme] the living God; and will reprove the words which the Lord thy 5God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left. So the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah 6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants [minions] of the king 7of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold I will send a blast upon him [I will inspire him with such a spirit that], and [when—omit and] he shall hear a rumour, and [he—omit and] shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.
8So Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. 9And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee; he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying, 10Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 11Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by 12[in] destroying them8 utterly: and shalt thou be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and 13Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar? Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivah?
14And Hezekiah received the letter of the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. 15And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. 16Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear: open, Lord, thine eyes, and see: and hear the words of Sennacherib, which [he] hath sent him [omit him] to reproach the living God. 17Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands, 18And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone:9 therefore they have destroyed them. 19Now therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only.
20Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib 21king of Assyria I have heard. This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him:
[oracle of god in regard to the impending danger.]
[I. Scornful Rebuke of Sennacherib’s Boast.]
She despises thee, she scorns thee,—the virgin daughter, Zion!
She wags her head at thee, the daughter, Jerusalem!
22Whom hast thou insulted and blasphemed? against whom hast thou lifted voice?
Thou hast even lifted thine eyes on high against the Holy One of Israel!
23Through thy messengers thou hast insulted the Lord, and hast said:
“I come up with my chariots on chariots10 to the top of the mountains, to Lebanon’s summit;
And I hew down its loftiest cedars and its choicest cypresses;
And I come to its summit as a resting-place,
To its forest-grove.
24I dig, and I drink the waters of foreign nations;
Yea! I parch up with the sole of my foot all the rivers of Egypt!”
[II Refutation of his Self-assumption.]
25Hast thou not heard?—Of old time I made it—
From ancient days I ordained its course;
Now. I have brought it to pass,—
And thou art [my instrument] to reduce11 fortified cities to heaps of ruins.
26Therefore their inhabitants were short-handed;
They despaired and were terror-stricken;
They were grass of the field and green herb;
Grass of the house-top, and corn blasted in the germ.
27So, thy resting in peace, and thy going out, and thy coming in, I know;12
Also thy violent rage against me;
28For thy violent rage and thine arrogance are come up into mine ears,
And I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips,
And I will lead thee back by the way by which thou camest.
[III. Encouragement to Judah and Hezekiah.]
29And this be the sign to thee:—
Eating one year what springs of itself from the leavings of the previous crop,
And the second year the wild growth,
And the third year sow, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat their fruit.
30And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall take root again downwards,
And shall bear fruit again upwards;
31For from Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and from Mount Zion a rescued band:—
The zeal of Jehovah (of Hosts)13 shall do this!
[IV. Gods Decree in regard to the Crisis.]
32Therefore, thus saith the Eternal in regard to the king of Assyria:—
He shall not come against this city,
Nor shoot an arrow there,
Nor assault it with a shield,
Nor throw up a siege wall against it.
33By the way by which he came he shall return,
And he shall not come against this city;—is the decree of the Eternal;
34But I will protect this city to save it,
For mine own sake and for the sake of David, my servant.
35And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, beheld, they were all dead [,] corpses. 36So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. 37And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons14 smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia [Ararat]. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.
Preliminary Remarks.—We have, besides the narrative before us in 2 Kings 18, 19, , 20, two other accounts of Hezekiah’s reign, one in Isaiah 36-39, and the other in 2 Chronicles 29-32 To these authorities may be added some of the prophecies, especially of Isaiah, who had great influence at this time. The first question which arises, therefore, is this: what relation do these various accounts bear to one another?
a) The narrative in Isaiah , 36-39, agrees with the one before us from 2Ki_18:13 on, with the exception of a few subordinate details, so literally, that the two cannot possibly have been produced by different authors independently of one another. The question is: whether the one served as the original of the other? or, whether both were derived independently from the same source? Different opinions are maintained in answer to these questions, but it is not necessary here to enter into a careful examination of them in detail. We limit ourselves to general and necessary considerations. Gesenius (Commen. zum Jesai. II. s. 392 sq.), following Eichhorn, sought to show in detail that the account before us is the original, and that the one in Isaiah is borrowed from it. De Wette, Maurer, Köster, Winer, and others take the same view. The chief ground for this opinion is that the text in Isaiah is comparatively more condensed, that it presents common and simple words in the place of those in the text which are rare and obscure, and that forms which belong to the later usage of the language appear in it. On the contrary, Grotius, Vitringa, Paulus, Hendewerk, and, most recently, Drechsler, have asserted the originality and priority of the account in Isaiah. In proof of this they bring forward the following considerations: The account in Isaiah cannot be borrowed from that in Kings because it contains Hezekiah’s long and highly important hymn of gratitude (Isa_38:9-20), which is entirely wanting in the latter: The language in Kings is the “more careless dialect of common life,” the style is “inferior,” while the version in Isaiah is more rich, “more correct, and more elegant.” When the opinions in regard to the style and language of the two versions are so diverse, it is impossible to deduce any arguments from this consideration for the priority of either. The truth is, as will appear from the detailed exegesis, that, as far as expression and language are concerned, sometimes one and sometimes the other version is to be preferred. The omissions are more important. The account in Isaiah cannot be borrowed from that in Kings on account of the hymn of Hezekiah; but it is just as certain that the account in Kings is not based upon that in Isaiah, for it contains additions which cannot be regarded as simple assumptions of the redactor; such, for instance, as the passages 2Ki_18:14-15, and especially 2Ki_20:7-11, compared with Isa_38:7-8; Isa_38:21-22. In view of the omissions which occur sometimes in one account and sometimes in the other, the majority of the modern expositors, Rosenmüller, Hitzig, Umbreit, Knobel, Ewald, Thenius, Von Gerlach, Keil, suppose that both narratives are borrowed from a common source which we no longer possess. This seems to us also to be the correct view, though we cannot agree in the opinion that the “Annals of the Kingdom” were the common source, for both accounts bear the character of prophetical, and not of mere civil, historical records. The source was more probably that collection of histories of the separate reigns, composed by different prophets, of which we spoke in the Introduction § 3. According to 2Ch_32:33, Isaiah was the author of the history of Hezekiah, which had a place in this collection. Neither this narrative, therefore, nor the one in Isaiah 36-39, is Isaiah’s original composition, but both are borrowed from this, which, unfortunately, we no longer possess. Both come from Isaiah originally, but neither reproduces accurately and fully the original account. Sometimes one and sometimes the other approaches nearer to the original. This view is, on the whole, the one which the editors of Drechsler’s Commentar zu Jesaia (II. s. 151 sq.), Delitsch and Hahn, and the former also in his own Comm. zu Jes. (s. 24, 351 sq.), maintain. But they evidently contradict themselves when they admit, on the one hand, “that the text in the book of Kings is, in many cases, and, perhaps, in the most, to be preferred to that in Isaiah,” and yet, on the other hand, assert that “the author of the book of Kings cannot have obtained the parallel account 18:13–20, 19. from any other source than the book of Isaiah.” It is true that Delitsch appeals again and again to the relation between Jer. chap. 52. and 2Ki_24:18, sq. and chap. 25. as “an analogous proof that the text of a passage may be more faithfully preserved in the secondary recension than in the original one, from which it was borrowed;” but, although it is possible to render a pure fountain impure, it is impossible that a pure stream should flow from a more or less impure fountain. How, then, can a secondary text be better and purer than the primary one? [The author agrees with the authorities mentioned above that both the accounts are borrowed from a third document as their source. Neither one of the accounts, therefore, as we have them, can be said to have superior claims to the other, as the primary recension. No one will deny that the ultimate human source of the words of the oracle was the brain and lips of Isaiah. Whether he himself collected and arranged his prophecies in the form in which we have them, is a question to be treated in its proper place. If we assume that he did, then it is indeed fair to suppose, wherever any doubt arises, that he cited his own words more accurately than another could do it. But now we have to take account of the history of the two texts since they left the hands of those who put the book of Kings and the book of Isaiah in the form in which they have come down to us—whoever they may have been. In the course of time the primary recension may have been copied more frequently, and by other means also have incurred more corruptions than a recension which, in the first place, was a secondary one. This is what Drechsler means when he says that a secondary recension may have retained the text until our time in a purer form than the primary recension. An element is here introduced which interferes materially with any apriori claim to superior weight which either the one or the other of the texts before us may make, as having come more directly from the hand of the original author. We are thrown back upon the critical examination of each individual variant in each account to determine which reading is more probably the “original” and correct one. The question which text presents, in the most cases, the preferable reading, is one which can only be decided by reviewing the results of these separate critical investigations.—W. G. S.] Nevertheless, we believe that the version in Isaiah was written earlier than the one in Kings, for, whatever opinion one may hold in regard to the time of composition of the second part of Isaiah (chaps, 40–66), no one can assert that the first part (chaps. 1–39.) was not composed before the end of the Babylonian Exile, which is the time of composition of the book of Kings (Introd. § 1). It does not by any means follow that this account was borrowed from Isaiah. The two accounts are independent recensions from the same original. The reason why the same passage occurs in two different books of the Bible is simply this, that in the one it is given for the sake of the prophet, and in the other for the sake of the king. The whole forms an important incident in Isaiah’s work, and an important incident in Hezekiah’s reign, which was an important part of the history of the kings of Judah, on account of the deliverance from Assyria.
b) The account in Chronicles condenses into very concise form the contents of the other accounts, but it contains also additions peculiar to itself. It gives (2Ch_29:3 to 2Ch_31:21) detailed descriptions of the rites and ceremonies which Hezekiah prescribed; especially of the Passover which he celebrated. All that has been brought forward against the credibility of this narrative has been refuted by Keil (Apolog. Versuch über die bibl. Chron. s. 399 sq.). Although it is still asserted that the Chronicler allows himself “to treat the historical facts with more freedom,” yet it is admitted that his account “has the foundation of an exact historical tradition” (Bertheau, Comm. zur Chron. s. 396), and Winer says: “There is, generally speaking, nothing in it which represents the facts and incidents in a manner false to history.” The account before us especially emphasizes the fact, in regard to Hezekiah’s reform in worship, that he abolished idolatry, and even the Jehovah-worship upon the high places. It is a matter of course, however, that the zealously pious king did not stop with the destruction and abolition of the false worship, but also positively put in its place the one which was prescribed in the Law. This the Chronicler states distinctly, and he describes this reformed cultus in detail, in complete consistency with the tendency and stand-point of his work. For him, neither the prophetical institution nor the monarchy stands in the foreground, but the levitical priesthood. While the author of Kings fixes his attention upon the political and theocratic side of the history of Hezekiah’s reign, and writes from the stand-point of the theocracy, the Chronicler fixes his attention upon those incidents of it which were important for the levitical priesthood, and writes from the stand-point of a levite. His statements are, in this case, therefore, an essential addition to the story in Kings and in Isaiah, as indeed his peculiar contributions generally supplement the narratives elsewhere found. The source from which he obtained this information was, as he himself tells us (2Ch_32:32), “the הָזוֹן of the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel,” that is to say, the same work to which the author of Kings refers (2Ki_20:20) for the history of Hezekiah.
c) The prophetical oracles in Isaiah and Micha contain, it is true, most important descriptions of the moral and religious state of things at the time when these prophets lived, but no history, in the proper sense of the word. Definite facts, which might supplement the historical narrative, cannot be derived from them, and it is especially vain to attempt this, since, up to the present day, there is no consensus of opinion in regard to whether particular oracles are to be assigned to the time of Hezekiah, or to that of some other king, during whose reign Isaiah also exerted influence. For instance, the first chapter of Isaiah refers, according to some modern critics, to the time of Hezekiah; according to others, to that of Uzziah; according to still others, to that of Jotham; and yet again, according to others, to that of Ahaz. We therefore adhere, in this place, since we have to deal with the firm substance of history, as closely as possible to the historical narratives, and leave it to the exposition of the prophetical books to show to what events, recorded in the historical books, the separate oracles refer.
[The author would probably be greatly misunderstood, if any one should infer from this that he estimated as unimportant the light which the prophetic oracles of the Old Testament throw upon the Jewish history. It is one of the unique and most remarkable features of the Old Testament that it presents to us side by side a section of human history, and a criticism of the same from the stand-point of the highest, purest, and most intense religious conviction. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are simple, brief, and dry annals of events and facts. The seventeenth chap of 2d Kings presents a solitary example in which the author comes forward to discuss causes, to weigh principles, and to review the moral forces at work under the events he records. All that we call nowadays the “philosophy of history” is wanting in the strictly historical books. It is supplied by the books of the prophets. They give us an insight into the social and political status, into the vices, the moral forces, the ambitions, and the passions which were at work under the events and produced them. To modern minds the history is not by any means complete until these are elucidated. “History” is not bare events or facts. If it were, we might save ourselves the trouble of ever studying it. It would be a pure matter of curiosity. But history is the fruit of certain moral forces. We study the forces in their fruits. We deduce lessons of warning and encouragement from the study. The forces are the same now as ever since mankind lived upon the earth, and they act, under changed outward circumstances, in the same way. They will produce the same results, and the whole practical value of history is that we may profit by the accumulated experience of mankind, as the individual profits by the mistakes and sufferings of the years through which he has lived. To this end, however, insight into the moral causes of events is the valuable thing, and it is that which we must aim at in studying history. What is peculiar to the prophets of the Old Testament, as such, is that their criticisms of Jewish history were not bare literary or scholarly productions, but appeals, rebukes, and warnings, of the most personal and practical description. That is a characteristic of them which has ethical and perhaps homiletical interest, but does not contribute to our historical knowledge, while their analysis of the social condition under which these events took place, and their statement of the moral causes which produced them, are of the highest importance for the history. These fill up the back-ground, and give the light and shade, and the perspective, to a picture of which the historical books have only sketched the outline. We have a sort of parallel in the works of the ancient orators, which have contributed essentially and undeniably to our knowledge of ancient history. Such being the case, it is evident that any one who undertakes to expound the historical books must give good heed to the light which the prophetical books throw upon them. It is indeed true that it is often very difficult to assign particular oracles to their time and circumstances, but we have only to observe the wonderful light which the oracle before us (2Ki_19:22-34), and its historical setting, throw upon one another, now that we have them in undoubted juxtaposition, to see what we may hope for, if we can succeed in fixing the connection and relations of other and similar oracles. The light to be derived from the prophecies for the history is not by any means to be lightly set aside, but it is to be regarded as one of the fruits of critical science most highly to be valued, and most earnestly to be labored for.—W. G. S.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki_18:1. Now it came to pass, &c. It must be carefully observed that 2Ki_18:1-8 contain a summary account of the entire reign of Hezekiah, like the one given of Ahaz’ reign in 2Ki_16:1-14. In the first place there is given, as usual, his age, the time of his accession, and the duration of his reign (2Ki_18:1-2); then, what he did in regard to the Jehovah-worship (2Ki_18:3-4); then, what spirit animated his life and conduct in general (2Ki_18:5-6); finally, what successes were won, during his reign, against foreign nations (2Ki_18:7-8). After this general summary follows, from 2Ki_18:9 on, the narrative of the chief events during his reign, in chronological order, viz., the overthrow of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, in his fourth year (2Ki_18:9-12), and the oppression of the Assyrians, which began in his fourteenth (2Ki_18:13 sq.).—In the third year of Hoshea. Since the fourth and sixth years of Hezekiah correspond to the seventh and ninth of Hoshea, according to 2Ki_18:9-10, it has often been thought that the “third year” in this statement must be incorrect (see Maurer on the passage), and it has been believed that it ought to read “in the fourth year.” Josephus, in fact, has ἕτειδὲ τετάρτῳ. But the explanation is that the years of the two kings do not run exactly parallel. The difficulty is removed, and the text is assured “as soon as we assume that Hoshea came to the throne in the second half of 730, and Hezekiah in the first half of 727, before Hoshea’s third year had expired” (Thenius); or, “If we assume that Hezekiah’s. accession took place near the end of Hoshea’s third year, then his fourth and sixth years correspond, for the most part, with the sixth and ninth of Hoshea” (Keil).—חִזְקִיָּה is the shortened form for יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ, which is found in Chronicles, and in 2Ki_20:10; Isa_1:1; Hos_1:1. In Isaiah 36-39. the name always has the form חִזְקִיָּהוּ. This form is also found several times in Kings. In Mic_1:1. we find יְחִזְקִיָּה Gesenius gives, as the signification of the name, “Jehovah’s strength.” Fürst’s explanation is better: “Jah is Might.” In like manner אֲבִי is shortened from אֲבִיָּה which is found in Chronicles. Which Zachariah was her father, we cannot determine.
2Ki_18:4. He removed the high-places. On בָּמוֹת see notes on 1Ki_3:2. Here, as in 1Ki_3:2; 1Ki_15:12; 1Ki_15:14, we have not to understand by the Word, places of idolatry, but elevations on which Jehovah was worshipped, in contrast with the temple as the central place of worship. This is clear from 2Ki_18:22. On the images (probably of stone), and the wooden Astarte-columns, see note on 1Ki_14:23. Instead of the singular אֲשֵׁרָה, all the old versions have the plural, which is also found in 2Ch_31:1. Therefore Thenius reads אֲשֵׁרִים, but this change is unnecessary. According to Keil the singular is here “used collectively.”—And brake in pieces the brazen serpent, &c. (cf. Num_21:5 sq.). It is commonly assumed that this refers to the serpent-image which was made by Moses in the wilderness. Von Gerlach says: “It was perhaps preserved in a side-chamber of the temple as a highly revered treasure and memorial.… In the times of manifold idolatry it had been brought out, and an idolatrous worship had been practised with it.” It is not impossible, in itself, that the image was still in existence after 800 years, and was preserved in the temple as a relic. We have no hint, however, that such was the case, and it is hardly supposable that Moses, who so carefully avoided everything which could nourish the inclination of the people towards idolatry, should have taken this image with him during his entire journey through the wilderness. Moreover, the tabernacle had no side-chamber in which it could have been kept. Even if we suppose that it was still in existence when the temple was built (480 years after the exodus), yet there is no mention of it at all amongst the objects in the tabernacle which Solomon caused to be brought down into the temple (see 1Ki_8:4); neither is there any mention of the fact that any later king caused it to be brought out and set up where it would be possible for the people to offer incense to it. It is reckoned as a merit in Hezekiah that he caused it to be broken in pieces, but it is hardly probable that he would have been the one to destroy a symbol which had been set up and preserved by the great Law giver himself, and which had survived so long, as a sacred memorial and treasure, all the storms of time. Winer (R.-W.-B. II. s. 415) therefore infers: “The brazen serpent mentioned in 2 Kings cannot be the very one which was set up by Moses.” If the sensuous people wished to see their God and to have an image of Him, scarcely any image would suggest itself more immediately than the one which Moses had himself once made and commanded them to look upon, and of which the people were so directly reminded by their history. In the time of idolatry, therefore, they made an image like the one which Moses had set up, and offered incense to it. The text seems to us not only to admit this supposition, but also, when taken with the context, even to require it. The clause: that Moses had made, distinguishes this image expressly from the statues and images mentioned just before. They had been borrowed from the heathen, but that, though it had been made by Moses in the first place, had been abused for idolatry. Moreover, Moses had not made it with his own hands, but had caused it to be made. This also does away with the oft-repeated assertion that the serpent-worship in Israel had its origin in Egypt, where this cultus was very widespread. The serpent was there the symbol of healing power (Winer, l.c.), whereas in the book of Numbers it is represented as bringing death and destruction, wherefore Moses, who certainly was far enough from intending to thereby set up an image of idolatry, hung up a serpent-image as a sign that it could not bring death to those who, with faith in Jehovah’s death-conquering power, should look up to it.—Unto those days, i.e., not from Moses’ time on uninterruptedly until the time of Hezekiah; but “from time to time, and the idolatrous worship which was practised with this image continued until Hezekiah’s time” (Keil). The subject of ויקרא is not Hezekiah, as the Vulg. and Clericus understand, but Israel. Sept. ἐκάλεσαν. [It is better to take it as a singular with indefinite subject (one called) = they called, or it was called. See note 1 under Grammatical.] The name נְחֻשְׁתָּן, i.e., “a brazen thing,” shows that the “brass” was not an accidental circumstance in the construction of this image, but was essential, perhaps on account of its glowing-red color, in which it resembled the “fiery” serpents (Num_21:6; Deu_8:15; cf. Rev_1:15), whose bite burned and consumed. נְחֻשְׁתָּן, therefore, meant, The Glowing-red One, The Consuming One, The Burning One. There is no contemptuous sense in it, such as: “A little bit of brass,” as those think who assume that Hezekiah is the subject (Dereser). Still less is it correct that the image had that name only in contrast with the other idols which were of wood or stone. Neither is the designation: “The so-called Brass-God” (Ewald), an apt rendering of the word.—The sentence in 2Ki_18:5 : After him was none like him, &c. has been incorrectly understood as a proverbial form of expression for something which is very rare, the parallel of which is not on record. It “is not in contradiction with chap, 23:25, for its application must be restricted to the single characteristic of trust in God. In this particular Hezekiah showed himself the strongest, whereas, in 23:25, strict fidelity to the (Mosaic) Law is applauded in Josiah” (Thenius).—He clave to the Lord (2Ki_18:6). This appeared from the fact that he never gave himself up to idolatry, but kept the commandments of God.
2Ki_18:7. And the Lord was with him, &c. יַשְׂכִּילִּ has exactly the same sense as in 1Ki_2:3. The words בְּכָל וגו are not to be translated as by Luther and De Wette [and the E. V.]: “Whithersoever he went forth,” but, as by the vulg.: in cunctis, ad quœ procedebat. His prosperity appeared in two points; in his escape from the Assyrian supremacy, under which Judah had disgracefully fallen during Ahaz, reign (2Ki_16:7); and in his war against the Philistines, who had, during Ahaz, reign, made conquests in Judah (2Ch_28:18). Luther’s translation, Dazu [d. i. ausserdem] ward er” [Moreover he rebelled], destroys the connection of thought. The ו before יִמְרֹד is the simple copula, and is equivalent to the German nämlich [that is to say, or, for instance]. As those two facts only are mentioned here as instances of his prosperity, we must not infer from their position in the story that they took place at the outset of his reign. It is to be observed that his revolt from Assyria is not mentioned here as something blameworthy, but as something which redounded to his praise. The apostate Ahaz subjected the kingdom to Assyria; Hezekiah, who was faithful to Jehovah, made himself independent of the Assyrian yoke. As to the time at which he resolved to do this, see note on 2Ki_18:13.
2Ki_18:9. And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, &c. 2Ki_18:9-12 repeat what has been already narrated in 2Ki_17:3-6. This is due, according to Thenius, to the fact that the author found these words not only in the annals of Israel, but also in those of Judah, and that he reproduces his authorities with “complete fidelity.” But the repetition cannot be due to any such merely mechanical procedure; it has a further and deeper cause. In the first place, the overthrow of Samaria was an event of the highest importance for Judah also, and it deserved especial mention here on account of the contrast with 2Ki_18:1-8. Hezekiah carried out a reformation in his kingdom. He remained faithful to the Lord, and he succeeded in what he undertook. Israel, on the contrary, had come into conflict with the Assyrian power. The king of Assyria, encouraged and stimulated by his success in this conflict, now turned his arms against Judah. But this kingdom, although it was weaker and smaller, did not fall, because Hezekiah trusted in the Lord. This is what the historian desired to show by the repetition, so that it is exactly in its right place between 2Ki_18:8; 2Ki_18:13.—For the detailed exposition of 2Ki_18:9-12, see notes on 2Ki_17:3 sq.
2Ki_18:13. Now in the fourteenth year… did Sennacherib… come up, &c. Herodotus calls this king Ζαναχάριβος; Josephus, Σεναχήριβος. Nothing but guesses, which we do not need to notice, have yet been brought forward in regard to the signification of this name. [The true form of the name is Sin-akhe-rib, and it means: “Sin (the Moon-god) has multiplied brothers.”—Lenormant.] Sennacherib was the immediate successor of Shalmaneser, for Sargon (Isa_20:1) is, as was remarked above on 2Ki_17:3, one and the same person with Shalmaneser. [For a correction of this error see the Supplementary Note after the Exeg. section on chap 17, and also the similar note at the end of this present section.] Delitsch (on Isa_20:1) has lately once more denied this on the authority of the Assyrian inscription published by Oppert and Rawlinson, and has ventured this assertion: “He [Sargon], and not Shalmaneser, took ‘Samaria after a three years’ siege.… Shalmaneser died before Samaria, and Sargon not only assumed command of the army, but also seized the reins of power, and, after a conflict of several years’ duration with the legitimate heirs and their party, he succeeded in establishing himself upon the throne. He was, therefore, a usurper.” The biblical text is wholly silent in regard to all this; nay, it even contradicts it. For the “king of Assyria” mentioned in 2Ki_17:4-6, is necessarily the same one who is mentioned in 2Ki_18:3 just before, viz., Shalmaneser. It is impossible to insert another king, and he a usurper, between these four successive verses. If Sargon was a different person from Shalmaneser, the statements of the biblical text in 2Ki_17:3-6 are incorrect; if these are correct, then either the Assyrian inscriptions are incorrect, or they are incorrectly read and interpreted. Sennacherib would hardly have called his predecessors his “fathers,” if the supposititious Sargon had been a usurper who had come to the throne by the overthrow of the reigning dynasty.
[The reading and interpretation of the cuneiform inscriptions cannot yet, it is true, be regarded as beyond all question, yet there are certain results which are now placed beyond doubt. They constitute the highest authority for Assyrian history, and by them nothing is more satisfactorily established than the fact that Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser and was a usurper, and Sennacherib was his son. The above quotation from Delitsch correctly states the facts of the case. If the inscriptions are not correctly interpreted it remains for those who are competent to do so to make the necessary corrections; but those who have not mastered the subject (and it is a very difficult one) are not justified in treating the authority of Assyrian scholars with neglect and contempt, even upon the supposed authority of the biblical text. The author of the book of Kings was an inhabitant of Judah. Before the time of Sennacherib this kingdom had had very little to do with Assyria. Even Israel knew “the king of Assyria” only as an enemy, the head and representative of the great and threatening world-monarchy. They did not fear Shalmaneser or Sargon as individuals; they feared the head of the hostile nation, “the king of Assyria.” Shalmaneser was celebrated for his campaign against Tyre as an individual who bore this dreaded title. If, as is supposed, he began the siege of Samaria, but died during it, and if Sargon finished it, but then returned to Assyria to secure his usurped power—(Rawlinson seems to think that he was not at Samaria, but took advantage of the discontent of the people of Nineveh at Shalmaneser’s long absence to raise a rebellion against him, and then counted among the great deeds of his first year the conquest of Samaria, which Shalmaneser, or his generals, had nearly accomplished)—then it is not strange that his name is not mentioned here among those individuals who were known to the author of these books to have worn the crown of Assyria. Sennacherib was his son, and again so far from his mention of “his fathers” being an argument that he was not the son of a usurper, it is rather in character for such a person to boast of his ancestors, to try to obliterate the recollection of his origin and title to the throne, and to endeavor to avail himself of the prestige of the old dynasty. The Bible is silent in regard to all this, it is true, but it is generally silent in regard to contemporaneous Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek history. Of China, India, and Arabia it tells us nothing. For our knowledge of these things we are thrown upon the proper authorities. The silence of the Bible is no disparagement of the Bible, and no argument against the conclusions to which we may be led by such separate national authorities as we possess. For the facts in regard to the question here before us, as they appear from the Assyrian inscriptions, see the Supplementary Note at the end of this Exeg. section, and for a list of the Assyrian kings, with the dates of their reigns, see the right-hand column of the Chronological Table at the end of the volume—W. G. S.]
The fourteenth year of Hezekiah, who became king in 727, is the year 713. The fall of Samaria took place in 721 (see the Chron. Table). How long after that Shalmaneser reigned cannot be determined [by biblical data]. The ordinary opinion that he lived until 718, and that Sargon reigned from 718 to 715 or 714, falls to the ground when the identity of the two is established. Sennacherib seems to have reigned a year or two before he undertook the great expedition. Probably the change of occupant of the throne of Assyria had encouraged Hezekiah to make himself independent of the oppressor (2Ki_18:7). It is not likely, as Niebuhr supposes, that he attempted this soon after his accession, for then Shalmaneser would not have retired from Samaria in 721 without chastising him for this revolt. It is not especially stated what caused the expedition of Sennacherib, but it certainly was not the revolt of Hezekiah alone. It was an expedition of conquest, directed especially against Egypt, which was then the great rival of Assyria, under whose protection the small kingdoms of Western Asia ranged themselves against Assyria. We do not know certainly whether Hezekiah entered into an alliance with Egypt after he revolted from Assyria. It is clear from Isa_3:1; Isa_31:1, compared with 2Ki_18:21; 2Ki_18:24 of this chapter, that the authorities at Jerusalem were much inclined to this course, and that they had taken preliminary steps towards it. We shall recur to the subject of Sennacherib’s expedition against Egypt below, at the end of the Exegetical notes. [See the Supplem. Note after this Exeg. section. The facts, as established by the inscriptions, are there briefly stated. All that is said above about the relations of Jewish and Assyrian history must be corrected by what is stated in the Note below.]—Against all the fenced cities of Judah, &c. The statement in Chronicles is more accurate: “He encamped against the fenced cities and thought to win them for himself” (2Ch_32:1). It is clear from 19:8 that he did not take them all. When he approached with his great army, Hezekiah armed himself to resist, and, as he could not risk a battle in the open field, he set Jerusalem in the best possible condition for defence (2Ch_32:2 sq.; Isa_22:9-10).
2Ki_18:14. And Hezekiah… sent to the king of Assyria, &c. 2Ki_18:14-16 are entirely wanting in Isaiah, and are an important addition to the narrative there given. They are evidently taken from the common source. They are not, therefore, “a mere annalistic insertion” (Delitsch). The text of Isaiah is here condensed as it is in the following verse (17), where he only mentions Rab-shakeh, and says nothing about Rabsaris and Tartan.—Lachish, whither Hezekiah sent his messengers, was fifteen or eighteen hours’ journey south west of Jerusalem on the road to Egypt (see note on 2Ki_14:19). Sennacherib had, therefore, already passed Jerusalem on his way to Egypt. “The possession of this city was, on account of its position, a matter of great importance to an army which was invading Egypt” (Thenius). Hezekiah, therefore, had grounds for extreme anxiety, more especially as there was no sign of movement on the part of any Egyptian force to meet Sennacherib, and Judah seemed to have been abandoned by Egypt. He determined to try to make terms with the powerful enemy, and rather to submit to a heavy tribute in money than to risk the possession of his capital and the independence of his kingdom. חָטָאתִי does not mean: I have sinned against God by my revolt from thee (that would require that לַיהוָֹה should be added, as we find it Gen_13:13; Gen_39:9; 1Sa_7:6; 2Sa_12:13 and elsewhere); nor, as the ancient expositors supposed: I have, in thy opinion, sinned; nor, imprudenter egi. We have simply to adhere to its original signification, to fail, to err (Job_5:24; Pro_19:2). “It is an acknowledgment wrung from him by his distressed circumstances” (Thenius). Hezekiah admits, in view of the great danger to which he has exposed himself and his kingdom, that he has committed an error.—The sum which Sennacherib demanded was certainly a very large one. Thenius estimates it at one and a half million thalers ($1,080,000), and Keil at two and a half million thalers ($1,800,000). The reduction to terms of our modern money is very uncertain. The fact that Hezekiah stripped off the metal which he had himself put upon the door-casings shows how difficult it was for him to raise this sum.
2Ki_18:17. And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, &c. Josephus thus states the connection between 2Ki_18:16-17. Sennacherib had promised the ambassadors of Hezekiah that he would abstain from all hostilities against Jerusalem, if he received the sum which he had demanded. Hezekiah, trusting in this, had paid it, and now believed. himself to be free from all danger. Sennacherib, however, “did not trouble himself about his promise. He marched in person against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, but he left the general (στρατηγόν) Rab-shakeh, with two other high officers (σὺν δυσὶν ἄλλοις τῶν ἐν τέλει) and a large force to destroy Jerusalem.” This undoubtedly fills up correctly the omission of the biblical text. The two last of these names are clearly official titles, but the first is not a proper name. See Jer_39:3; Jer_39:13, where these titles stand by the side of the proper names. תַּרְתָּן is the title of the general or military commander, as we see from Isa_20:1. Probably it is equivalent to רַב־טַבָּחִים (2Ki_25:8; Jer_39:9; Gen_37:36), captain of the life-guard. We pass, without discussion, Hitzig’s suggestion that the title is of Persian origin and means, “Skull of the body,” that is, “Person of high rank.” רַב־סָרִים is the chief of the eunuchs, who, however, was not himself a eunuch (2Ki_25:19; cf. Gen_37:36; Gen_39:1; Gen_39:7; Dan_1:3; Dan_1:7). This officer is now one of the highest at the Turkish court (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 654). All the officers and servants of the court were under his command. רַבשָׁקֵה is the chief cup-bearer, who is more distinctly designated in Gen_40:2; Gen_40:21 as שַׂר־הַמַּשְׁקִים. This was also a post of high honor at Oriental courts. Nehemiah once filled it (Neh_1:11; Neh_2:1). These court dignitaries were at the same time the highest civil and military officers (cf. Brissonius de regno Pers. i. p. 66, 138. Gesenius on Isa_36:2). Sennacherib sent three such officers in order to give importance to the matter.—The upper pool is the one called Gihon (2Ch_32:30; 1Ki_1:33) outside of the city, on the west side. A canal ran from this to the field of the fullers or washers, which, partly on account of the impurity of the water collected in the pool, and partly on account of the uncleanliness of that occupation, was outside of the city. The same designation of this locality is found in Isa_7:3, from which it is clear that this canal existed in the time of Ahaz and earlier, and is not the one mentioned in 2Ch_32:30.—And when they had called to the king, &c, i.e., “They made known to those upon the wall their desire to speak with the king. He, however, did not yield to their demand to speak with him in person, not, as Josephus thinks, ὑπὸ δειλίας, but because it was beneath his dignity. The chief officers of the king appeared” (Thenius). On the offices which they filled, see notes on 1Ki_4:3 sq. From Isa_22:15-22 it is commonly inferred that Shebna, who there appears as the officer עַל־הַבַּיִת, but is threatened with deposition from that office, had been degraded to a סֹפֵר, in which rank he appears here, and that Eliakim had been put in his place. Other expositors, Vitringa for instance, will not admit that he is the same person. It is at best very uncertain. Nothing can be inferred from this in regard to the comparative rank of these officers, for in 1Ki_4:3 sq. the Sopher and the Maskir stand before the Master of the Palace.
2Ki_18:19. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, &c Probably he was more familiar with the Hebrew language (2Ki_18:26) than either of the others, and otherwise better fitted to be spokesman. The rabbis falsely consider him an apostate Israelite and even a son of Isaiah.—Rab-shakeh calls his king “the great king,” because he had kings for his vassals, Isa_10:8; Hos_8:10. Cf. Eze_26:7; Dan_2:37, where Nebuchadnezzar is called a “king of kings.” In Ezr_7:12, the name is applied to the Persian king.—בִּטָּחוֹן does not mean defiance (Bunsen: “What is this defiant confidence with which thou defiest”?), but confidence, reliance: cf. בטח in ver 5. The question does not contain a rebuke (Gesen.: qualis est fiducia ista: i. e., quam insanis ea est); but rather astonishment. “What reliance hast thou that thou darest to revolt from me? I look about in vain for any satisfactory answer to this question” (Drechsler).—אָמַרְתָּ in 2Ki_18:20 is to be preferred to אָמַרְתִּי in Isaiah. A saying of the lips only is not object: “Thou speakest but a word of the lips [when thou sayest]: counsel and strength, &c.” (Knobel). Still less is the sense: “Thou thinkest that my words are only empty talk.” The sense is rather: “Thou sayest” (it is, however, no well-considered expression of a conviction, but a mere pronunciation of the lips) “counsel and strength,” &c, cf. Pro_14:23; Job_11:2. The Vulg. translates very arbitrarily: Forsitan inisti consilium, ut prœpares te ad prœlium. 2Ki_18:21 is not a question (Vulg. Luther). Rab-shakeh himself gives the answer to his own question in 2Ki_18:20, and “affirms roundly that Judah is in alliance with Assyria’s arch-enemy, Egypt” (Knobel). The image of the staff (מִשְׁעֶנֶת, cf. Isa_3:1) of a reed is a very striking one. As it is used also in Eze_29:6 in reference to Egypt, it evidently is suggested by the fact that the Nile, the representative river of Egypt, produced quantities of reeds (Isa_19:6). The reed, which at best has a feeble stem, bent hither and thither by the wind, is moreover “bruised,” so that, although it appears to be whole, yet it breaks all the more easily when one leans upon it, and moreover, its fragments penetrate the hand and wound it (cf. Isa_42:3, where רצץ and שׁבר are accurately distinguished from one another). [For רצץ, Germ, knicken, we have no precise equivalent. It is a kind of breaking which applies peculiarly to green reeds. The stem may be broken in such a way as to destroy its rigidity, its power to sustain any weight upright, and yet the tenacity of the fibre is such that the parts hold together, and the external form is maintained. A reed is not available as a staff under any circumstances. One which has been thus impaired will give way at once under any weight.—W. G. S.] Thenius: “Sennacherib compared Egypt to a reed thus snapped or bent, not because he had broken the Egyptian power, but because, in his arrogance, he regarded it already as good as broken.” Delitsch thinks that he calls it so “in consequence of the loss of the dominion over Ethiopia, which had been lost by the native dynasty of Egypt (Isaiah 18).” What is here said about Pharaoh agrees exactly with Isa_30:1-7.
2Ki_18:22. But if ye say unto me, &c. In Isa_34:7 we find instead of תֹאמַר ,תֹּאמְרוּן thou sayest. Keil considers this the original reading, because in 2Ki_18:23 sq. Hezekiah is once more directly addressed in his ambassadors. The majority, however, from Vitringa on, are in favor of תֹּאמרְוּן, because Hezekiah is immediately afterwards referred to in the third person. In this case the words are not addressed simply to the ambassadors but to the entire people. Thenius takes the question, Is not that he, &c., as a continuation of the speech of those who trust in Jehovah, and who thus refer to Hezekiah’s zeal for the centralization of the national cultus as a ground for hoping for God’s help. But 2Ch_32:12 is opposed to this notion. According to that passage the words are an objection raised by Rab-shakeh in order to overthrow the confidence of the people, and thus they are understood by nearly all the commentators, ancient and modern. The conclusion of the speech, 2Ki_18:25, requires the same interpretation. The argument is: God is not with the one who has removed His altars and restricted His worship to one single place, but with the one who, at His command, has taken possession of the country, and has already won such great success. Rab-shakeh desires to inspire them with suspicion of Hezekiah, who, according to 2Ki_18:30 and 2Ch_32:7, had encouraged them to trust in Jehovah. He knew how much the people were accustomed to the worship on the high-places, and how much more convenient it was for them.
2Ki_18:23. Now, therefore, make a bargain with, &c. וְעַתָּה i e., Take account, moreover, of the lack of a proper military force, of which cavalry forms an important part. הִתְעָרֵב does not mean: “Promise to my Lord” (Luther), nor, “lay a wager with my Lord” (Bunsen, Von Meyer). ערב means to change, exchange, barter (Eze_27:9; Eze_27:21). In the hithpael it means to enter into intercourse with (Psa_106:35; Pro_24:21). The reference here is to a mutual giving and taking, not to entering into a contest (Knobel). The sense is: Even if any one should give thee ever so many horses, thou hast not men who are fit to ride upon and use them. [It is a strong expression of contempt for the military power of the Jews. you talk about opposing me by force, but even if I, your enemy, should furnish you with horses, you could not find men to form cavalry. If you should make terms with me so that I gave you these odds, it would not do you any good.—W. G. S.]. תָּשִׁיב means literally: to cause to face about, i. e., to put to flight. The פַּחוֹת, the governors of provinces, were likewise commanders in the army in time of war, 1Ki_20:24 (cf. 22:31); “the least” is the one who commands the smallest number of soldiers. Drechsler’s interpretation seems to us to be entirely mistaken. According to him there is no reference here to war, and הֵשִׁיב, &c. has the signification: to reject a suppliant, so that the sense is, “He [Hezekiah] will have to concede every demand and yield to every wish which is brought before him by such a person [as one of these governors].”—On the chariots see 1Ki_10:28 sq.—In 2Ki_18:25 Rab-shakeh presents the matter in a light exactly contrary to that in which the Jews look at it: So far from thy being justified in relying upon Jehovah, He is, on the contrary, on our side, and it is by His command that we are come hither to destroy Jerusalem. This was, as Clericus says, purum putum mendacium. As an Assyrian he did not believe at all in the God of Israel, but only made use of this form of statement, cf. 2Ki_18:34-35. It can hardly be that he meant to refer to the successes which the Assyrians had had up to this time as proofs that they were under the guidance and approval of Jehovah (Calmet, Thenius). Still less can we suppose that he “had heard of the declarations of the prophets, who had predicted this distress as a punishment sent by Jehovah” (Knobel, Von Gerlach, Keil, Vitringa and others.) [At the same time, if we impute to Rab-shakeh such a disbelief in the existence of Jehovah as makes his reference to His providence here a pure fiction, merely assumed for the purpose of producing an effect upon the listeners who did believe in Jehovah, we shall introduce, a modern or monotheistic idea into the speech of an ancient heathen and polytheist, to whom it was foreign. The characteristic of the Jewish monotheistic religion was exclusiveness, intolerance. The polytheistic heathen religions did not deny the existence of the national divinities of each separate nation. The fact that Rab-shakeh believed in the Assyrian divinities does not, therefore, exclude all belief on his part in Jehovah. In 2Ki_18:12 he assumes the existence of gods of the countries mentioned. In 17:26 we have another instance of the usual heathen conception. That was, that every nation had its own divinities. These were conceived of as existing and being true gods, one as much as the other, in all the sense in which heathen ever conceived of gods as truly existing. Each nation held its own god or gods to be greater and mightier than those of other nations, but thought it necessary, especially when in a foreign country, to pay proper respect to the local divinity. Rab-shakeh no doubt went thus far, at least, in his “belief in” Jehovah, and his claim to enjoy the favor of Jehovah was either a pure assumption, good at least until the event contradicted it, or it was founded upon the successes hitherto won, or it took advantage of such prophecies of the Jewish prophets as he may have heard of. Cf. the bracketed note on p. 57 of Pt. II. in regard to Naaman’s idea of Jehovah.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_18:26. Then said Eliakim, &c. As the haughty words of Rab-shakeh, especially what he had last said (2Ki_18:25), might have a depressing effect upon the soldiers posted on the wall, the king’s ambassadors interrupted him and begged him, in a friendly manner, to speak Syriac. To this he gives a rude answer. אֲרָמִית i.e., Syriac,—[more strictly and correctly, Aramaic. The name Syriac is commonly restricted to a later dialect of the Aramaic.—W. G. S.]—“was spoken in ancient times in Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia” (Gesenius). It was “the connecting link between the languages of Eastern [middle] Asia and the Semitic languages of Western Asia” (Drechsler). On account of the intercourse between the Hebrews and these nations, the high court-officials especially were acquainted with Hebrew. The Hebrew and the Aramaic were closely related languages (Eze_4:7). Rab-shakeh spoke Hebrew in this case, not out of politeness, but in order that he might be understood by the listening people, who were not acquainted with any other language. His object was to influence the common people. עַל and אֶל in 2Ki_18:27 have no distinction of meaning. In Isa_36:12 we find אֶל for עַל. Rab-shakeh pretends to be a friend of “the people.” So he says, in substance: Ye are abusing your common people. In exposing them to a wasting siege ye are bringing them, with yourselves, into the direst extremity, so that they will at last be compelled to consume their own excrement. (Compare similar abominations, 2Ki_6:28, sq.) “Instead of the vulgar word חַרְאֵיהֶם, excrementa sua, and שֵׁינֵיהֶם, urinas suas, the keri substitutes the euphemisms צוֹאָתָם their out-going, and מֵימֵי רַגְלֵיהֶם, the water of their feet. The text is punctuated for these readings” (Knobel). וַיַּעֲמוֹד stands here as in 1Ki_8:32. Ewald: “He now, for the first time, took up a position directly in front of the wall.” It can hardly mean what Keil understands: “He took up a position calculated for effect. He does exactly the contrary of what they begged him to do. He approaches nearer in order to be still more distinctly heard by the people,” and “follows still more directly his object of influencing the minds of the common soldiers” (Drechsler).
2Ki_18:31. Make terms with me, &c. Vulg.: Facite mecum quod vobis est utile. Luther: Accept my favor. But בְּרָכָה means blessing, and implies the same as שָׁלוֹם, peace, prosperity (Jos_9:15), for peace was concluded with mutual blessings, and expressed wishes for prosperity on either hand (1Ch_18:10). Come out to me, the usual expression for besieged who “go out” and surrender to the besiegers (1Sa_11:3; Jer_21:9; Jer_38:17). The threats are now followed by wheedling and promises. Then eat ye, &c.; i.e., ye shall lead a life which is in every way peaceful and happy. See 1Ki_4:25. Until I come, 2Ki_18:32. Not, “until I come back from Egypt” (Knobel), but, in general; I will come and take you away. It appears, therefore, that, “Even in case of a capitulation, the Assyrians proposed to transport the Jewish population, according to their usual custom. For the proofs that they were accustomed to adopt this measure with all subjugated nations see Hengstenberg, De rebus Tyriis, p. 51, sq.” (Keil). [On these deportations see the Supplementary Note after the Exeg. section on chap. 17. The first one on record is there noticed, as well as a large number both out of, and into, Syria and Samaria.] We need not attempt to define the land referred to. The whole promise was a mere pretext. זֵית יִצהָר is the olive-tree which bears oil-producing fruit, in distinction from the wild olive-tree.
2Ki_18:33. Have the gods of the nations delivered each his land, &c. Finally the speaker puts the Assyrian power (the “king of Assyria” is here used generally for the Assyrian imperial power, not for Sennacherib in particular) above the might of all the national divinities, and therefore above the supposititious god Jehovah, and proves the justice of the assumption by those successes of the Assyrian power which no one could deny. It is very skillful of him to close his speech with this argument which he considers the strongest and most effective. He means to say: If all the gods of these numerous and mighty nations could not resist the might of Assyria, “much less will Jehovah, the insignificant god of an insignificant nation, be able to do so” (Knobel). It is true that he thereby falls into a contradiction of what he had himself said in 2Ki_18:25, and this shows that his words there were empty pretence.—In 2Ki_18:34, Drechsler translates אֱלֹהֵי both times by the singular, following the Vulgate. But as it must be taken as a plural in 2Ki_18:33, so also here, especially as it is a fact that those nations had more than one god each. On Hamath, Sepharvaim, and Joah see notes on 2Ki_17:24; 2Ki_17:30 sq. Many hypotheses have been suggested in regard to Arpad. As it is mentioned here and Isa_10:9; Isa_37:13, and Jer_49:23, in connection with Hamath, it must have belonged to Syria. We have “no trace of it either in writings or elsewhere” (Winer). It cannot be certainly affirmed that the district Arfad in northern Syria, seven hours’ journey north of Haleb (Keil), is the same place. Hena is also mentioned with Joah in 2Ki_19:13, and in Isa_37:13, but its location is as little ascertainable as that of the latter place. It is more probable that we must look for it in Mesopotamia (Winer) than on the Phoenician frontier (Ewald). [In 742, when Tiglath Pileser conquered Syria (see Supp. Note on chap. 15. p. 161), the city of Arpad alone resisted him with any success. It held out for three years. The same city joined Samaria and Damascus in the revolt mentioned in the Supp. Note on chap. 17. p. 189. Sargon reconquered it. It is, therefore, certain that it was in Syria, though the identification with Arfad is doubtful. It was a large and important city, for it is mentioned in the acts of Sargon, together with Hamath, Damascus, Syria, and Samaria, as among the chief cities of that part of the world.—Some good maps offer Hena in the Euphrates valley and identify it with Anah, or Anatho. Sepharvaim was certainly in the Euphrates valley (see Exeg. note on 17:24) and it is very probable that Hena and Ivah were also there.—W. G. S.] The Vulg. which Luther, Clericus, and Thenius follow, takes כִּי־הִצִּילוּ as a question. Thenius even considers הֲכִי the original reading. But it cannot well be taken differently from כִּי־יַצִּיל in the following verse, where there certainly is not a question, but an inference, as in 2Ki_18:20. The sentence is abbreviated. In full it would read: Where are the gods of Samaria that they should have saved it? Jehovah will be just as unable to save Jerusalem. The gods of Samaria are included in those “of the nations,”—But the people held their peace, 2Ki_18:36. In Isaiah the word הָעָם is wanting, so that וְהֶחֱרֵישׁוּ only refers ו the three officers. Of course Hezekiah had forbidden them to reply, or to enter into any negotiations, partly because he reserved this responsibility to himself, and partly in order not to provoke the enemy still more. Because they kept silence, the people, to whom Rab-shakeh had addressed his last words, also kept silence. Hezekiah could not have commanded the people to keep silence, because he did not know beforehand that Rab-shakeh would address himself to them instead of to the ambassadors. The latter returned with rent garments, in grief and sorrow, not only for the hard message which they had to bring, but also on account of the insults to the king, and still more on account of the blasphemies against Jehovah, which they had been obliged to hear. See 2Ki_6:30.
Chap. 19. 2Ki_19:1. And it came to pass when king Hezekiah heard it, &c. The sackcloth which Hezekiah put on was not only a garment of sorrow, but also a garment of penitence, as in 1Ki_20:32; 2Ki_6:30. The king saw in this event a divine chastisement (2Ki_19:3). The rabbis use the passage to prove that when blasphemies are uttered, not only those who hear them, but also those to whom they are reported, ought to rend their garments (See Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. on Mat_26:65). Hezekiah goes into the temple, “in order to humble himself before God and to pray for help” (Thenius). At the same time he sends a solemn embassy of the highest officers and the most important men to the prophet Isaiah. The elders of the priests are the most notable amongst them. “Embassies are often sent to the prophets by the kings in times of extraordinary distress” (Von Gerlach), cf. Num_22:5; Jer_21:1). It is very significant of the comparative position of prophets and priests that the latter were chosen as ambassadors to the former. The priests were officers only by virtue of their birth. The prophets were chosen men of God, filled with His Spirit. “Isaiah was the only one to whom the nation could turn under the circumstances, the one to whom it must turn. From the point of time referred to in Isa_7:3 sq. he presided over this work of divine discipline” (Drechsler). Thenius’ remark: “This official embassy was intended to encourage the people,” is an error. It was not sent with any politic intention at all, but sprang from the need of reliable counsel in a desperate situation. Hezekiah desired first of all to know God’s will. He therefore sent to the approved and highly honored prophet.—A day of distress, &c., 2Ki_19:3. Luther incorrectly, following the Vulg. (et increpationis et blasphemiœ): und des Scheltens und Lästerns [E. V. of rebuke and blasphemy]. תּוֹכֵחָה means chastisement, punishment (Hos_5:9; Psa_149:7). נְאָצָה means disdain, abhorrence, especially of the people by God (Deu_32:19; Lam_2:6). [The meaning here is that it is a day on which God has disdainfully rejected his people, and left them to their enemies—W. G. S.].—For the children are come to the opening of the womb, &c. The proverb is taken from the crisis in child-bearing, where the child is in the midst of the birth, but the strength of the mother fails on account of the continuous pains, so that she and the child are both in danger. Clericus, therefore, interprets it of the situation of those in great peril, who know what they must do in order to escape, but who feel that it is beyond their power to take the necessary measures, and who fear that, if they should make the attempt, all would be lost.—אוּלַי, 2Ki_19:4, non est dubitantis particula, sed bene sperantis (Clericus). He hopes that God will not allow the words which have been spoken to go unnoticed. The Lord thy God, inasmuch as the prophet is in an especial sense His servant. The remnant are those who, like Jerusalem, were not yet in the power of the Assyrians, who had already overrun the country and captured the strongholds.
2Ki_19:6. And Isaiah said unto them, &c. The prophet does not call the officers of the king עֲבָדִים, but נְעָרִים. He does not thereby simply designate them as “servants,” or, in fact, “body-servants,” as Thenius insists. There is rather a contemptuous significance in the word, which is never used of old men, such as these officers were. Knobel: “The youths, the youngsters.” Ewald and Umbreit even render it: “The boys”; Drechsler: “The guards, the rank and file, who have no discretionary judgment.” [Herein lies the contumely of the epithet. These high officers are called by a name applicable only to those who have nothing to do but mechanically obey orders. It is like calling cabinet ministers, who are, in a good sense, “servants” of the State, public lackeys.—W. G. S.]—I will inspire him with such a spirit, &c. 2Ki_19:7. Malvenda’s rendering: Veniet per aërem nuncius seu rumor, is entirely erroneous. “Others understand by ‘spirit’ here, a wind, especially a noxious wind, the Simoom, or something of that kind, which can sweep away a whole army, and which the angel (2Ki_19:35) may have used as an instrumentality” (Richter). That, however, is not the meaning. רוּחַ is often used for disposition, state of mind. (Knobel: I will awaken in him such a state of mind. Thenius: a despondent disposition or mood. Similarly Theodoret: πνεῦμα, τὴν δειλίαν οἶμαι δηλοῦν). Here it evidently means more than that, and refers to the “extraordinary impulsion of a divine inspiration which is to hurry him blindly on” (Drechsler). This spirit is to leave him no rest, so that, as soon as a certain rumor reaches his ears, he shall hurry away. The sense is, therefore: I will bring it about that he shall feel himself powerfully impelled to retreat. The “rumor” which he is to hear is not the news of the defeat of his army (Lightfoot, Thenius), for he was with his army in person, but the news of Tirhakah’s approach (2Ki_19:9). This news was the first and immediate occasion of his retreat. The destruction of his army was then added, and this hastened his steps. The prophet does not, therefore, refer expressly to the latter. Drechsler finds in this a kind of “pedagogic wisdom, for thus he forced Hezekiah and the people to put implicit faith in the word of God upon which they had to rely.”—And I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. The assertion that this declaration is put in the mouth of Isaiah by the historian, post eventum, is both arbitrary and violent. It appears also in the other narrative, Isa_37:7, in the same words. It therefore belongs to the common source of both, which Isaiah himself wrote.
2Ki_19:8. So Rab-shakeh returned. He did not, therefore, forthwith commence the siege, although he had come to Jerusalem with a large force (2Ki_18:17), but first reported to his master that he had accomplished nothing by his speeches, and had found Jerusalem strongly fortified. He found Sennacherib making war before Libnah. In regard to this city, see note on 2Ki_8:22. It lay some distance north [north-west] of Lachish, about as far from it as from Jerusalem, which lay to the northeast of both. [The position is uncertain. On the authority of Eusebius, Gesenius, Thenius, and Keil place it in the neighborhood of Eleutheropolis or Beit Jibrin. Lenormant puts Libnah on his map S. E. of Lachish.] It follows that Sennacherib had not, in the mean time, advanced southwards, towards Egypt, but northwards, that is, he had retreated. This he had done, no doubt, on account of Tirhakah’s advance. It can hardly be, as Keil and Thenius suppose, that he had taken Lachish, for, if he had done so, he would probably have remained in that place, and not have retreated. Lachish appears to have been so strong by nature that he could not take it at once, and therefore desired to get possession of Libnah at least. He heard the news of Tirhakah’s advance, not at Libnah, but while he was besieging Lachish. In the first place he passed by Jerusalem, but it was now of the utmost importance to him to get possession of this strong position, so as not to have it in his rear. [On this point also see the Supplementary Note.]—Tirhakah, who is called by Manetho, Ταρακός, by Strabo, Τεάρκων ὁ Αἰθίωψ, on Egyptian monuments Tahrka or Tahraka, “is represented on the Pylon of the great temple of Medinet-Abu in the guise of a king, who is slaughtering, before the god Ammon, enemies from the conquered countries, Egypt, Syria, and Tepopa (a country which cannot be identified)” (Keil). When, and how long, he ruled over Egypt, are questions which do not here concern us further. (See Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr., s. 72 and 458). He is described, like Sesostris, as one of the great conquerors of the ancient world (Strabo 1:45). This was the ground for the effect which his approach produced.
2Ki_19:9. He seat messengers again unto Hezekiah. Instead of וַיָּשָׁב we find in Isa_37:9 וַיּשְׁמַע. Drechsler thinks that this word is much more forcible, and that it is repeated from the beginning of the verse, in order to show that Sennacherib sent the messengers as soon as he heard the news. The text before us, however, seems to be the better one, as Delitsch also admits in this case. The point to be emphasized is, not that Sennacherib sent at once upon hearing this news, but that he sent again, made another attempt to get possession of Jerusalem by capitulation, without drawing the sword, for Jerusalem was far stronger than Samaria, and the latter cost Shalmaneser a three years’ siege.—On 2Ki_19:10 see 2Ki_18:30, and on 2Ki_19:11 cf. the similar piece of boasting, Isa_10:8-11. This time Sennacherib addresses himself directly to Hezekiah by a letter, and hopes for better success than was won by his servants. The letter contains the same arguments as Rab-shakeh’s speech, with this difference, that still more countries which had been conquered by the Assyrian arms are here enumerated, in order to heighten the effect. לְהַחֲרִימָם (2Ki_19:11), not: in order to destroy them, but; so that they destroyed, or: ,by this, that they destroyed them; strictly: by devoting them to destruction. Cf. Deu_2:34; Deu_3:6; Jos_8:26; 1Sa_15:3; 1Sa_15:8; Num_21:3.—In 2Ki_19:12 the countries which Rab-shakeh had not mentioned are mentioned first, and then, in 2Ki_19:13, those which he had mentioned. On Gozan see note on 2Ki_17:6. The mention of this place in connection with Haran in Mesopotamia (Gen_11:31) does not force us to conclude that it refers to Gauzanitis in that country. “The enumeration is founded on historical, not on geographical facts” (Keil). Rezeph was a place in the district of Palmyra, in eastern Syria, which Ptolemy calls (5,15) ‘Ρησάφα. It was a day’s journey west of the Euphrates (Winer, R.-W.-B.). Jalkuti mentions nine cities of this name in his geographical dictionary. The one here referred to was probably the most important amongst them. Eden is certainly not the Syrian Eden (Amo_1:5), for the reference here is to Assyrian conquests; but is the Eden mentioned in connection with Canneh and Haran, in Eze_27:23. It must, therefore, be sought in Mesopotamia. It is quite uncertain where Thelasar was, and whether it was a city or a district. Perhaps it was in Mesopotamia, like the other places here mentioned, or perhaps it was in Babylon, for תֵּל (hill) occurs at the first part of many Babylonian geographical names. Ewald considers it identical with Theleda, near Palmyra. According to Delitsch, it is “Thelser of the Tab. Peuting., on the east side of the Tigris.” The children of Eden “may have been a tribe which had just then acquired importance, had established itself in Thelasar, a place which did not originally belong to it, and had founded a kingdom there, as the Chaldeans did in Babylon” (Drechsler).—On 2Ki_19:13 see notes on 2Ki_17:24; 2Ki_18:34.
2Ki_19:14. And Hezekiah received the letter. The plural, סְפָרִים, has here a singular signification; literœ, epistola, as the suffix in וַיִּפְרְשֵׂהוּ shows. Hezekiah went into the temple to pray, after the receipt of Sennacherib’s letter, as he had done after Rab-shakeh’s speech (2Ki_19:1). He spread it before the Lord, as it were before the throne of Jehovah. It is incomprehensible that Gesenius should have asserted that Hezekiah did this with the same motive with which the Thibetans set up their prayer-machines before their gods, in order that the gods may read the prayers for themselves. The substance of the prayer itself (2Ki_19:15-19) contradicts any such notion most distinctly, for the conception of the one sole God of heaven and earth, as opposed to all heathen conceptions of divinity, which here appears, excludes totally any such coarse anthropomorphic fantasy. It is impossible to impute any such gross superstition to that king of Israel, who displayed zeal against idolatry such as no king since David had shown, and who stood in such relation as we have seen to Isaiah, the most gifted of the prophets. Nor can we explain to ourselves Hezekiah’s action in spreading the letter before God, with Keil and Von Gerlach, as “child-like faith and confidence,” for it would have been more than “childish” if Hezekiah had believed that this letter must be presented to God for Him to see and read it Himself. Still less can we suppose that his object was ut populum earum litcrarum conspectu ad deum orandum excitaret (Clericus). It was rather a significant, or symbolic, act. Hezekiah solemnly hands over the letter, the documentary blasphemy, to Jehovah. He spreads it before Jehovah and leaves to Him the work of punishing it. Lisco: “The act of spreading out the letter before Jehovah is a symbolic presentation of the great distress into which he has been brought by Sennacherib, and to which his prayer refers.” Delitsch: “It is a prayer without words, a prayer in action, which then passes into a spoken prayer.” He calls upon Jehovah as the God of Israel, i.e., as the one who has chosen Israel out of all the nations of the earth to be His own people, and has made a covenant with this nation, and who, therefore, sits between the cherubim, and dwells amongst His chosen people (see the dissertation on the Significance of the Temple under 1 Kings 6, § 6, c and d), is not, however, a mere national divinity like the gods of the nations which the Assyrians had conquered, as Sennacherib supposed, but is the One, Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. In Isa_37:16 we find with יְהוָֹה the word צְבָאוֹת, παντοκράτωρ (2Sa_5:10; 2Sa_7:8). This would hardly have been left out if the author had found it in the original document which served as his authority. “הוּא in אַתָּה־הוּא is an emphatic repetition, and so a reinforcement, of the subject, as in Isa_43:25; Isa_51:12, &c.; tu ille (not, tu es ille), that is, tu, nullus alius” (Delitsch).
2Ki_19:16. Lord, bow down thine ear. Drechsler: “This express mention of the two chief senses, the development of each of the two chief ideas, according to their details, into a twofold prayer, the complete symmetry of the two clauses of the sentence, the repetition of יְהוָֹה in the second clause—all these conspire to give to the prayer the greatest urgency and emphasis.” The singular, “thine ear,” with the plural, “thine eyes,” is a standing formula (Psa_17:6; Psa_31:2, &c.). “When we wish to hear, we bend down one ear to the speaker; when we wish to see, we open both eyes” (Gesenius). That “open thine eyes” does not mean: “Read the letter” (Knobel) is evident from Isa_1:15, where the reference is not to a letter at all, but only to a prayer. The second “hear” is equivalent to “notice,” “pay heed to.” [The anthropomorphism is plain. The explicit mention of the senses in addressing God is intended to express the most urgent prayer for attention.—W. G. S.] In 2Ki_19:17 Hezekiah admits the truth of what Sennacherib had boasted of, namely, the subjugation of all those peoples and countries. By the following words he means to say: This was possible for him because they had no protection and no help in their gods of wood and stone; but thou, O Jehovah! our God, art the only God, the Almighty One, Who canst help. Help then thy people for thine own glory, that all nations may know Thee as the One True God (2Ki_19:19). הֶחֱרִיב does not mean: to put to death by the sword (Luther), but: to devastate, to destroy. Eze_19:7; Jdg_16:24. Instead of the nations and their lands, Isa_37:18 reads: “all the lands and their (own) land.” [E. V. (as an escape from the difficulty) “all the nations and their lands.”] The reading of Isaiah is not to be preferred “on account of its greater difficulty” (Keil, Drechsler). On the contrary, the text of Kings seems to be more correct, as the majority of the commentators admit. Thenius goes so far as to say that the text of Isaiah must be “totally rejected.” The explanation that the Assyrians had, in consequence of their numerless wars, devastated their own country, is altogether too forced. It does not fit the context, for, if it were adopted, then “their gods” in 2Ki_19:18 might refer to the gods of the Assyrians. Neither does וְנָתוֹן, in Isaiah, deserve to be preferred, as the more difficult reading, to the וְנָתְנוּ of the text before us. Knobel gives an incorrect interpretation of the words: And have cast their gods into the fire. Hezekiah does not mean “to put their godliness in its proper light,” and to say: “They acted wickedly even from their own stand-point, since they held these idols to be gods, and nevertheless destroyed them.” Drechsler’s remark is more correct: “Standing themselves in the midst of the heathen modes of thought, and moving with the mythologic tendency which was in the process of development, they recognized the deep connection between the religion of a people, its national cultus, and its identity as a particular individual in the family of nations. It was a result of this fundamental conception that the idols of conquered peoples were often carried into captivity.” [That is, the whole nationality was taken captive, reduced to submission, and carried away by the victor, root and branch.—Hezekiah’s mention of the destruction of the heathen gods (idols), in his prayer, therefore, belongs to his description of the completeness of the Assyrian victory, and the utter extirpation of the nationalities which they had conquered.—W. G. S.] Thenius refers, in his comment on this passage, to Botta, Monum. pl. 140, “where an idol is being hewn in pieces while the booty from a conquered city is being carried out and weighed.”—Therefore they have destroyed them. They were easily able to do so, he means to say, because these were gods made by men’s hands out of wood and stone. “It will, however, and it must, be entirely different, if he now proceeds to assail Jehovah” (Drechsler). [The connection of thought may be thus developed: His boast is true. He has indeed uprooted the nations, devastated their countries, and destroyed their idols, in whom they trusted for protection. The inference he desires us to draw is, that Jehovah, our God, in whom we trust, will not be able to save us, any more than these gods to save their worshippers. But what is the assumption on which this inference entirely depends? It is that Jehovah is only another god like those. But they are only pieces of wood and stone, while Jehovah is the sole and almighty God of hosts. Hence the assumption is false, the inference falls to the ground with it, and the boast, although it is true, is idle.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_19:20. Then Isaiah … sent to Hezekiah, &c. He did not probably send the following answer by a “younger prophet,” or “prophet-disciple” (2Ki_9:1) (Knobel), but by the same embassy which Hezekiah, who in the mean time had gone into the temple, had sent to him. The reply was not written (Starke), it was delivered orally, but it is certain that it was recorded by Isaiah.—She despises thee, &c. 2Ki_19:21. The entire passage 2Ki_19:21-34 may be divided into three parts. In the first, 2Ki_19:21-28, the haughty Assyrian himself is addressed. It consists of words especially adapted to scorn his pretensions. In the second, 2Ki_19:29-31, the prophet addresses himself directly to Hezekiah. In the third, 2Ki_19:32-34, the catastrophe of the Assyrian enterprise is solemnly foretold. The commencement of the oracle constitutes, in form and contents, the strongest and most confident contrast to the Assyrian haughtiness. [This division is correct for the sense of the passage. According to its poetic construction, however, it is rather composed of four strophes, two of four and two of three verses. The oracle is highly finished both in its poetic construction, and in the flow of thought. It commences with an indignant and scornful outburst of utter contempt for the Assyrian pretensions (first str.); it then proceeds to refute them by calmer reasoning (sec. str.); then it turns to Hezekiah and Judah, the other parties to the dispute, with encouragement (third str.); and finally it gives, with quiet confidence, a declaration as to the solution of the crisis (fourth str.).—W. G. S.]—The virgin daughter, Zion: not of Zion. Even the stat. const. בְּתוּלַת, only expresses the relation of apposition. “Daughter” is the ordinary figure under which lands and cities are designated (Isa_23:12; Isa_47:1; Jer_46:11; Lam_1:15). “Virgin” is used of a city which is as yet unconquered (see Gesenius on Isa_23:12). Here it is prefixed by way of emphasis, and expresses “in contradiction to the confidence of the Assyrian, the consciousness of impregnability” (Drechsler). At thee, lit. after thee or behind thee. “This is a picturesque feature in the description, and is, therefore, mentioned first (Hebrew text). Behind thee, as thou departest in shame and disgrace” (Drechsler). She wags her head, not moving it from side to side as a sign of refusal or disapproval, but up and down, as a sign of ridicule, Psa_22:7; Psa_109:25; Job_16:4; Jer_18:16. She shows “by this gesture that it must have turned out so and not otherwise” (Delitsch). This scorn and ridicule is well deserved, because Sennacherib had blasphemed the Most High, therefore, 2Ki_19:22 : Whom hast thou insulted and blasphemed? He that sitteth upon the heavens shall laugh.—Lifted voice, not in the sense of shouting aloud (Drechsler, Keil) (for Rab-shakeh was the only one who had lifted up his voice in this sense, not Sennacherib), but in the more general sense of uttering words against anybody [a poetic expression for speaking]. מָרוֹם is not the “height of thine eyes” (Umbreit), but on high, upwards towards heaven; cf. Isa_57:15, “I dwell in the high and holy place.” It does not, therefore, simply mean, as in Isa_40:26, to look up towards heaven, but, as is seen by the following words: “Against the Holy One of Israel,” it has an accessory reference to that pride and arrogance, which places itself on a level with Him who dwells in heaven. The Holy One of Israel is, it is true, the name which is peculiar to Isaiah, but here it is used because “Jehovah is especially designated by the title which distinctly implies that His majesty cannot be outraged by anybody with impunity, Isa_5:16” (Drechsler). The Sept. and Vulg. [and E. V.] translate, in violation of the masoretic accents: “Against whom hast thou lifted up thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? Against the Holy One of Israel!”
2Ki_19:23. By thy messengers thou hast insulted the Lord. The “messengers” are those mentioned in 2Ki_19:9. In Isa_37:24 we find instead: “thy servants,” evidently referring to those mentioned in 2Ki_18:17. The speech which the prophet here puts in the mouth of Sennacherib, and in which he gives the key to all the feelings and disposition of the latter, is divided into two parts by the emphasized אֲנִי in 2Ki_19:23-24. Then each principal clause is subdivided. The Sept., Vulg., Luther, and others take all the verbs in both verses as perfect tenses, but it is incorrect because the perfect עָלִיתִי, 2Ki_19:23, is followed by the two futures אֶכְרוֹת and אָבוֹאָה, and likewise the perfect קַרְתִּי, 2Ki_19:24, אַחֲרִיב. It is still less admissible to refer 2Ki_19:23 to past time and 2Ki_19:24 to future time, and to translate the perfect עָלִיתִי as a perfect, but the perfect קַרְתִּי as an imperfect, as is often done. The rule which here applies is the one given by Gesenius (Hebr. Gramm. § 126, 4): “The perfect may even refer to the future, especially in strong affirmations and assurances, in which the speaker regards the matter, in his own will, as already done, or as good as accomplished. In German [and English] the present is used in such cases instead of the future” (cf. Ewald, Lehrb. § 135, c.). This use is common in prophecies, Isa_9:1; Isa_5:13. Cf. Psa_31:6; Gen_15:18; Gen_17:20. We therefore translate, with De Wette, Hitzig, Knobel, Umbreit, Ewald, and others, both perfects by the present, especially as it could not, in any sense, be said of Sennacherib that he had already dried up all the rivers of Egypt. Sennacherib boasts not so much of what he has done as of what he can do; he represents himself as almighty. Yet it is true that “in each of the two verses, the second clause gives the consequence of the first, that is to say, the second clause tells, in each case, what the Assyrian proposes to do after he has accomplished what is mentioned in the first clause” (Keil). Drechsler’s objection that this makes the Assyrian appear as an “empty boaster,” who, “in ridiculous hyperboles piles up a catalogue of things which he boastfully intends to do,” has no weight, for it is not the prophet’s intention to mention all the great things which the Assyrian has already done, but to show what he imagines that he can do. He does not mean to make him enumerate the great deeds which he has accomplished, but he means to describe his disposition, the thoughts of his heart.—This answers the question whether the words which are here put into the mouth of Sennacherib are to be taken literally (historically) or figuratively. Many of the old commentators thought that they were literal and historical. Drechsler adopts this view. He says: “The greater the deeds were which he boasted of, the more necessary it was, if he did not wish to produce an entirely contrary effect from the one which the words seem to indicate, that there should be earnest facts behind his words, and that they should rest upon incidents which could not be denied, but were notorious.” Keil justly objects that there is not the slightest reason to believe that Sennacherib, or any of his predecessors, ever crossed Mt. Lebanon, with all his chariots and military force, and conquered Egypt, or dried up its rivers. Umbreit also says: “We do not see what the cutting down of the cedars and cypresses signifies, under this interpretation.” “Nevertheless, the speech, although it is here given in a rhetorical and poetical form, is not mere poetry. The figures used rest upon actual circumstances, and the speech is not exhausted if we simply interpret it to mean: There exists no effectual hindrance to my power, neither heights nor depths, neither mountains with impenetrable forests, nor plains which are barren and waterless, or cut up by rivers. On the contrary, 2Ki_19:23 refers directly to Palestine, and 2Ki_19:24 to Egypt. Lebanon is the mountain which forms the northern boundary of Palestine. It shuts it in and forms the gateway to it (cf. Zec_11:1, Cocceius: Libanon munimentum terrœ Canaan versus septentrionem est). When an enemy has passed over it and occupied it, the whole land lies open before him; it is in his power. Just as the word “gate” is made to cover that to which the gate leads, so Lebanon here stands for the whole country to which it is the key (Isa_33:9; Isa_35:2). [There is no instance of this use of language. Lebanon is often spoken of as one of the glories of the country; never as standing for, covering, or representing the country. The two instances quoted belong to the former usage. In Isa_33:9, Lebanon is mentioned with Sharon and Bashan, the other especial sources of pride to the country, as lying waste. In 35:2, among the details of the future glory which was to be enjoyed, Lebanon is mentioned to say that it shall recover its former grandeur. In neither case does it, in any sense, stand for the land of Canaan.—W. G. S.] As in the north Canaan was shut in by Lebanon, so it was enclosed and protected on the south by the waterless desert of Beersheba (Gen_21:14), which is contiguous to the desert El Tih (Herodotus 3:5, Robinson, Palestine I., 300). Beyond are the rivers, the arms of the Nile which protect Egypt. These two great hindrances, the mountain on the north, and the desert and then the rivers on the south, the haughty king declares to be insignificant. He can pass over Lebanon even with his chariots, and can dry up the rivers of Egypt with the soles of his feet. But all this even does not exhaust the meaning of this speech. If, namely, 2Ki_19:23 only meant to say: The highest mountain in the country is no hindrance for me, then we could not see what was the significance of the following words: And I will hew down its loftiest cedars and its choicest cypresses. It cannot refer to any actual cutting down of these trees, since Sennacherib had no reason for devastating Lebanon, or for wanting cedar or cypress wood. Moreover the cedars and cypresses were no particular hindrance to him. We have here another instance of the figure which occurs in Jer_22:6-7; Jer_22:23; Eze_17:3, only somewhat further elaborated. Lebanon is the kingdom of Judah, its summit is Jerusalem, the city of David and Mount Zion. Its cedars and cypresses are its princes and mighty men, whom Sennacherib thinks that he can “hew down.” Its “resting-place” and “forest-grove” are the king’s palace on Mount Zion; there he intends to make his encampment (Isa_10:29. See Delitsch on Isa_37:24). יַעַר כַּרְמִלּוֹ is not a designation for the “places on Mount Lebanon which were thickly grown with herbs” (Fürst), but for the forest on its summit, which consisted of beautiful trees forming an orchard-like grove, see Isa_29:17. “The predicate ‘garden’ is applied to this forest because it consists of choice trees” (Drechsler). [It rather resembles a carefully kept grove or orchard than an untrained forest.—W. G. S.] Both expressions are decisive in favor of the figurative acceptation of the passage, for we cannot suppose that there was a real “inn,” or “resting-place,” on the summit of Lebanon (Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmüller); in the first place, because there is no mention of any such thing, and again, because, if there had been, it would not have been of any importance to Sennacherib. Moreover, “Resting-place” [literally “inn”] and “forest-grove” are in apposition, but a forest is not an inn, and can only be called a “resting-place” in so far as it is a shady place fit to rest in, that is, in a figurative sense. There is, however, in both expressions a reference to the “House of the Forest of Lebanon” (1Ki_7:2; Isa_22:8), which represented the defensive military force (see 1 Kings 7, Exeg. on 2Ki_19:2, and Hist. § 2), and which resembled a forest on account of its cedar columns. The full sense of 2Ki_19:23, therefore, which, because it affected Hezekiah, is more detailed than 2Ki_19:24, which refers to Egypt, is this: I am putting an end to the kingdom of Judah with its capital, its citadel, its kings, and its princes, and all its glory.
[The figurative interpretation is adopted by all the commentators of note, but the above special application of the details of the verse to “Mount Zion,” the “King’s palace,” the “House of the Forest of Lebanon,” the “Princes and Chief men,” &c., &c., suffers from the weakness which is inherent in every symbolical interpretation which is not directly suggested in the context. It is evident that the symbolical explanations are forced and far-fetched, and, in the mouth of an Assyrian, inexplicable. Moreover, a careful examination of the other cases where Lebanon is used in a metaphor (Isa_33:9; Isa_35:2; Isa_22:6; Isa_22:1; Isa_22:23; Eze_17:3; Hab_2:17) shows that they differ essentially from this one. The simile is always formally introduced as such, and there is no evidence of any usage of language by which Lebanon was made to stand for the whole country as, for instance, “Jerusalem” or “Mount Zion” were used for the whole nation. The details given in verse 23 form an exact description of the march of an army over Lebanon. Let us suppose for a moment that Sennacherib had actually entered Palestine from the north by passing over the mountain. He then boasts that by or with the whole host of his chariots, usually supposed to be fit only for travelling over a plain, he has even gone up to the top of the mountain; that he there cut down the largest and strongest trees (cypresses and cedars being the principal trees on Lebanon), in order to make a way for his army—these mighty trees, the pride of the mountain, making it difficult for an army to march through and preserve its order, had not availed to hinder him. He had hewn them down and cast them away. He had found a resting-place and encamped his army on the very summit of the mountain, in its choicest and most beautiful forest, which had proved for him a shelter and resting-place, not a hindrance. If we thus suppose that, as a fact, he had accomplished this difficult military feat, it is seen that the details of this boast, which is put into his mouth, fit well into the actual details of such an undertaking. We will not infer that he had accomplished this feat, since no hint of it occurs anywhere, but the accuracy of the details is very remarkable. 2Ki_19:24, on the other hand, is brief, and purely poetical. What are we to understand by parching up rivers with the soles of one’s feet? This rather corresponds to the nature of a bold enterprise, as yet unaccomplished, than to the actual details of a feat already performed. The attempt to specify in detail the things referred to by the separate objects in a bold poetic image or reference of this kind is always a failure. It only sketches in bold outline the thoughts, ambitions, and intentions of Sennacherib, being based possibly on actual deeds which he had accomplished, and in this form it must be left. It is not a parable, but a poetic and boastful statement, in huge outline, of what was in his mind. Whether, as an actual fact, he had led his army over Lebanon or not, he makes use of such a feat as a general specimen of the kind of things he was capable of accomplishing. If he had not done something of that kind, Drechsler’s objection would have great force, that his boast would be ridiculous. That “Lebanon” figures in this speech may be merely owing to the fact that a Jewish prophet puts it into the mouth of the Assyrian, and Sennacherib may somewhere else have passed with his army over a mountain which was supposed to be impassable. In short, then, it is a boast, founded probably on some feat which the Assyrians had accomplished, calling up in vivid figures their power to overcome hindrances supposed to be insurmountable, and setting forth the arrogance which these successes had inspired in them, which led them to think that no obstacles could stay them. Having passed mountains, they were ready to believe that they could parch up rivers. Then follows the rebuke that they had had all these successes only because they were foreordained instruments of God’s Providence, but that, when they had reached the limit of what he intended them to do, they could go no farther, and moreover that their arrogance in ascribing their success to their own power would call for punishment from Him.—W. G. S.]
In regard to the detailed exegesis we have yet to notice בְּרֶכֶב רִכְבָּי, literally: “With chariot of my chariots,” i.e., with my numberless chariots (cf. Nah_3:17, גּוֹב גּוֹבַי). According to Keil this is “more original;” according to Knobel it is “more choice, more difficult, and therefore preferable” to בְּרֹב רִכְבִּי, “with the multitude of my chariots,” which we find in Isa_37:24, and which the keri, many codices, and all the ancient versions have in this place. We agree with Thenius in preferring the latter reading as the more natural one. The sense is the same in either case. Ewald translates: “By the simple march of my chariots,” but the point of importance here is not the uninterrupted onward march, but that chariots, which generally are only fit for level ground, are said to have passed over the highest mountains. Its summit, (יַרְכְּתֵי, cf. Jer_6:22, where the Sept. has ἀπ’ ἐσχάτου), literally, its outmost limit or boundary, Vulg. summitas. מְלוֹן is decidedly to be preferred to מְרוֹם, height (Isa_37:24), for it is far more significant, and the idea of “height” is already expressed in ירכתי.—I dig and drink, 2Ki_19:24. 2Ki_19:23 refers to the subjugation of Palestine; 2Ki_19:24 to that of Egypt. The digging does not refer to “the redigging of the wells and cisterns which had been filled up by the fleeing enemy” (Thenius), but to the work which is necessary to find water for a great army in a district where it is wanting. “Strange water” is “water which is not sprung from the soil of this nation” (Drechsler), not, water which belongs to others (Clericus: in alieno solo, quasi in meo, fodiam puteos). זַר is used as in Isa_17:10. The word is wanting in the text of the parallel passage of Isaiah, but it is very forcible. [This interpretation is not clear. It must mean either that Sennacherib’s army carried with it water from Assyria, which is not conceivable unless possibly for the king alone, or else, taking the verb as a distinct preterite, that he had drunk the waters of other nations than Judah, viz., of Assyria, and hence his strength. This latter hypothesis would not chime well with the next clause and is not acceptable. Clericus’ interpretation is better. The Assyrian boasts that he comes into foreign nations and digs for and drinks the water of their soil—makes use of their resources.—W. G. S.] On the other hand, where there is a superabundance of water, as in Egypt, where the rivers assure the inhabitants an abundant supply, and, at the same time, form barriers to an invader (Nile and its arms, see Winer, R.-W.-B., I. s. 25), there he parches it up. With the sole of my foot, a strong hyperbole. It does not mean “under the footsteps of my countless army” (Knobel). [It seems to be a purely imaginative and poetic idea, with which no literal, corresponding, fact can be associated. It could only be applied to a deity, and then only by a poetic image, if the river should disappear by some extraordinary interposition. The king, in his self-assumption, asserts that he will, by some similar god-like power, which is not probably defined as to its mode of operation, even in his own mind, dispose of this hindrance when he meets it.—W. G. S.] מָצוֹר is the poetic name for Egypt. [מָצוֹר, “the ‘land of distress’ (Angstland), is a poetic metamorphosis of the Hebrew name of Egypt,” מִצְרַיִם, “cf. 2Ki_19:6; Mic_7:12” (Ewald).] יְאֹרִים are the arms and canals of the Nile; Isa_19:6 compared with 7:18; Eze_29:3; Eze_30:12; Mic_7:12. In like manner Claudian (De Bello Goth., V. 526) represents Alarich as boasting: Cum cesserit omnis Obsequiis natura meis? subsidere nostris. Sub pedibus montes, arescere vidimus amnes. Drechsler thinks that “the historical acceptation of 2Ki_19:24 cannot be refuted,” but the notion of drying up the Nile with the soles of the feet is certainly figurative. [2Ki_19:24 certainly cannot be understood literally or historically, see above.] The Nile and its branches are to Egypt what the Lebanon and its cedars were to Palestine, viz., the fortification and protection of the country. Sennacherib exalts himself above both as if he were almighty: Where there is no water, there I know how to bring it out of the earth, and where a mass of water lies in my way, I can dry it up.
2Ki_19:25. Hast thou not heard? Jehovah now answers Sennacherib’s insolent and arrogant boast (2Ki_19:23-24) by a question, the form of which assumes that he must give an affirmative reply, as the most lively and sharpest form of rebuke (see the questions in Job 38.): Thou speakest as if the greatness of thy might were thy work, and all which thou hast done an achievement of thy power. Know that I planned and ordained it thus of old, and that thou hast only executed my decrees, and been an instrument in my hand, cf. Isa_7:20; Isa_10:5; Isa_6:12 sq. The old commentators took “hear” in a literal sense as referring to the wonderful deeds of God in delivering His people out of Egypt and bringing them to Canaan, which, they think, were well known to Sennacherib; but the following אֹתָהּ, this, shows that that only is meant which had been accomplished by the Assyrians. Hence others have imagined that there was a reference to prophetic oracles like Isa_7:20 sq. which had come to the ears of Sennacherib (cf. Jer_40:1-15), but we may be sure that the prophet did not, in his oracle against the enemy, refer back to that declaration, which was pronounced against Israel. Still less can we agree with Thenius that it refers to an inner hearing of the soul or conscience, or indeed to “Assyrian oracles which were consulted before undertaking the expedition.” The question has rather this simple sense: If thou hast never heard it, then hear it now, and know that I planned and determined (literally, fashioned) it so (Isa_22:11). Vitringa: Eventum hunc in omni sua περιστάσει prœformasse in consilio meœ providentiœ. מֵרָחוֹק is used here of time, as in Isa_22:11; מִימֵי קֶדֶם as in Isa_23:7; Mic_7:20, “from ancient days.” וּתְהִי is generally translated: “That thou mayest be for the destruction.” Keil and Drechsler: “That there may be fortified cities for destruction,” as in the formula הָיָה לְבָעֵר (Isa_5:5; Isa_6:13; Isa_44:15), i.e., that strong cities may be to be destroyed. [Bähr, in his translation of the text, follows the latter. The former is strictly grammatical and less constrained: Thou art to destroy, i.e., this is thy destiny, thou art an instrument for this work.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_19:26 is closely connected with 2Ki_19:25. That the inhabitants fell down so powerless (literally: were short of hand, i.e., powerless, Num_11:23; Isa_50:2), and made no resistance, was not the work of the Assyrians, but was foreordained by God. The same images are used for sudden decay of power in Psa_37:2; Isa_40:6. This series of metaphors forms a climax. The grass upon the roof is that which fades more quickly than that of the field, because it lacks soil (Psa_129:6). The corn blasted in the germ is the corn which is blighted and withers away before the blade springs, so that at the very outset it has the germ of decay in itself. שְׁדֵפָה is much to be preferred to the less definite and more general שְׁדֵמָה, ground (Isa_37:27).—Resting in peace, going out, and coming in (2Ki_19:27) cover all the activity of a man (Psa_121:8; Deu_28:6; Psa_139:2). [See note 12 under Grammatical]—Violent hate, Vitringa: Commotio furibunda, quœ ex ira nascitur superbiæ mixta (Isa_28:21). Arrogance, which comes from the feeling of security, Amo_6:1; Psa_123:4. The first figure in 2Ki_19:28 is taken from the taming of wild animals, the second from the controlling of restive horses (Eze_19:4; Eze_29:4; Isa_30:28; Psa_32:9). There are two sculptures at Khorsabad which represent “a victorious king leading captives, who stand before him, by a rope and a ring fastened in their lips” (Thenius). Dignum superbo supplicium, ut qui se supra hominem esse putat, ad morem bruti abjiciatur (Sanctius). By the way by which thou camest, i.e., with this purpose unaccomplished, without having reached thine object.
2Ki_19:29. And this be the sign to thee. With these words now, the prophet turns to Hezekiah. Tibi autem, Ezechia, hoc erit signum (Vulg.). אוֹת means in general, as Delitsch accurately observes (note on Isa_7:11), “a thing, an event, or an action, which is intended to serve as a pledge or proof of the devine certainty of another. Sometimes it is a miracle, openly performed, striking the senses (Gen_4:8 sq.), sometimes it is a permanent symbol of what is to come (Isa_8:18; Isa_20:3), sometimes it consists in a prophecy of future events, which, whether they are natural or miraculous, are not to be foreseen by human wisdom, and therefore, when they occur, either reflect backwards in proof of their own divine origin (Exo_3:12), or furnish evidence of the divine certainty of others yet to come (Isa_37:30; Jer_44:29 sq.).” In the case before us the sign is no miracle (מוֹפֵת, 1Ki_13:3), but a natural event which serves to give assurance of the truth of a prophecy (Keil). This sign is taken from agriculture, “since this was, at that time, the most important interest of the people, and their attention might be expected for a sign which took this form” (Knobel). In the following declaration אָכוֹל stands first with emphasis, an infinitive absolute, which “can stand concisely and emphatically for any tense or person of the verb which the context demands” (Gesenius, Gramm. § 131, 4 b.). It is often understood here as an imperfect: One shall eat, i.e., people shall eat, or, ye shall eat (Drechsler, Keil, and others); or, as a present; One eats, i.e. Ye are eating (Umbreit, Delitsch, and others), and הַשָּׁנָה is then translated, “this current year.” But we have here three years mentioned, of which the third is the first, which shall be a complete harvest-year, viz., on account of the withdrawal of the Assyrians, who shall leave the land which they have occupied once more free. 2Ki_19:35 shows distinctly that the Assyrian army perished before the third year after the prophet’s declaration, and Sennacherib’s retreat therefore followed before the third year. Observe especially, in 2Ki_19:35, the words: “that night.” (See notes below on these words.) Sennacherib, when he heard of Tirhaka’s advance, had withdrawn from Lachish to Libnah. From there he once more threateningly demanded the surrender of Jerusalem (2Ki_19:8-10). How can we now understand that, from this point on, he remained in Palestine yet three years, without really laying siege to the city which he had so earnestly threatened? We are, therefore, compelled to take this inf. abs. in the sense of a perfect: edistis (Maurer, Gesenius, Thenius. Cf. Ewald, Lehrb. § 240, a.; 302, c.). [Sixth Ed. In the seventh Ed. the subject is otherwise treated, and the inf. abs. is not represented as standing for any finite form, but as a pure and indefinite expression of the verbal notion, without giving it limitations of time or person. This is unquestionably correct. See § 328, b.—W. G. S.] הַשָּׁנָה, in contrast with “the second” and “the third” year, cannot, of course, refer to anything else than the year which precedes them, that is, the first one. In this first year the Assyrians had invaded the country, and had prevented the people from raising crops. In the second year they were still there, and the crops failed because they had devastated the country. In the third year they retired, and therefore the land could be cultivated. In the first year they lived upon סָפִיחַ, i.e., upon that which grew up from the leavings of the former crop, Lev_25:5; Lev_25:11. Vitringa: Ex etymo valet accessorium, quod sponte nascitur post sementem; a sort of after-growth from fruit of the previous crop which was accidentally dropped in gathering in the harvest. In the second year they lived upon סָחִישׁ, i.e., “offshoots of the roots, which spring up in the second year after the planting” (Fürst); αὑτοφυή (Aquila, Theodoret). “In the fertile parts of Palestine, especially in the plain of Jezreel, on the highlands of Galilee, and elsewhere, the grains and cereals propagate themselves in abundance by the ripe ears whose super-abundance no one uses (cf. Schubert, Reise, III. s. 115, 166. Ritter, Erdkunde XVI. s. 283, 482, 693). Strabo (11, p. 502) makes a similar statement in regard to Albania, that the field which has been once sown bears, in many places, a double harvest, sometimes even three, the first one fiftyfold” (Keil on Lev_25:6). And the third year sow, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat their fruits. “The long series of imperatives makes a strong impression, especially in contrast with the indifference of the infin. absol. in the first hemistich” (Drechsler). This interpretation of the oracle is the only one which gives just force to אוֹת. The sign is not something which does not yet exist but is to come; it is something visible, physical, and present, which announces and gives a pledge of something invisible and future. The sense, therefore, is not: Ye shall from this time on, in the present year, eat the chance product of the uncultivated fields, and in the next, the fruit of the offshoots from the roots of the plants, and then, in the third, sow and reap—for that would not be a “sign”;—but the sense is: So certainly as ye have lived one year on the chance produce, and one year on after-growth, just so certainly shall ye sow and reap in the third year; that is to say: the land will be delivered from the Assyrians, and free for you to cultivate (cf. Hos_6:2). [Clearly this, when it should come to pass, would not be any “sign” that something, viz., the retreat of the Assyrians, should yet come to pass. In the nature of things the Assyrians must depart before the Jews would venture into the fields. We might as well say: The clouds shall be dispelled, and the sign of it shall be that the sun shall shine. The interpretation of the passage given above is correct, but the “sign” cannot be understood to mean that, when this thing should come to pass according to the prophecy, it should be a pledge that another thing, which the prophet had also foretold, should yet come to pass. It can only mean that when the Jews should once more find themselves at work in the fields, where they had not been for two years, this should be a sign, proof, and reminder to them that they had been delivered, by divine interposition, from a great national calamity. It is a sign which is of the nature of a symptom, or index.—W. G. S.] The interpretation which is given by many of the old expositors admits, on account of 2Ki_19:35, that the retreat of Sennacherib took place in the year in which the prophet delivered this oracle, but it takes the infinitive אָכוֹל as an imperative on account of the following imperatives, and then assumes that the “first” year, the one in which Sennacherib retreated, was a Sabbath-year, in which, under any circumstances, according to the Mosaic law, the people neither sowed nor reaped, but lived on the second, spontaneous growth (Lev_25:5), and that a Jubilee-year followed next after this, in which likewise there was no sowing or reaping (Lev_25:11), so that two harvests in succession were passed over. But the simple fact that אָכוֹל is an infinitive forbids us to take it as an imperative, and, even if we assume that the Sabbath-years and Jubilee-years were, at that time, regularly observed, yet there is no hint in Leviticus 25 that the Jubilee-year followed immediately after a Sabbath-year. But still farther, who can prove, since every hint of it is wanting in the text, that just at that time a Sabbath-year and a Jubilee-year followed successively? Others have, therefore, given up the Jubilee-year and have supposed that only the spontaneous product of the fields was eaten in the first year, because the country had been devastated by the Assyrians, but that the second year was a Sabbath-year. Yet even this cannot be accepted, for the intent of the “sign” is not that they, trusting in Jehovah, should for still another year have food to eat, although they did not sow or reap, but that Sennacherib should retreat, the land should be delivered from him, and that too at once, not after three years. We cannot, therefore, agree with Ewald (Proph. des Alt. Bundes, I. s. 299 sq.), whom Umbreit follows, when he says: “As, after the year in which, according to the Law, the ground lay fallow, yet another year was to be spent without raising crops, in order to restore the land to its original condition, a figure which evidently (?) floated before the mind of the prophet here, so he apprehended (?) that, in this far more important case, still a second year must pass without field-labor, in which they must eat the spontaneous product of the ground, until, after the extirpation of all that was unsound and corrupt in the State, a small company of purified men should commence, in the third year, a new and prosperous existence, and the messianic time should begin, taking its rise in Zion.” There is no reference to the Sabbath, or Jubilee, year in the entire passage, and no such reference can ever be established from the mere fact that סָפִיחַ occurs also in Lev_25:5; Lev_25:11. Neither can we agree that Drechsler’s explanation (s. 184) is “very simple.” According to him there was left in Judah at that time only a greatly diminished population, which could not at once undertake the cultivation of the fields, so that it was not until after three years that the regular cultivation of the soil was reëstablished. If there was only “a small remnant” of the population remaining, then they did not require much. They could cultivate enough soil to produce what they needed, and did not need to live on סָפִיחַ, much less on סָחִישׁ. These interpretations are all more or less forced, and they all fall to the ground as soon as we no longer insist upon taking the infin. absol. אָכוֹל as an imperfect or an imperative.
2Ki_19:30. And the remnant of the house of Judah that is left. Starting now from the reference to the growth of the crops, the prophet goes on to matters of higher importance, and takes up that which is the chief theme of his prophecies in all their diverse phases (Schmieder), viz., that God, although he inflicts fierce judgments upon His people for their apostasy, nevertheless will not allow them to perish utterly, but will preserve a remnant which has escaped or been delivered, “a holy seed,” and that from the midst of this the Messiah shall at last arise (Isa_7:3; Isa_10:20; Isa_4:2; Isa_6:13; cf. 1Ki_19:18). The repeated expressions פְּלֵיטָה ,נִשְׁאָרָה, and שְׁאֵרִית, in 2Ki_19:30-31, refer to this idea. The Assyrian invasion, like that of Ephraim and Syria (Isaiah 7; 2Ki_16:5), was a divine judgment upon Judah, but the prophet says that the nation shall not perish under it. A remnant (שְׁאֵרִית, 2Ki_19:31, refers back to הַשְּׁאֵרִית in Hezekiah’s prayer, 2Ki_19:4) shall still remain, and it shall add roots (יָסְפָה), that is, it shall go on to develop new roots, and shall win firmer hold (Thenius); cf. Isa_11:11; Isa_27:6.—For, from Jerusalem, &c., 2Ki_19:31, i.e., it is the determination of God, adopted of old, that from Jerusalem, which now is so much distressed and apparently lost, salvation and redemption shall go forth (Isa_2:3). Jerusalem and Mt. Zion form the centre of the theocracy, or kingdom of God. “The Assyrian chastisement will, therefore, be a purification of the nation. It will not result in its destruction. That judgment was, therefore, a prototype of all the others which befell the kingdom of God in later times, out of which the election of grace is developed (Rom_11:5) in more and more glorious form (Von Gerlach). The only ground for what is said in 2Ki_19:29-31 is the zeal of Jehovah, i.e., His zealous and faithful love to His people (Zec_1:14). The same concluding words follow the oracle, Isa_9:1-6, and they show that the passage before us is also, at least indirectly, messianic.—Therefore, thus saith the Eternal. לָכֵן gathers up the substance of all which precedes. The first of the four members of the verse, He shall not come, contains the principal idea. The three others “are nothing but a development of this one, intended to surround it here, at the close, with all possible emphasis” (Drechsler). At the same time they form a climax: So far from coming into the city, he shall not even discharge his missiles against it, or form an assault against it, or even build up a wall to besiege it. קָדַם in the piel means to advance. “The reference is to an assault with shields held out in front” (Thenius). Cf. Psa_18:5; Psa_18:18; Psa_59:10. Instead of יָבֹא בָּהּ, in 2Ki_19:33, we find in Isa_37:34 : בָּא בָּהּ, which is unquestionably the correct reading. All the old translations here present the perfect. The other reading seems to have arisen from the second יָבֹא. That which has been already said in 2Ki_19:28; 2Ki_19:32 is here repeated in order to emphasize the promise.—For mine own sake, “as Hezekiah had prayed, 2Ki_19:20, and for the sake of David, my servant, i.e., for the sake of the promise given to David, 2 Samuel 7.” (Drechsler), cf. 1Ki_11:13; 1Ki_15:4.
2Ki_19:35. And it came to pass that night. According to Thenius, 2Ki_19:35-37 are “evidently borrowed from a different source from that of 18:13–19. 34, and 20:1–19.” In the original document of 2Ki_19:35-37 he thinks that the words: “It came to pass in that night,” referred to something which had been narrated immediately before and which is not mentioned here. Delitsch also believes that there is a gap between 2Ki_19:34-35, for, according to 2Ki_19:29, there was to be yet a full year of distress between the prophecy and the fulfilment, during which agriculture would be neglected.” This consideration loses its force under our interpretation of 2Ki_19:29. The narrator undoubtedly means to say in 2Ki_19:35-37 that the prophecy which reaches its climax in 2Ki_19:32-34, was fulfilled at once, and not after the lapse of years. This point was of especial importance to him, and we have no reason to interpret 2Ki_19:35-37 according to 2Ki_19:29; rather, on the contrary, 2Ki_19:29 according to 2Ki_19:35-37. Further, when we consider that both narratives [the one here and that in Isaiah] were constructed independently of one another from the same source (see the Prelim. Remarks), and that in both, 2Ki_19:35-37 follow immediately upon 2Ki_19:34, we must infer that the same was the case also in their common source. There is, therefore, no room to assume the existence of another source in which that was supplied which is here supposed to be left out.—The words: וַיְהִי בַלַּיְלָה הַהוּא are generally understood in the sense of ea ipsa nocte, i.e., in the night following the day on which Isaiah foretold the retreat of the Assyrians. On the contrary Delitsch thinks that “it can only mean (if, indeed, it is not a mere careless interpolation), illa nocte, referring to 2Ki_19:32 sq., (i.e., the night in which the Assyrians sat down to besiege Jerusalem).” The Rabbis (Guemara Sanhedr. iii. 26), and Josephus (κατὰ τὴν πρώτην τῆς πολιορκίας νύκτα) thus understood it. But the text does not anywhere say or imply that Sennacherib had advanced with his whole army from Libnah to Jerusalem, and that he stood before it ready to besiege it. [This is true, but does not meet Delitsch’s hypothesis, which is that a year is to elapse before the Assyrian would commence the formal siege of Jerusalem, and that “that night” refers to the first night of this siege. Such an hypothesis removes the difficulty, but does not seem to be a natural interpretation of the words.—W. G. S.] The Vulg. translates: Factum est igitur, in nocte illa venit angelus. Menochius takes this to be emphatic for: in celebri illa nocte, viz., in the one in which the destruction of the Assyrian army took place. It is very noticeable that the words in question are wanting in the narrative in Isaiah, although that account is in other respects here identical with the one in Kings, and that 2Ki_19:36 there begins with וַיֵּצֵא. Also the Sept. version of the verse before us omits הַהוּא and reads simply: καὶ ἐγένετο νυκτός. Now, although the statement is no thoughtless interpolation, and still less, as Knobel thinks, “manufactured” out of Isa_17:14, yet it would never have been passed over in Isaiah’s narrative, if it had been essential, or if the chief emphasis lay upon it. The interpretation ea ipsa nocte does not, therefore, seem to be absolutely necessary. The main point is, what is common to both narratives, that there was no delay in the fulfilment of the prophecy. It was not years—for instance, three years—before it was fulfilled.—The angel of the Lord “is the same one who, as הַמַּשְׁחִית, smote the first-born in Egypt (Exo_12:29 compared with 2Ki_19:12-13), and who inflicted the pestilence after the census under David (2Sa_24:15 sq.). The latter passage suggests that the slaughter of the Assyrians was accomplished by a pestilence” (Keil). Josephus (Antiq. x. 1, 5,) declares outright: τοῦ θεοῦ λοιμικὴν ἐνσκήψαντος αὐτοῦ τῷ στρατῷ νόσον. The interpretations which assume that there was a battle with Tirhaka, or an earthquake with lightning, or a poisonous simoom, are all untenable. The greatly abbreviated account in Chronicles states, instead of giving the definite number of the slain (185,000), that the angel “cut off all the mighty men of valor and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria” (2Ch_32:21). This does not mean that “only” those persons were killed (Thenius), but that even these, the real supporters and the flower of the Assyrian power, fell. In the camp. We are not told where this was at that time. It is most natural to suppose that it was where Rab-shakeh found it on his return, viz., before Libnah (2Ki_19:8), whither Sennacherib had retreated from Lachish. It was not, therefore, as has been said, before Jerusalem; neither was it in “the pestilential country of Egypt” (Thenius), for Sennacherib sent the letter to Hezekiah, not from there, but from Libnah (2Ki_19:8-10).—And when they arose early in the morning, &c. The word בַּבֹּקֶר, which occurs also in Isa_37:36, presupposes the previous reference to “that night,” which is not there mentioned. Those who were spared, whose number cannot have been large, arose as usual early in the morning and found corpses everywhere. “If מֵתִים is regarded as an attribute it is very flat and superfluous, but as an apposition it gives emphasis” (Drechsler). It was a cause of great trouble to the old expositors that Sennacherib was not among the slain. It is not necessary to suppose that he chanced just then to be outside the camp. Death of a still harder kind was destined to befall him (see verse 7), but the arrogant man was first to suffer the humiliation that his entire force in which he trusted was to be destroyed, and he was to march home in shame and disgrace (2Ki_19:21). “The heaping up of the verbs: he departed, and went, and returned, expresses the hastiness of his retreat” (Keil). This retreat cannot, therefore, have been delayed until the third year after Isaiah’s prophecy, any more than the pestilence which occasioned it. Sennacherib dwelt in Nineveh. “The object of these words is to emphasize the fact that he did not, from this time forward, undertake any assault upon Judah” (Drechsler). On Nineveh, the capital and residence of the kings of Assyria, see Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s, 158 sq. Nisroch is probably the name of the chief Assyrian divinity, which is represented on the Assyrian monuments in human form with double wings and an eagle’s head. See Keil on the place and Müller in Herzog’s Realencyc. X. s. 383. [The rank of Nisroch in the pantheon is not yet determined. He was also called Shalman. He was “king of fluids.” He “presided over the course of human destiny.” Hence marriages were placed under his care (Lenormant).] Adrammelech is the name of a divinity. [See the bracketed note on 2Ki_17:31.] It was a very wide-spread custom that princes bore the names of divinities (Gesenius on Isa_7:6). Sharezer is probably also the name of a divinity. It is said to mean “Prince of Fire.” [His full name was Asshur-sarossor = “Asshur protects the king.”] The murder of Sennacherib by his sons is mentioned in Tobias 1:21, and also by Berosus, who, however, only mentions one son (Euseb. Chron. Armen. i. p. 43). The land of Ararat is, according to Jerome on Isaiah 37.: Regio in Armenia campestris per quam Araxes fluit. It forms, according to Moses of Chorene, the middle portion of the Armenian high land. Esar-haddon, Ezr_4:2, called by Josephus ’Ασσαραχόδδας, is mentioned by Berosus also as the successor of Sennacherib. The questions whether he ruled during his father’s life-time as viceroy of Babylon, and whether Nergilus reigned before him, do not here demand our attention. See Niebuhr, Geschichte Assyr. s. 361. It is not by any means free from doubt that Sennacherib lived nine years after his retreat before his assassination, as the Assyrian inscriptions are asserted to show. “Accordingly, when Hitzig declares that the mention of Sennacherib’s assassination bears witness against Isaiah’s authorship of this historical passage, he has at least no ground in the chronology for this assertion, for it is more than possible, it is very probable, that Isaiah lived into the reign of Manasseh” (Delitsch). [See the Supplem. Note at the end of this section.]
Appendix.—It remains still to consider the oft-debated question, whether and when the expedition of Sennacherib against Egypt took place. It is certain according to 2Ki_19:24 that Sennacherib had the intention of marching against Egypt. It is not, however, asserted, in the biblical documents at least, that he ever carried out this intention. On the contrary, Herodotus gives (II. 141) the account which he received from the Egyptian priests, that Sennacherib advanced against Egypt as far as Pelusium, in the days of the Tanitic king Sethon, a priest of Vulcan. (Pelusium is the סִין of Eze_30:15. “It lay at the mouth of the eastern branch of the Nile, twenty stadia from the Mediterranean, in the midst of marshes and morasses. Partly on account of this position and partly on account of its strong walls, it was the key to Egypt, of which every invading army which came from the East must seek to get possession. All the conquerors who invaded Egypt from this side stopped at Pelusium and besieged it.” Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 469.) They added that, at the prayer of this priest to the God for deliverance out of danger, field-mice (μῦς ἀρουραίους) came by night and gnawed the quivers, the bows, and the straps of the shields, so that the army whose weapons had thus been made useless, was obliged to flee, and many fell; and that, on this account, there was, in the temple of Vulcan, a. stone image of this priest-king, having in the hand a mouse, and bearing the inscription: ἐς ἐμέ τις ὁρεῶν εὐσεβὴς ἔστω. Josephus (Antiq. 10:1, 1–5), referring expressly to Herodotus, narrates that Sennacherib undertook an expedition against Egypt and Ethiopia, but that διαμαρτὼν τῆς ἐπὶ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἐπιβουλῆς, he returned leaving his object unaccomplished, because the siege of Pelusium had cost him a great deal of time, and because he had heard that the king of Ethiopia was advancing with a very strong army to the relief of the Egyptians. Furthermore, Josephus adds that the Chaldean historian Berosus also states that Sennacherib πάσῃ ἐπεστρατεύσατο τῆ ’Ασίᾳ καὶ τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ. It can hardly be doubted, therefore, that though the Assyrian army did not dry up the rivers of Egypt (2Ki_19:24), yet it advanced to the frontier. But now we come to the far more difficult question, at what point of time did this take place? The least probable reply is that it fell between 2Ki_19:34-35 (Sanctius, Knobel), and that the historian gives no account of it after 2Ki_19:34, because it did not affect Judah, but simply mentions the destruction of the army in 2Ki_19:35-36 without mentioning whether it took place in Judah or in Egypt. But it is incredible that Sennacherib, for whom it was of the utmost importance (2Ki_18:17 sq.; 19:9, sq.) to get possession of Jerusalem, should have given up the effort to capture it without putting any of his threats into execution, and should have marched on against Egypt, leaving in his rear this city which was favorably disposed towards his enemies (2Ki_18:21). His backward movement from Lachish to Libnah (2Ki_19:8) shows that he was no longer pursuing his advance against Egypt. Ewald (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 630 sq.) proposes another hypothesis. He sets the expedition against Egypt before all which is narrated from 18:13 on. He suggests that Sennacherib marched into Egypt, by the ordinary way, by Pelusium; that he was there arrested and turned back by some extraordinary calamity to which Herodotus’ story refers; that he then fell upon Judah with a greatly superior power, and that at this point in the course of events 18:13–19:37 comes in. But this hypothesis also is untenable, for, according to it, עלה in 2Ki_18:13 must refer to a march of Sennacherib “from South to North,” from Egypt towards Judah; but it cannot have any different meaning in 2Ki_19:13 from what it has in 2Ki_19:9, and there it is used of a march from Assyria to Judah, that is, from North to South. It is used in the same way in 2Ki_16:7 in regard to Tiglath Pileser’s expedition, and in 2Ki_17:3; 2Ki_17:5 in regard to Shalmaneser’s. Moreover, it would be very astonishing, if the biblical narrative did not mention the march against Egypt with a single word, but only mentioned the retreat from there; for Sennacherib must have gone through Judah in order to reach Egypt, and Judah was hostile to him and friendly to Egypt. If, however, 2Ki_19:13 is to be understood as referring to the advance of the army, then 2Ki_19:14-16 must refer to the same and not to the retreat. Finally, Josephus proposes a third hypothesis. According to him, Sennacherib devastated Judah, but on the receipt of gifts from Hezekiah, withdrew, and advanced with his whole army against Egypt. Contrary to his agreement, under which the tribute was paid, he left Rab-shakeh and Tartan behind (κατέλιβε) that they might destroy Jerusalem. When, however, he found, after a long siege, that he could not take Pelusium, and when he heard of Tirhakah’s advance, he suddenly decided to return to Assyria; ὑποστρέψας δ’ ὁ Σεναχήριβος ἀπὸ τοῦ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων πολέμου εἰς τὰ ’Ιεροσόλυμα κατέλαβεν ἐκεῖ τὴν ὑπὸ τῷ στρατηγῷ ‘Ραψάκῃ δύναμιν· τοῦ Θεοῦ λοιμικὴν ἐνσκήψαντος αὐτοῦ τῷ στρατῷ νόσον, κατὰ τὴν πρώτην τῆς πολιορκίας νύκτα, διαφθείρονται μυριάδες ὀκτωκαίδεκα καὶ πεντακισχίλιοι .... δείσας περὶ τῷ στρατῷ παντὶ φεύγει μετὰ τῆς λοιπῆς δυνάμεως εἰς τὴν αὐτοῦ βασιλείαν εἰς τὴν Νίνου. There is but slight objection to this hypothesis. On the whole it is the most probable of all. Hezekiah became king in the year 727 b.c. In his fourteenth year (2Ki_18:13) Sennacherib made this expedition, and sought to get possession of all the fortified towns in Judah. This was in the year 714. In 713 he marched against Egypt, leaving Rab-shakeh in Judah. In 712 he was once more before Lachish and Libnah, and, after his overthrow by the pestilence, he retreated to Assyria. This accords with 2Ki_19:29, according to our interpretation of it. On the contrary, according to 2Ki_19:7-9, Sennacherib, appears to have heard of Tirhakah’s advance, not when he was before Pelusium, but when he was once more before Libnah. That he boasted as he does in 2Ki_19:23-24, even after his retreat from Egypt, is not astonishing in the case of such a haughty king. Possibly he had drained off or dried up a few swamps in the neighborhood of Pelusium. There can be no more truth in Herodotus’ story which he obtained from the priests than possibly this, that Sennacherib besieged Pelusium, but returned without having taken it. The rest, of course, is purely mythical. A mouse was the hieroglyph for devastation and destruction (Horapoll. Hierogl. i. 50); the inhabitants of Troas worshipped mice, ὅτι τὰς νευρὰς τῶν πολεμίων διέτραγον τόξων; also, the symbol of Mars was a mouse (Bähr, Herodot. Mus. i. p. 641). It may well be that Sennacherib was impelled by some natural occurrence to desist from the siege of Pelusium and to turn back, and this may have occasioned the story about the mice. If there had not been some event of the kind, he certainly would have advanced further than the frontier. The army cannot, however, have been rendered destitute of weapons (γυμνοὶ ὅπλων) at Pelusium, or it could not have carried on war in Judah on its return. According to all this it can hardly be doubted that it is one and the same expedition of Sennacherib which is mentioned by Herodotus and by the Scriptures, nevertheless the further supposition which is commonly adopted, that the event mentioned in 2Ki_19:35 is the same one which Herodotus narrates, though under a mythical form (Bähr, l. c. p. 881), does not seem to us to be correct. That event took place in Judah, this one before Pelusium, and it is very improbable that the Egyptian priests should have made a myth out of an event which took place in another country, and did not immediately affect them, and should have commemorated it by a statue. We cannot determine definitely what the event was which occurred before Pelusium, but we must assume that it was a very striking and important one which influenced the haughty king to give up his plan and return to Assyria. In like manner, when he stood in Judah once more with his army of 185,000 men, and there assumed such a haughty bearing, some weighty incident must have occurred which determined him to hasten his flight.
[There is no reasonable ground for finding two distinct events in these two accounts, and without reasonable ground we cannot assume that two distinct calamities befell Sennacherib which were of such a character that they were regarded as divine interpositions. Pelusium was on the frontier, and it is not at all remarkable that an event which happened there, or even at Libnah, immediately after Sennacherib had retreated from Pelusium, should figure in the history of both Judah and Egypt. Neither is it astonishing that the traditional account of the event should wear a mythical color; on the contrary, such events always take on mythical features. The biblical account is more original and direct, and is older than that of Herodotus, but it certainly refers to the same event.—W. G. S.]
However the fact may be in regard to this point, the story of Herodotus, which, as Delitsch says, “depends upon a hearsay tradition of lower Egypt,” and which therefore appears as “a suspicious imitation of the biblical story,” cannot be put on the same footing with the scriptural account, much less be used to correct it.
—
[Supplementary Note on the references to contemporaneous history in chaps. 18 and 19 (See similar notes on the preceding chapters.) In the note on chap. 17 we gave a summary of the Assyrian history, so far as it bears upon the history of the Northern Kingdom, especially upon the recolonization of Samaria by Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. This led us to notice some of the conquests of those kings, and so to observe the nationalities of the new population. We have now to go over the same reigns so far as they bear upon the history of Judah. Here also the Assyrian inscriptions offer us invaluable information for enlarging and correcting our knowledge of the biblical history.
It might at first seem strange that the historical books of the Bible contain no mention of Sargon. We find that he was really king of Assyria when Samaria fell; that he subdued a revolt in Samaria a few years later; that he was the king who introduced a large part of the new population into Samaria; that he conducted two very important campaigns in Philistia, in both of which he came into conflict with Egypt, and in one of which he won the battle of Raphia, one of the great battles of Assyrian history. It is impossible that this all should have come to pass without exciting the attention and interest of the inhabitants of Judah. The author of the Book of Kings seems, however, to have so construed his task, that he did not consider himself called upon to notice campaigns of the Assyrians which never actually touched, or directly threatened, Judah. Isaiah (chap. 20) mentions Sargon and his attack upon Ashdod rather in the way of a chronological date; but his reference shows that this expedition of the Assyrian king (or of his Tartan, commander-in-chief) formed an important event, and fixed a date for the Jews. Sargon was assassinated (it is not known by whom), in August, 704.
Sennacherib, son of Sargon, succeeded. We now possess very full accounts of his reign. These Assyrian statements and the biblical narrative of the conflict of Hezekiah and Sennacherib are in full accord so far as they go; but in the attempt to harmonize the details we meet with some difficulty, not from their inconsistency, but from their defectiveness. Lenormant and Rawlinson do not agree in their accounts of this section of the history. Rawlinson thinks that Sargon made or sent two separate expeditions into Judah; Lenormant thinks that the whole story belongs to one campaign. The chief argument against the theory of two separate campaigns is that only one is mentioned in the inscription, although, according to the usage of the inscriptions, the campaigns are always catalogued in their consecutive order, so that, if there was one against Judah, then one against Babylon, and then another against Judah, we should expect them to be so catalogued. Rawlinson’s account makes a very clear and satisfactory narrative (see “Five Great Monarchies” II. 431–443 2d Ed. 161–168), but the usage of the inscriptions is so constant that we seem compelled to follow the theory of one campaign.
On the death of Sargon (704), Hezekiah revolted (18:7) together with the kings of Phœnicia, Philistia, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. They had also sympathy and encouragement from Shabatok (Sabacon II., the Sethos of Herodotus, son of Sabacon I., the So of the Bible), king of Egypt. It was not until Sennacherib’s third year that he turned his attention to this revolt. An inscription on a cylinder in the British Museum reads thus:
“In my third campaign I marched towards Syria.” He swept down through Phœnicia and Philistia, crushing all opposition. “The rulers … of Ekron” (Lenormant reads Migron, cf. Isaia. 10:28) “had betrayed the king, Padi, who was inspired by friendship and zeal for Assyria, and had given him up bound in chains of iron to Hezekiah of Judah.” The Egyptians came against Sennacherib and a battle ensued near Eltekon (Jos_15:59), in which the Assyrians won a great victory which ranked with that of Raphia in their annals. Sennacherib then took Ekron. He executed vengeance on the anti-Assyrian party. “I brought Padi, their king, out of Jerusalem, and restored him to the throne of his royalty.” (This is the point at which the biblical narrative begins. The statement “in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah” (18:13) has thus far proved irreconcilable with the inscriptions. It was the year 700. Rawlinson proposes to read “twenty-seventh” for “fourteenth.”) “But Hezekiah, king of Judah, did not submit. There were forty-four walled towns and an infinite number of villages that I fought against, humbling their pride and braving their anger. By means of battles, fire, massacre, and siege operations, I took them. I occupied them. I brought out 200,150 persons, great and small, men and women, horses, asses, mules, camels, oxen, and sheep without number, and carried them off as booty. As for himself I shut him up in Jerusalem, the city of his power, like a bird in its cage. I invested and blockaded the fortresses round about it. Those who came out of the great gate of the city were seized and made prisoners. I separated the cities I had plundered from his country, and gave them to Mitenti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, to Ishmabaal, king of Gaza.
“Then the fear of my majesty terrified this Hezekiah king of Judah. He sent away the watchmen and guards whom he had assembled for the defence of Jerusalem. He sent messengers to me at Nineveh, the seat of my sovereignty, with 30 talents of gold and 400 (300?) talents of silver, metals, rubies, pearls, great carbuncles, seats covered with skins, thrones ornamented with leather, amber, seal skins, sandal wood, and ebony, the contents of his treasury, as well as his daughters, the women of his palace, his male and female slaves. He sent an ambassador to present this tribute and to make his submission” (Lenormant).
Thus the inscription omits all mention of the disaster which befell the Assyrians in this campaign, and which the Jewish and Egyptian traditions concur in affirming. There is no mention of the siege of Lachish, although that siege is represented on a bas-relief in the British Museum (Lenormant). This want of candor is not very astonishing, but it serves to show us that the account in the inscription lays stress upon the flattering circumstances and slurs over the disasters of the campaign.
Now let us interweave this with the biblical story. 2Ki_18:13 is a parallel description of Sennacherib’s devastations in the open country. The idea of the character of the campaign which we get from this verse is exactly that which the inscription offers in detail. Hezekiah was shut up in Jerusalem, and the enemy ravaged the country and destroyed the small towns at will. Hezekiah sent to sue for peace. He met with certain demands and he sent certain offerings. Yet in 2Ki_18:17 we find, when we expect to hear of peace, that an army was sent against him. The only explanation which suggests itself is that the offerings which he sent did not satisfy the Assyrian demand. Probably Sennacherib did not desire to make peace with Judah, but to get possession of Jerusalem, which he dared not leave behind him when he advanced into Egypt. Hezekiȧh desired to create the impression, by tearing off the decorations of the temple, that his resources were exhausted, though we find that he was able to make a boastful display of his treasures to the Babylonians, a year afterwards. Perhaps he did not send the full amount demanded by the Assyrian, pleading inability, and sending these decorations stripped from the temple as a proof that he had no further treasures. This gave Sennacherib an excuse for persisting in hostility. Rawlinson is led by this difficulty to suppose that Hezekiah paid the full amount demanded, and secured a respite. Three years later (698) Sennacherib came again, besieged Lachish, and sent the three great officers. Then there would be a gap of three years between 2Ki_18:16-17. “With our present information it is impossible to decide definitely between these theories. During the siege of Lachish, whether it was in the campaign referred to in 2Ki_18:13-16 or in a later one, Sennacherib sent a detachment of his army to besiege Jerusalem, or rather, if possible, to secure its surrender, for it was of the highest importance for him to finish the reduction of the few strongholds which still held out in Judah and Philistia, so that he might push on against Egypt, before that nation recovered from the blow which he had already inflicted. Hence the parley of the three chief-men on each side. Encouraged by Isaiah, Hezekiah sent a refusal. On the return of the three Assyrians they found that Sennacherib was besieging Libnah, having taken Lachish. (Bähr, in the text of the Comm. above, assumes that Sennacherib had suffered a check at Lachish. The only ground for this is the belief that Libnah was north of Lachish, so that going from the latter to the former was a “retreat.” The situation of Libnah, however, is so very uncertain, that this assumption rests on a slender support. There is no hint of any disaster to Sennacherib in this campaign until the great one recorded in 2Ki_18:35 sq. This seems to have interrupted him in the full tide of success.) The success which he had won, and the news that Tirhakah was coming with a new force of Egyptians, made Sennacherib more impatient than ever to finish the conquest of Jerusalem and Libnah. Tirhakah is called king of Ethiopia. The dynasty to which he belonged (the XXVth) was a dynasty of Ethiopians. He was the son of Sabacon II. mentioned above, and grandson of Sabacon I., called in the Bible, So. He seems to have been, at this time, crown-prince (Lenormant). He raised a new army to try to retrieve the disaster of Eltekon. Under these circumstances Sennacherib sent messengers once more to Hezekiah to demand a surrender, warning him to make terms while he could, and not to incur the total destruction which had befallen those who stubbornly resisted the Assyrian power. This was again refused, and soon after the great calamity fell upon the Assyrians which forced them to retreat without coming to blows with Tirhakah. Hence the story of this disaster was preserved both in Jewish and Egyptian annals, each nation ascribing it, as a great national deliverance, to its own God.
It will be seen that this gives a simple and clear explanation of many points which, in the above section of the Commentary, remain obscure. The question in regard to Sennacherib’s invasion of Egypt is entirely solved, and it is not necessary to show in detail how much of the author’s discussion of this question in the above Appendix, which was founded upon less perfect information than we now possess, is wide of the mark.
Sennacherib was assassinated in 680 by his sons Adrammelech and Asshursarossor. Another son, Esarhaddon (Asshurakhidin [Asshur has given brothers]), had for a few years been viceroy in Babylon. He returned with hostile intentions against the assassins, who fled into Armenia. Esarhaddon was recognized throughout the Empire.—W. G. S.]
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. King Hezekiah stands in the front rank of Israelitish kings. The general characterization which precedes the history of his reign gives him a testimonial such as no other king had received up to that time, especially in reference to that which was the main point for the history of redemption, namely, his bearing towards Jehovah and His Law. In the panegyric of the holy fathers, Sirach 44-49, he is placed in the same rank with David and Josiah (Sir_49:5 : “All the kings except David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, were guilty”). Not one down to this time had reproduced the model theocratic king, David, as he did. He was, as Ewald justly says (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 621), “one of the noblest princes who ever adorned David’s throne. His reign of 29 years offers an almost unmarred picture of persevering warfare against the most intricate and most difficult circumstances, and of glorious victory. He was very noble, not unwarlike or wanting in courage (2Ki_20:20), yet by choice more devoted to the arts of peace” (2Ch_32:27-29; Pro_25:1). Von Gerlach, on the contrary, characterizes him often and in general as a “weak and dependent man,” but this is in contradiction with his very significant name (see notes on 18:1), and still more with the testimony in 18:3–8, and cannot, moreover, as will be seen, be brought into accord with the story of the separate acts of his life. “How wonderful it was that the most godless king of Judah had the most excellent son. An Hezekiah followed an Ahaz” (Schlier). The Scriptures give no explanation of this. It is a mere guess when it is hinted that Hezekiah’s mother may have influenced him, for we learn nothing more of her than just her name and that of her father. It is also a mere guess that she was “the granddaughter of Zachariah, who, under Uzziah, had such a good influence” (2Ch_26:5) (Schlier). It is equally unsatisfactory when Köster says (die Propheten des A. T. s. 106): “Hezekiah was the opposite of his unbelieving father Ahaz; the difference is explicable from the fact that they had lived through the destruction of Ephraim, and that that event had had a mighty influence on both the king and the people of Judah.” It is certain that Hezekiah did not wait until after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel before he began his reformation of the worship, but that he commenced it immediately after his accession to the throne. The notion of the rabbis, that he had Isaiah for his tutor and guide, as the high-priest Jehoiada was the tutor of Joash, seems more probable, but, not to mention the complete silence of the text in regard to this, it does not follow from Sir_48:25, and it is very improbable in itself, that Ahaz, who never himself listened to Isaiah, should nevertheless have entrusted him with the education of his son and successor. All these and similar grounds do not suffice to account for such a sudden and complete change of policy on the throne; rather we must recognize here, if anywhere, a dispensation of Divine Providence. Just now, when Ahaz had brought the kingdom to the verge of ruin, when the kingdom of Israel was near its fall, and little Judah alone still represented the Hebrew nationality, this Judah was, according to the decree of God, to take a new start, and to receive a king on the model of David, who should be a true and genuine theocratic king, and bring the true character and destiny of the nation home to the consciences of the people. Hezekiah was for Judah a gift of the Lord. In a true sense he was king by the grace of God of whom the saying held good: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Pro_21:1). Therefore his whole life is somewhat typical. It shows more than that of almost any other king that God’s ways are pure goodness and truth to those who keep his covenant and his testimony (Psa_25:10).
2. The first thing that Hezekiah did after his accession to the throne was to abolish the idolatry which Ahaz had introduced, and to restore the legal worship of Jehovah. The history expressly states how far he went in this effort. He not only destroyed the heathen idols, but also put an end to the Jehovah-worship on the high places, which even Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah had permitted to continue, and had not ventured to assail (1Ki_3:2; 1Ki_15:12; 1Ki_15:14; 1Ki_22:44; 2Ki_12:4; 2Ki_14:4; 2Ki_15:4; 2Ki_15:35). He returned to the original ordinances of the Mosaic Law, which prescribed not only one central sanctuary, but also one central worship (Lev_17:8-9; Deu_12:13 sq.). Hezekiah was, therefore, the restorer of that central worship which was so important and indispensable for the unity of the people and kingdom (see 1Ki_12:1-24, Hist. § 1). His reign, for this reason, forms an epoch in the history of Israel. It is moreover specifically stated that he destroyed even the brazen serpent, which was of purely Israelitish origin, and to which there clung such important memories and associations for the people. This he did not do from puritanical zeal such as the later Judaism displayed (see 1 Kings 7 Hist. § 3), but because this σύμβολον σωτηρίας, as it is called, Wis_16:6, had been perverted by the people into an εἴδωλον, whereas once every one who turned to it, οὐ διὰ τὸ θεωρούμενον ἐσώζετο, ἀλλὰ διὰ σὲ τὸν πάντων σωτῆρα. To offer incense to this image was not only contrary to the Law (Exo_25:5; Deu_5:8-9), but also it was senseless, because thereby the very thing through which Jehovah, by His own might and power, intended to grant salvation, was regarded as holy, and adored as divine. If there was anything which was contrary and hostile to the worship of the Holy One in Israel, then it was the worship of this image; therefore Hezekiah destroyed it as ruthlessly as he did all the other images. If we add to this all that is said in Chronicles about the restoration of the levitical worship by Hezekiah, then it is clear that no king of Israel since David had been filled, as he was, with zeal for the divinely-given fundamental Law. If we consider further that he ascended the throne in a time of deep decay, at a time when the temple of Jehovah was closed (2Ch_29:3; 2Ch_29:7), and Judah was filled with all the abominations of heathenism, when disgraceful apostasy was widely spread among the great and mighty of the kingdom, then this king cannot certainly be called “a weak and dependent man.” To carry out such a reformation under the most unfavorable circumstances, is not the work of a weak man; on the contrary, it presupposes courageous faith, and extraordinary energy.
3. The oppression of Judah by the Assyrians, and its deliverance from the same, is one of the greatest and most important events of the Old Testament history of redemption, as we may infer from the fact that it is narrated with such careful detail, and that we have no less than three accounts of it. How deep an impression the event made upon the mind of the people, and what great significance was ascribed to it, is shown by its express mention in the late apocryphal books, in Jesus Sir_48:18-21, in the books of Maccabees I. 7:41; II. 8:19; III. 6:5, and in the book of Tobias 1:21 (of the Latin; 1:18, of the Greek, text). It is also generally admitted that the noble Psalms 46 refers to this event, if not also Psalms 75, 76 (Sept. ᾠδὴ πρὸς τὸν ’Ασσύριον). Assyria stood at the summit of its power under Sennacherib; it had become a world-monarchy. Besides the nations of Eastern [Central] Asia, it had subjugated Phœnicia and Syria, and overthrown the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. It was just ready to extend still farther and to subjugate Egypt. Having invaded Judah, which was already tributary, the conqueror had already devastated the country and captured the strongholds. Only Jerusalem yet remained. Now he threatened this last stronghold of the once prosperous kingdom. With arrogant and threatening words, scoffing at the God of Israel, he demanded a surrender of the city which was already hard pressed on every side, and spoke of carrying off its inhabitants into captivity. The greatest power on earth stood in hostility to the little kingdom of Judah, which was reduced to two small tribes, and rendered powerless by misgovernment. Its destruction seemed to be inevitable. But just at this point the power which had hitherto been resistless was broken, and it remained broken. This world-monarchy now commenced to decline. [This is a mistake. The next half century (700–650) includes the height of the Assyrian power.—W. G. S.] A change took place in the affairs of Judah which secured it yet a century and a half of existence. This change in its affairs it owed, not to its own strength or courage, not to a great army which came to its help, not to any human power, but only to its Lord and God, who said to the roaring sea: “So far and no farther, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed!” The great and invincible army perished without a battle or a stroke of the sword, as the Lord had foretold by His prophet (Isa_31:8). In a single night Judah was delivered out of the hand of its mighty enemy. “With the downfall of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes a new epoch had begun for Judah. It was, from this time on, to represent alone the ancient covenant people. The great act of divine deliverance which is here recorded stands at the commencement of this new era, as a new covenant-sign, and pledge of the election of Israel, but at the same time also as a loud call to faithfulness. This was the significance of an event which had had no parallel since the deliverance from Egypt. It is, therefore, put parallel with that great event which was the type of all national deliverances (see notes on 17:7, and Exeg. on 1Ki_12:28). In subsequent times of peril it was mentioned together with the deliverance from Egypt, as a ground of prayer for divine aid (see the places quoted from the books of Maccabees). As there was there, so there is here, an arrogant enemy, who obstinately resists the God of Israel, who oppresses Jehovah’s people so that they cry to him. “As Moses there promised protection and deliverance, and said: ‘These Egyptians whom ye see to-day shall ye see no more forever,’ so Isaiah here promises help: ‘Fear not! for the Lord will guard this city. He shall not come into it, but shall return by the way by which he came;’ as there, ‘Moses stretched out his hand over the sea and the sea returned at the dawning of the morning’ (Exo_14:27), so here, ‘When they arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead, corpses’: Isa_37:36” (Von Gerlach on Psa_46:6); as there the angel of the Lord smote at midnight all the first-born in Egypt, and rose up against the oppressor, so that he sank in the sea with his chariots, his horses, and his horsemen (Exo_12:29; Exo_14:19; Exo_14:28), so he here smote the Assyrian army by night so that Sennacherib “arose, departed, and went” (excessit, evasit, erupit. Cic. 2 Cat. at the beginning). Ewald justly says: “One of those rare days had come again when the truth which no hands could grasp, forced itself home to the conscience and conviction of the people.… Nay, indeed, in the preceding long and weary distress and trial, as well as in the sudden deliverance, and in the convergence of all these things to enforce faith in the only true help, this time has a certain resemblance to the time of the foundation of the nation, just as, throughout all these centuries, few souls attained so nearly to the height of Moses as did Isaiah.” What a deep impression the event made upon the neighboring peoples is shown by the words of Chronicles, where the history of it closes with the words: “And many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from thenceforth” (2Ch_32:23). So that came to pass which Hezekiah had prayed for in his prayer for God’s help, 2Ki_19:19.
4. The prophet Isaiah stands first and foremost among those who appear either speaking or acting in the foregoing history. He is the central figure of the story, so that it appears also in the book of his prophecies. All that constitutes the peculiarity of the Jewish institution of prophets, and its high significance in the history of redemption, by virtue of which it stands independent of, and even above, the priestly office and the throne, presents itself to us here in one person as it does not in any other case either earlier or later. Not only as a “human counsellor in difficult political transactions” (Köster, Die Propheten, s. 106), as the king’s privy-councillor, but as the servant and minister of Jehovah, the God of Israel, Who, through him, makes known His will and His decrees, and guides the fortunes of His people, and as the messenger and intermediary of the divine dispensations, Isaiah stands before us. He fulfils his mission most completely. Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah were in peril such as had never before befallen them since they had existed. No one was prepared with advice or counsel. Anxiety, terror, and despair controlled all. In the midst of all this Isaiah stood firm and unshaken as a rock in the sea. With calmness and even joy, such as only a servant of Jehovah, who is conscious that he stands before his Lord, can feel (1Ki_17:1; 1Ki_18:15), he proclaims, in the name of his Master, deliverance to the covenant people, and destruction to the blasphemous foe, and as he says so it comes to pass. Where in the history of the ancient world is there anything at all resembling this? The oracle, 2Ki_18:21-34, belongs to the grandest which have been preserved, and is in the front rank even of those of Isaiah. All the things which we find to admire in the discourses of this prophet are here united. The language is clear and unambiguous, it is concise and rich, powerful and stirring, sharp in censure as well as consoling and encouraging. At the same time it is, in form and expression, poetical and rhetorical. The religious feeling on which it rests is the distinctively Israelitish, in all its depth and purity. The God, in whose name the prophet speaks, is the Holy One of Israel (see Isa_6:3), a character in which He has revealed Himself to this people alone, and in which no other people knows Him. At the same time He is a Being who is elevated absolutely above all creature limitations, and He governs all the nations of the earth according to His will. He has chosen Israel to be His own peculiar people, while it keeps His covenant. He is merciful and gracious, but He will not be scorned or blasphemed. The godless are an instrument in His hand, which He breaks and throws away when it has served His purpose. This discourse was indeed occasioned by the peculiar circumstances of the time, and it refers in the first place to them, nevertheless it does not lack that which is the deepest and inmost soul of all prophecy, the forecast of the distant future, the Messianic שְׁאָר יָשׁוּב [the idea that out of all calamities a purified remnant shall still survive to carry on the office of the chosen people] (2Ki_18:30-31; cf. Isa_7:3; Isa_6:13; Isa_10:21). This deliverance is the type and pledge of the one which shall go forth from Zion (Isa_2:2-3).
5. The prophet’s prediction of the destruction of Sennacherib is a prophecy in the common use of the word [something foretold], and every attempt to rob it of this character is shown to be vain, first by the great definiteness of the prediction, and secondly, by its undeniable fulfilment. Modern criticism, starting from the assumption that a specific prophecy is impossible, has declared 2Ki_18:7, as well as the concluding verses of the oracle, 2Ki_18:32-34, on account of their “suspicious definiteness,” to be additions by the late redactor. This is indeed the easiest way to set aside any apparent prophecy. It is to be noticed, however, that the whole passage, from 2Ki_18:21 on, comes naturally and necessarily to this termination, and the tone and language are exactly the same as in the previous verses. [The artificial construction of the strophe and antistrophe make it impossible to regard 2Ki_18:32-34 as anything but an integral part of the original composition. See the arrangement in the translation.—W. G. S.] To take these verses away from the oracle is to rob it of all its point. It is both arbitrary and violent.
The so-called naturalistic explanation, which Knobel maintains, is not much better. According to this, the pestilence had then already commenced, and it threatened to weaken the Assyrian army very materially. News had also come that Tirhakah was advancing (2Ki_18:9). These two things caused the prophet to “hope” that Sennacherib would not persevere, and, inspired by this hope, he “sustains his courage and exhorts the king and nation to confidence.” But the assumption that the pestilence had at this time already broken out in the Assyrian camp is unfounded, it is entirely arbitrary, and it even contradicts the statements of the text in 2Ki_18:35-36. With this assumption the factitious “hope” of the prophet falls to the ground. Moreover it is perfectly clear that the prophet is not giving expression to a mere hope. As Knobel himself admits, “the tone is that of the utmost confidence,” and “the passage (2Ki_18:32-34) is perfectly definite.”
Ewald’s conception of it is much finer and more delicate. (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 634 [Ed. third s. 682]). He thus states his conception of the circumstances: In the first place, when Rab-shakeh uttered his threats, the prophet exhorted the king in general to courage and fearlessness (2Ki_18:6). Afterwards, when Sennacherib’s letter arrived and Hezekiah was in great anxiety, “Isaiah forth-with announced to him, if possible (!) yet more distinctly than before, the heaven-sent consolation. The bolder and more insolent the language of Sennacherib was, the more firm was the divine confidence against all his human vanity which Isaiah expressed in his mighty oracles. Thereby he powerfully influenced both the king and the people. He was the most unwavering support in this calamity, and the unswerving strength of his soul grew with the raging of the storm.” However much this conception may contain which is grand and true, yet it does not rise above the idea that the prophet had a merely natural and human hope and foreboding. The prophet himself, however, means to have his words taken as something more than this. He could not possibly, with good conscience, say of something which he merely hoped for and foreboded: “Thus saith the Lord!”
[The question in dispute is: What did the prophets mean when they said: Thus saith the Lord! No one will assert that they meant that they had heard words with physical ears, or read words with physical eyes, which came to them from God. Their apprehension of the things which they thus announced must have been subjective, in so far that it was spiritual and conscientious. Then we come to a psychological analysis of the degrees of hope, expectation, faith, and foresight. If the process by which prophets apprehended divine oracles is utterly beyond the analogy of our experience, then, of course, it defies our analysis. But, in that case, it is a pure dogma which we cannot explain or state in words, and therefore cannot teach or transmit. We can repeat a formula, but we cannot form an idea. If, however, we have an analogy in our experience of faith and trust in God,—in our knowledge and conception of His laws—and in our belief in His Providence, for the kind of activity which produced the prophecies, then we may indeed believe that the prophets acted upon a much greater measure of the same convictions. Certainly the prophets did not utter guesses, and pronounce them with a “Thus saith the Lord!” Any attentive reader of the prophecies will perceive that this formula has, in the mouths of the prophets, a truly awful meaning. They had intense convictions as to God’s will and Providence, and a profound faith in His truth and justice. When they spoke it was without faltering, and with complete faith that they were pronouncing the oracles of God. The “definiteness” of this prophecy, which is made a ground for believing it post eventum, may be questioned. It is grand, broad, and poetic. It is not specific in announcing the form of the deliverance, but has the features of O. T. predictions. The more detailed treatment of prophecy belongs to the exposition of the prophetical books.—W. G. S.]
There was nothing in the circumstances to justify the expectation that the hitherto invincible conqueror, who was already in the neighborhood of Jerusalem with 185,000 men, would withdraw immediately. On the contrary nothing seemed more certain than that he would carry out his threats. Nevertheless Isaiah declared to the king and the people in regard to him, “in the tone of an ambassador of God” (Köster), with the greatest definiteness and confidence: “He shall not come into this city, &c.” If this was mere surmise and supposition, then it was, under these circumstances, pure insanity to exhort Jerusalem to scorn and defy the conqueror at the very moment when it was in the greatest jeopardy; nay, even the comparison of Sennacherib with a wild beast with a ring through its nose and a bridle in its mouth, would be a piece of bombast no way inferior to that of Rab-shakeh. What would have become of Isaiah? What would have become of the prophetic institution, if he had then been mistaken in his mere individual and subjective supposition and hope? It is useless to turn and twist the matter. We must either strike out the entire oracle, or we must recognize in it a genuine prediction and admit that “the prophecy came not in old times by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost” (2Pe_1:21). The fact that this event, which was beyond the range of all human foresight and calculation, was definitely foretold by the prophet, gives it the character of an event determined beforehand of God for the deliverance of His people, that is, of an incident in the history of redemption, and takes away from it all appearance of an accidental, natural, occurrence.
[The question is: Were the prophets infallible? The author’s argument seems to assume that they were. The assumption ought to be fairly stated and understood, and the issue involved ought to be fairly met. If the prophets, who were “men,” “subject to like passions as we are” (Jam_5:17), were infallible, why may not the Pope be so? If a distinction can be made, and if it be said that the prophets were infallible in their oracles, why may not the Pope be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, though not otherwise? A fair criticism of this oracle will show it to be a prediction. The event which followed was a dispensation of Providence and an incident in the history of redemption (see bracketed addition to § 9, below). It rested on very much more than a hope or suspicion. It was a confident expectation which was based on trust in God and faith in His Providence. This amounted to a certain conviction in the prophet’s mind, so that he did not hesitate to pronounce it in solemn form as God’s will that Sennacherib’s plan against Judah should be frustrated. He was obliged to stake his prophetical authority on this prediction. His religious faith rose above all the appearances of improbability (humanly speaking), that Sennacherib’s course could be arrested. He did not fear, relying on his faith in God, to threaten Sennacherib with the most shameful overthrow. Sennacherib lived and prospered for twenty years afterwards (see Supplem. Note after the Exeg. section). If we insist on the literal accuracy, or even specific reference, of 2Ki_18:28 we shall make a grievous error, but, as a poetic expression for a prediction of shame and disaster to Sennacherib, it was completely fulfilled. Thus the event justified Isaiah’s faith, and ratified his authority as a man of God; i.e., a man endowed with power to see and understand the ways of God. The notion that the prophets had communications from heaven, which gave them infallible information as to what was to be, is a superstition. The idea that they were men whose faith and love towards God gave them communion with Him, knowledge of His ways, insight into His Providence, and, therefore, foresight of His dealings with men, is a sublime religious truth,—one which deserves the study, as it will cultivate the religious powers, of every Christian man.—W. G. S.]
6. Hezekiah’s behavior during the peril from the Assyrians appears to be inconsistent with the general characterization which stands at the head of the narrative (18:5–7), inasmuch as he, who had the courage to declare his independence of the Assyrian supremacy, and who, according to 2Ch_32:5-8, at Sennacherib’s approach, not only took all possible measures for a determined resistance, but also encouraged the people to trust in Jehovah, its God, and not to fear, nevertheless instructed his ambassadors to ask for mercy, and declared himself ready to submit to any sacrifice which might be demanded of him (2Ki_18:14). This one fact, however, does not justify us in regarding him as a “weak and dependent man” (see above § 1). We do not even know whether he took the step on his own motion, or, as is very possible, was forced to it by those who were about him. It was not until the Assyrian army had advanced even beyond Jerusalem, had taken one city after another and devastated the country, so that it seemed to him that Jerusalem could not much longer be defended, that he determined to make this humiliating offer. He had a good intention, which was to save Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah from a fate like that of Samaria. Yet he did not send to the Assyrian such a message as his wretched father, Ahaz had once sent: “I am thy servant and thy son” (2Ki_16:7), but only went so far as necessity compelled him. Certainly he was not a hero in faith like Isaiah. “When he had taken the first step (the revolt), trusting in his God, then he ought to have taken the second, also trusting in Him” (Schlier), but that he did not do so does not prove that he had no faith. There are times in the life of every truly pious and believing man when the ground trembles under his feet, and he is wanting in firm and invincible faith. It was in such a moment that John the Baptist sent to ask the Saviour: “Art thou He that should come?” and yet the Saviour said of him that he was no reed shaken by the wind. Peter denied his master, and yet the master called him the rock on which the Church should be built. The time of peril from the Assyrians was, for Hezekiah, a time of trial and discipline. Soon after he had acted in faint-heartedness and despair he learned that help is not to be bought in distress by gold or silver. The treacherous foe only pressed him the harder, and then at last Hezekiah showed himself a true theocratic king. Recognizing a divine chastisement and discipline in this danger, he turns first to the prophet as the servant of Jehovah and the organ of the divine spirit, and sends an embassy of the chief royal officers and of the chief priests to him to beg his intercession. The solemn embassy was a physical recognition by the king of the prerogative of the prophet. It shows that where both were such as they ought to be there could be no question of “independent powers” over against each other (see 1 Kings 21. Hist. § 4, and Pt. II. p. 104), but that both worked together, and had co-ordinate and complementary functions in carrying on the plan of redemption. The position which Hezekiah took up in his dealings with the prophetical institution, even when it was exercising its functions of warning and rebuke, may be seen from the incidental allusion in Jer_26:18 sq. (See Caspari über Micha, den Morasthiten, s. 56.) In the case before us he did not rest content with the solemn embassy to the prophet, but went before the Lord, and poured out his heart to Him in prayer. Von Gerlach justly says: “It is most clearly apparent that, in this prayer, the inmost faith of a genuine Israelite is expressed.” In true humility and fervor he calls upon the only living God, who has made heaven and earth, and who is the king of all kings of earth; who had chosen Israel to be His people, and dwells and reigns amongst them as a sign and pledge of His covenant. To Him, the Almighty One, who alone can help and save, he cries for help and salvation. He is not so much alarmed for his throne and his own glory as he is that the name of this God shall not be blasphemed, but rather be revered by all the world. We have no such prayer from any other king sizce Solomon. Because the Lord is near to all who call upon Him, and does what the god-fearing ask of Him, and hears their cry (Psa_145:18 sq.), therefore this prayer was heard. The Lord helped wondrously and beyond all Hezekiah’s prayer or hope.
7. The Assyrian king, Sennacherib, and his chief cup-bearer form the sharpest contrast to Hezekiah and the prophet. The pride and arrogance which, as a rule, animate all great conquerors, is expressed by them. Such men, insolently relying on their own human power and might, recognize nothing superior to themselves, shrink from no means of gratifying their ambition for territorial aggrandizement, and insult and scoff at Almighty God, until He finally sends His judgments upon them and brings them to shame. The language which this ancient conqueror used is that of a heathen, but the spirit which animated it has not perished from the earth; it appeared again in the words of the greatest conqueror of modern times. When Napoleon, during his expedition to Egypt, said to a Mufti: “I can cause a fiery chariot to descend from heaven and to turn its course to earth;”—when, in his proclamation to the inhabitants of Cairo, he declared, denying the true God and putting fate in His place: “Can there be any one who is blind enough not to see that fate itself guides all my undertakings? … Inform the people that it is written from the foundation of the world that, after the destruction of all the enemies of Islam and the overthrow of the cross, I should come from the far west to fulfil the task which is set for me.… Those who raise prayers against us to heaven pray for their own damnation. I could demand from each one of you an account of the secret thoughts of his heart, for I know all, even that which ye have told to no one. A day will come when all will see that I have been guided by commands from above, and that all the efforts of men can accomplish nothing against me” (Leo, Universalgesch. V. s. 317. Baur, Geschichts- und Lebensbilder, I. s. 385, sq.)—is that not the same thing as Sennacherib boasts 2Ki_18:25; 2Ki_18:35; 2Ki_19:1 sq. in regard to himself, though with different words? It is an entire misconception, on the part of Ewald, when he thus states Sennacherib’s policy and intentions (l. c. s. 596): “The wars between the numerous small kingdoms this side the Euphrates had, during the last centuries, assumed continually more and more the character of mere plundering expeditions. It was enough to merely rob and plunder a weaker neighbor.… There was no conception of a fatherland, a great kingdom which was a power to restrain wrong by justice and unity. But the ‘warlike’ [Ewald’s interpretation of יָרֵב] king, as the Assyrian king was now called before all others (Hos_5:13; Hos_10:6) desired a great, united, and powerful kingdom, in which petty national jealousies should disappear.” The Scriptures do not contain any hint of any such noble and beneficent intentions on the part of the Assyrian king. On the contrary, Sennacherib himself boasts that he has devoted all the conquered lands to destruction, and has caused the nations to perish (2Ki_19:11-12). The Scriptures call Sennacherib especially a destroyer, plunderer, or robber (Isa_33:1), whose heart is set to destroy and uproot nations, and who does not know that he is only a hired razor, the rod of God’s wrath, and the staff of His anger (Isa_10:5-7). That this man, the greatest and mightiest of the kings of Assyria, before whom all nations trembled, should come to shame in his contest with the small and weak kingdom of Judah, this proclaimed to all the world the great and eternal truth: He can humiliate even the proud!
8. The speech of the ambassador, Rab-shakeh, is a remarkable specimen of ancient oriental rhetoric. It has, in form and expression, none of the smoothness and fineness of modern diplomacy, but it is, in the method which it pursues, by no means out of date, but as fresh as if it had been spoken but yesterday. In the first part, which is addressed to king Hezekiah and his high officers, the speaker utters undeniable truths. It was true that Egypt was like a broken reed on which a man could not rest or rely. It was true that Hezekiah had abolished the worship on the high places and centralized the cultus in Jerusalem. It was true that if he had ever so many horses he lacked riders for them, while the Assyrian army was richly provided with both. It was true, finally, that this army had not advanced to Jerusalem and beyond without the permission of God; but all these truths stand here in the service of arrogance, hypocrisy, and falsehood. The ancient diplomat understood the falsely celebrated art of convincing by sophistical arguments, and yet of cheating and deceiving. When the royal councillors did not at once yield to him, he became rude and insolent towards them, and began to harangue the common people. In the first place, he puts before them the distress and misery which await them if the city is not given up at once; then he makes promises, tempts them and sets prosperity, and good fortune, and wealth before them; then he makes them suspicious of their king, and calls them to disobedience to him; finally, he undermines their religious faith, represents to them their trust in God as foolish and vain, and appeals to the fall of Samaria which (he declares) this God was as little able to prevent as the gods of the other nations were to prevent their overthrow. Here again we must exclaim with Menken, as above in the case of Naaman: “How true and faithful is the ancient picture! How fresh and new it is, as if men of to-day had sat for it!”
9. The destruction of the Assyrian army, which impelled Sennacherib to retreat, is unquestioned as an historical fact; if has not been assailed even by modern critical science. Its character as an incident in the history of the redemptive plan (see § 3) has, however, been taken from it by the assertion that it was due to one of the pestilences which were common in the Orient, and especially in Egypt; that the number of those who died is “exaggerated,” and that the destruction in a single night is a mythical detail. Appeal is made in proof to the “frightful devastation which the pestilence accomplishes in a short time.” Instances are cited such as that “at Constantinople, in 1714, nearly 300,000 human beings perished, and at the same place, in 1778, 2,000 died daily” (Winer, R.-W.-B., II. s. 232), and that “the pestilence in Milan, in 1629, according to Tadino, carried off 160,000 persons; at Vienna, in 1679, 122, 849; and in Moscow, at the end of the last century, according to Martens, 670,000” (Delitsch on Isa_37:36). As for the number 185,000, the fact that it is not “an exactly round number bears witness to its historical accuracy” (Thenius). Both accounts have it. Moreover it occurs 1Ma_7:41, and 2Ma_15:22, and Jos. Antiq. x. 1, 5. It is arbitrary to throw aside a number which is supported by such testimony and has nothing against it. It would not be allowed in the case of a number supported by so many profane authors. As for the assumed mythical detail that they all perished in one night, that is not the statement of the text; but that “the angel went out on that night and he smote,” &c., that is, on that night the pestilence broke out in the Assyrian camp, so that in the morning very many already lay dead, and it raged until the whole army, 185,000 strong, was carried off. With that night the destruction of the entire army began. [That is hardly a fair reading of 2Ki_18:35. The angel went out that night and smote 185,000 men, and in the morning they were corpses. The naïveté of the remark, that they rose up and lo! they were all dead, belongs to the simplicity of the style of composition. Its meaning is clear that the 185,000 men did not comprise the whole Assyrian army. The intention of the history to declare that 185,000 men were smitten and perished in one night is undeniable.—W. G. S.] “In view of the conciseness of the record we may assume, with Hensler and others, that the pestilence raged in the Assyrian camp for some time, and that it carried off thousands by night (Psa_91:6) up to the number of 185,000” (Delitsch). If the words בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא were what made of the incident a miraculous interposition of God, they could not be wanting from the narrative in Isaiah; also the Chronicler, who does not in other cases show any distrust of what is miraculous, and the three places in the book of Maccabees, and that in Sirach, all of which mention the event, would not be silent as to that which would form the distinctive feature of it. When Knobel remarks that “the historian ascribes the event which brought about the deliverance of Judah to the God of Judah,” we must ask, to whom else should he ascribe it? to Nature? to the climate? to accident? The God of Judah is the living God, who, as Hezekiah says (19:15, 19), made heaven and earth. He alone is God. If not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him (Mat_10:29), then 185,000 men were not carried off without His will. As in the case of Isaiah’s prophecy (§ 5), so here, all turning and twisting is useless. The incident was “a dispensation of God which evades until this day all attempts to solve its causes.” We may admit that it was produced by the pestilence; “but, in the way of an attempt at a natural explanation, this amounts to nothing. No disease has ever, in its natural course, accomplished anything of the kind. All the extraordinary cases which are cited from history are only calculated to render the more prominent the fact that the incident here recorded is totally dissimilar from them all” (Drechsler).
[The miraculousness of the incident consists neither in the number of the slain, nor in the short space of time in which they perished. It consists in the fact that this extraordinary calamity befell the Assyrian army, by a dispensation of Providence, at a great crisis in the history of Judah. The ravages of pestilence in various historical instances are, therefore, no parallels. They are entirely aside from the point. The destruction of the Spanish armada by a storm is a far closer parallel than any one of these. We may hesitate to interpret these dispensations of Providence in modern times. The prophetic author of the Jewish history had no such scruples. He saw and plainly declared the hand of God in this event. “It is not without reason that in the churches of Moscow the exultation over the fall of Sennacherib is still read on the anniversary of the retreat of the French from Russia; or that Arnold, in his Lectures on Modern History, in the impressive passage (p. 177) in which he dwells on that great catastrophe, declared that for ‘the memorable night of frost in which 20,000 horses perished, and the strength of the French army was utterly broken,’ he ‘knew of no language so well fitted to describe it as the words in which Isaiah described the advance and destruction of the hosts of Sennacherib.’ ” (Stanley, II. 534.) Our best means of arriving at a strictly historical conception of such providential interpositions as the one here recorded, is that of comparing them with other similar events nearer and more familiar to ourselves.—W. G. S.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki_18:1-8. The noble Testimony which the Holy Scriptures bear to King Hezekiah. (a) He abolished the false worship in his kingdom and reestablished that which was in accordance with the word of God (2Ki_18:3-4). (b) He trusted the Lord, clung to him, and departed not from Him (2Ki_18:5-6). (c) What he did prospered, for the Lord was with him (2Ki_18:7-8).
2Ki_18:3-6. Lange: It is sad when godly parents have godless children and must see that all their pains are spent upon them in vain. On the contrary, where godless parents, especially a godless father, have pious children, we must look upon it as a direct fruit of the grace of God. The testimony to Hezekiah is, therefore, the more excellent the more depraved his father was. Cramer: Virtue and godliness are not inherited from one’s parents.
2Ki_18:4. Hezekiah succeeded in uprooting ancient abuses, because he was moved not merely by political or other human considerations, but only by love to the Lord, and zeal for His honor. He was anxious not only to root up, destroy, and deny, but also to set up in the place of what was evil that which was right and good.—The brazen serpent. The purpose for which Moses made it (Joh_3:14 sq.); why Hezekiah destroyed it (worship of images and destruction of images. Use and abuse of images).—Cramer: If the cross on which Christ hung were preserved by the papists it would certainly be a relic of remarkable antiquarian interest, but to keep a feast in its honor, make pilgrimages to it, and grant indulgences by virtue of it, would be pure idolatry.
2Ki_18:5-6. True piety consists of (a) a faith which is at once trust and confidence, Heb_11:1; (b) clinging to the Lord in adversity and in prosperity, without departing from Him, Psa_73:25 sq.; (c) keeping the commandments of God, Jam_2:17; 1Jn_5:3.
2Ki_18:7-8. Osiander: God rewards godliness even in this life, Mat_6:33; 1Ti_4:8.—Starke: Only the faithful and pious can console themselves with God’s favor, and boast that God is with them, Psa_118:6-7; Psa_1:3.—To throw off a disgraceful foreign yoke, and to take back what one has been robbed of, is not a breach of fidelity, but it is the right and duty of every ruler who wears a crown lawfully.
2Ki_18:9-12. See notes on chap. 17. Hoshea and Hezekiah. The former came to the throne by conspiracy and murder, and he did not do what was pleasing to the Lord, therefore he perished with his people. The latter trusted in the Lord and clung to Him, and therefore he came out with his people victoriously from the peril.
2Ki_18:13-16. Hezekiah enjoyed peace and rest for fourteen years. His reign was a prosperous one; then, however, came the time of trial and danger, which does not fail to come even to those who have faith and trust.—Berleb. Bibel: No one can belong to God unless he passes through trial and discipline. The harder the trial is, the more must we increase our faith and dependence, for God chastises us only that He may make more clear His mercy and care for those who trust in Him.—The gold of faith can only be made to appear through the fires of adversity, Sir_2:5. If thy faith is not a mere notion, or opinion, or feeling, or sensation, then it will not diminish in the time of trial, but grow and become stronger and purer. “Whence should we have had David’s psalms, if he had not been tried?” Therefore St. Paul says, Rom_5:3 sq.
2Ki_18:14. There is nothing harder for any one who holds a high position than to humble himself, yet there is nothing more beneficial. The king finds himself compelled, in order to save his kingdom, to beg forgiveness of the monarch from whom he had revolted. That was the first consequence of his chastisement.—Cramer: An oppressive peace is better than the most just war, and it is better to purchase peace than to risk kingdom and people, life and liberty.—When we see that we have done wrong we ought to confess it not only before God but also before men.—Do thou say to God what Hezekiah sent his ambassadors to say to Sennacherib. Thou wilt find Him not faithless, but always good and faithful, and He will lay upon thee no burden which thou canst not carry.
2Ki_18:11. We can never rely upon the fidelity of a man who is simply bought with money.—Want of courage in one’s self invites an enemy to arrogance. The more humbly one approaches an enemy the more insolent he becomes.—Peace and quiet which are bought with money have no duration. [This ought to be taken to modify the doctrine quoted above (on 2Ki_18:14) from Cramer, that it is better to buy peace than to risk war.]
2Ki_18:17-35. Rab-shakeh’s speech (a) to Hezekiah’s messengers, 2Ki_18:19-27; (b) to the people, 2Ki_18:28-33. See Histor. § 8. That is always the way of the devil; he mixes up truth and falsehood, that he may inoculate us with the falsehood.—Rabshakeh, the wolf in sheep’s clothing. (a) He appears to warn against Egypt as a power which neither can nor will help, just as Isaiah himself does, while he himself comes to destroy and devour (Mat_7:15; 1Jn_4:1). (b) He represents what had been ordained by Hezekiah according to the Law of the Lord and for His honor as a sin and a breach of religion, while he himself cared nothing whatever for the Law of the Lord or the true and right worship. Beware of those who represent as weakness and folly that which is divine wisdom and strength (1Co_1:18 sq.). (c) He claims that the Lord is with him and has commanded him to do what he is doing (2Ki_18:25), whereas, in fact, he is only the rod of God’s wrath, the staff of His anger, a “hired razor,” and ambition, lust for gold and land, desire for glory and plunder are his only motives (Mat_7:22 sq.). Be not deceived by the prosperity and the victory of the godless. They are like chaff which the wind scatters and their way disappears (Psa_1:3; Psa_1:6).
2Ki_18:20. In what dost thou trust? Ask thyself this every day. Dost thou trust in other men who have rank, wealth, and influence
(Psa_60:12; Psa_146:3-4; Jer_17:5); upon thyself, thine own power, wisdom, and judgment (Pro_3:5; Pro_3:7; 1Co_1:19-20); or on the Lord alone (Psa_118:8-9; Psa_146:5; Jer_17:1; Jer_17:8)?
2Ki_18:21. J. Lange: How often it happens that when a man abandons God and seeks another reliance, he finds but a broken reed!—Umbreit: So weak and faithless men often prepare for those who are not satisfied with God’s grace, but seek help from them, the deepest misfortunes. He who trusts only in God stands high and free even above the ruins of his earthly happiness; he who takes refuge in men becomes the slave of men.
2Ki_18:22. Kyburz: It is the most deadly temptation of the adversary that he throws suspicion upon all which one has done for God, or upon all the spiritual good which one has wrought. This is the way of the devil and of the blinded world. They praise that for which one deserves punishment and make a threat of that by virtue of which one might hope for the favor of God. He who does not mean to fall under this trial must strive for the testing spirit that it may teach him to distinguish false and true, light and darkness, according to the divine standards (Joh_12:4 sq.).—Starke: When the world wishes to give pain to the pious it calls their trust in God obstinacy, and their constancy, arrogance.—Würt. Summ.: Perverse and depraved men often consider true religion the origin of all misfortune.
2Ki_18:23-24. The boastful cannot stand before the eyes of the Lord (Psa_5:6-7). He says to them: “Speak not with a stiff neck,” &c. (Psa_75:5-8. cf. Jer_9:23-24). “There is no king saved by the multitude of an host,” &c. (Psa_33:16-17).
2Ki_18:25. Starke: The godless do not want to have the appearance of making their undertakings under and with God; they boast that they do not do so, yet wrongly.—Menken: God uses the bad for purposes for which he cannot use the good. The prosperity of the wicked destroys them (Pro_1:32).—How often a man puts his own wishes or thoughts in the place of the will of God and says or thinks: The Lord commanded me! It is crime, however, for a man to ascribe to the will of God that which sprang from his own evil lusts (Jam_1:13 sq.).
2Ki_18:26-28. The just Request of the King’s Councillors to Rab-shakeh and his insolent Reply.—Cramer: A Christian ought to be careful in all things and to try to avert harm wherever he can (Eph_5:15).—Simple and uneducated people lend an ear far too easily to boasters, to those who distort truth, and allow themselves to be cajoled, because they lack insight to distinguish between appearance and reality, error and truth. Therefore not all subjects should be discussed before the multitude, in whose minds one distorted expression will often do more harm than the most reasonable discourse can cure. A faithful government ought to protect its subjects from hypocritical and lying teachers as much as from thieves and robbers. 2Ki_18:27. He who cannot endure any contradiction, however moderate and just it may be, without becoming violent and angry, shows thereby that he is not aiming at truth and right, but that he has a selfish and insincere purpose.—Rab-shakeh was an official of the court and a man in high station, who did not lack wisdom and information; nevertheless his words show rudeness and vulgarity. High rank and position, even when united with wisdom and information, do not insure against rudeness and vulgarity. These only disappear where the life has its springs in God, and there is a purified heart and a sanctified disposition (Luk_6:45).
2Ki_18:28-35. The ways and means of demagogues and those who stir up sedition. (a) 2Ki_18:29-30. They cast suspicion upon the lawful authority, however righteous its intentions may be. They scatter abroad distrust of its power and of its good disposition, and strive to make the people discontented with all its ordinances. (b) 2Ki_18:31-32. They promise to the people peace and prosperity and good fortune, deliverance from tyranny and slavery, in order that they may then lay upon it their yoke, which is far heavier and more disgraceful (Psa_140:5). (c) 2Ki_18:33 sq. They undermine the faith of the people under the pretence of enlightening it, while they themselves walk in darkness and are enemies of the cross of Christ. Therefore: “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1Co_16:13).
2Ki_18:28. Starke: When Satan wants attentive listeners he talks God’s language; therefore believe not every spirit (1Jn_4:1).
2Ki_18:30. The Lord will save us! (a) A noble saying in the mouth of a king speaking to his people. He thereby admits that his own power is insufficient and vain. He leads his people in that faith which is a confidence in what is hoped for, and which admits no doubt of what is not seen. How well it would be for all princes and peoples if they had such faith. (b) In this saying all the hope of the Christian life is expressed: With God we overcome the world, for the Lord will at length save and deliver us from all evil, and bring us to his heavenly kingdom. The blasphemer and boaster wanted to remove these words of the king from the heart of the people, because he knew that he should then have won. Nowadays also these words are laughed at and scorned. Let them not be torn from your heart! Happy is he whose trust is in the Lord his God (Psa_146:5).
2Ki_18:31 sq. Cramer: When Satan cannot accomplish anything by resistance and force, he strikes the softer strings and promises luxury, riches, splendor (Mat_4:9).
2Ki_18:33 sq. Pride and arrogance go so far that man, who is but dust and ashes, exalts himself in his folly above Almighty God.—Pfaff. Bibel: The Lord punishes with especial severity the crime of scoffing at the Living God and doubting of his might and majesty (2Ma_9:28; Isa_14:13-15).
2Ki_18:36 sq. The Impression which Rab-shakeh’s Speech made. (a) The people kept silence and did not answer. (Silence is an answer—often a more emphatic one than speech. Happy is the people which is deaf to the words of seducers and those who stir up insurrection.) (b) The ambassadors of the king tear their clothes as a sign of grief and of horror at the blasphemous words which they had been forced to hear. Rab-shakeh was obliged to depart with his mission unaccomplished (1Pe_5:8-9).
2Ki_18:36. We ought not to enter into any dispute with those who do not care to arrive at the truth, but only to accomplish their own selfish ends, and who are versed in the art of mixing truth and falsehood, but we should punish them by silence.
2Ki_18:37. Starke: We ought not to laugh at blasphemous speeches, but to be heartily saddened by them.—Würt. Summ.: We ought not to get angry at a blasphemer, lest we also do some wrong, but we ought to wait patiently for the Lord (Isa_30:15).—Cramer: Cast not your pearls before swine, nor give what is holy unto the dogs (Mat_7:6). It is not always wise to answer a fool. There is a time for silence (Ecc_3:7).
2Ki_19:1-7. Hezekiah in great Distress. (a) He rends his clothes (as a sign of horror at Rab-shakeh’s blasphemous speech). He puts on sack-cloth (as a sign of repentance), and goes to the house of the Lord (to humble himself before God, for he recognizes in his need and distress a consequence of sin and apostasy, and a call to repentance). (b) He sends the chiefs and representatives of the people to the prophet, from whom he hopes to hear the best counsel. He orders them to make known his request, and he is encouraged by him to stand fast in faith.
2Ki_19:1. The words in Psa_1:1 apply to Hezekiah. A man who truly fears God cannot endure that unbelief should open its insolent mouth; his heart is torn when he hears the living God scoffed at. Woe to the people and country in which the speeches of the godless are listened to in silence and with indifference, without pain or grief, and where jests at God and divine things are regarded as enlightenment and wisdom (Luk_19:40).
2Ki_19:2-3. In anxiety and perplexity our only consolation is to call upon God (Psa_34:19; Psa_46:1).—Hall: The more we hear the name of God despised and abused the more we ought to love and honor it.—Starke: It is of great importance that, in time of need, one should have a faithful friend, to whom one can confide all, and find counsel and help.
2Ki_19:4. Cramer: We should not doubt in prayer, nor prescribe methods of action to God, but wait in patience and humility for the help of the Lord (Jam_5:10).—We should apply to others in our need that they may intercede for us. When a man like the Apostle Paul exhorts the believers to pray for him (Rom_15:30; Eph_6:18-19), how much more does it become us to beg this service of love of others, and to console ourselves with the strength of the intercession of those who have intercourse of prayer with the Lord. He, however, who desires that others should pray for him ought not to have given up the habit of prayer himself. Hezekiah went first himself into the house of the Lord to pray, and then he sent to the prophet.
2Ki_19:5. What happiness and what a blessing it is in times of distress and perplexity to have a faithful servant of God at hand, who stands firm in the storm.
2Ki_19:6-7. Isaiah’s Answer (a) as a word of encouragement (2Ki_19:6), (b) as a word of promising and threatening (2Ki_19:7). The prophet calls the emissaries of the Assyrian king: “servants” [see Exeg. on the verse], a contemptuous name, because they had blasphemed the God of Israel. It is not manly to assume airs of superiority and to pretend to scorn the word of God, but it is boyish. However high in rank a man may be, if he speaks and acts as these men did he is a low fellow (Psa_37:12-13).
2Ki_19:7. God punishes those who have no fear of Him by making them fear men, and flee at the mere rumor of a danger which is not yet at hand. Pray God, therefore, that He may give thee the right spirit, not a spirit of fear, but of power and love and self-control (2Ti_1:7).—We think that danger threatens the Kingdom of God and Christianity when people write and declaim against it, but fear not: all these adversaries have perished like Herod who sought the young child’s life (Mat_2:20), and only forfeited their own salvation, for “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken” (Mat_21:44).—Osiander: God has many means whereby he can bring the rage of His adversaries to naught.—Hall: Proud and self-confident men of the world think little of the future consequences, and even while they are spinning their plots they come to shame.
2Ki_19:8-19. The two Contrasted Kings, Sennacherib and Hezekiah—the Godless and the Just. (a) Sennacherib, who sees himself in peril and obliged to retreat by the approach of Tirhakah, does not on that account become more modest or more humble, but only more obstinate and arrogant. That is the way with godless and depraved men. In distress and peril, instead of bending their will and yielding to the will of God, they only become more stubborn, insolent, and assuming. (Osiander: The less ground the impious have to hope for victory over the righteous, the more cruel do they attempt to be.) Hezekiah, on the contrary, who was in unprecedented trouble and peril, was thereby drawn into more earnest prayer. He humbled himself under the hand of God, and sought refuge in the Lord alone. He went into the house of God and poured out his soul in prayer, Psa_5:5-7. (Calw. Bibel: Learn from this to pray earnestly and faithfully, when thou art in distress; also learn from this what is the best weapon in war, and when the fatherland is in the dangers of battle.) (b) Sennacherib rejects faith in the God of Israel as folly, and boasts that all the gods of the heathen were powerless before him. He lives without God in the world and knows no God but himself. But it is the fool who hath said in his heart: “There is no God” (Psa_14:1). He asks: “Where is?” &c., but where is now Sennacherib who talked so proudly? (Berl. Bib.) He is gone like chaff before the wind, for the way of the godless shall perish (Psa_1:4; Psa_1:6; Psa_35:5; Zep_2:2). But Hezekiah will not let himself be drawn away from his God. His faith becomes only so much warmer and deeper. He prays and seeks not his own honor, but that of the Lord in whom he puts his confidence (Psa_1:3). The greater the cross the greater the faith. The palm grows under weight. Sweetness flows from the grape when it is well trodden (Psa_1:1-2).
2Ki_19:14-19. Hezekiah’s Prayer. (a) The appeal for hearing (2Ki_19:15-16); (b) the Confession (2Ki_19:17-18); (c) the request (2Ki_19:19) (see Histor. § 6).—Distress and misfortune are the school in which a man learns to pray aright. How many a one repeats prayers every day and yet never prays aright. Every one knows from his own experience that he has never talked so directly with God as in the time of need.—Starke: Earthly kings ought not to be ashamed to pray, but rather go before others with a good example.—Arndt: Who is a true man? He who can pray, and who trusts in God.
2Ki_19:15. Under the old covenant God dwelt above the cherubim of the ark; under the new one, He dwells in Christ amongst us, therefore He demands to be addressed by us as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Ki_19:16. “He that planted the ear,” &c. (Psa_94:9). Though men do not hear or see, He hears and sees all, even that which is said and done in secret (Psa_139:1 sq.). It often seems as if He did not see or hear, but he will some time bring to light what was done in darkness, and will make known the secret counsel of the heart. We must give an account of every vain word which we have spoken.
2Ki_19:17-18. Gods which are the work of man’s hands, or the invention of man’s brain, can be thrown into the fire and destroyed. They are good for nothing more, but the Holy, Living God cannot be thus done away with or destroyed. He is himself a consuming fire which shall consume all the adversaries (Heb_10:27; Heb_12:29).
2Ki_19:19. When we pray to God for relief from distress, or for anything else which we earnestly desire, we must not have our own honor, or fortune, or prosperity altogether or principally at heart, but we must try to bring it about that, by the fulfilment of our prayer, God’s name may be glorified and hallowed. Therefore this petition stands first in the Lord’s Prayer.
2Ki_19:21-34. Isaiah’s Prophecy (a) against Sennacherib, 2Ki_19:21-28; (b) on behalf of Jerusalem, 2Ki_19:29-34.
2Ki_19:21. There is no more fitting punishment for a proud and arrogant man, than to be laughed at and derided without being able to take revenge. The derision of the daughter, Zion, at the blasphemous boaster, Sennacherib, is not due to sinful malice; it is rather a joyful recognition and a praise of the power and faithfulness of God, who reigns in heaven and laughs at those who scoff at him (Psa_2:4; Psa_37:12-13).
2Ki_19:22. When sinful man, who is dust and ashes, ascribes to himself that which he can only do by God’s help, or which God alone can do, that is a denial and an insult of God.
2Ki_19:23. Here we see the mode of thought and of speech of all the proud. All this have I done by my wisdom and courage and skill. The Apostle, who had labored more than any other, responds to them all: “What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” (1Co_4:7; cf. 1Co_15:10).—Cramer: When we remember that the affair is not ours but God’s, then we see that the enemies are not ours but God’s. When we see the pride and arrogance of our enemies, then we may look for their fall very soon (Pro_16:18).
2Ki_19:25. If no hair of our heads can fall without the will of God, how much less can a land or a city perish unless He has so ordained it? Therefore, humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in His good time (1Pe_5:6).
2Ki_19:26. “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him” (Psa_33:8), for they are like the grass of the field before Him; He causes the wind to blow upon them and they are gone.
2Ki_19:27-28. Be not deceived by the victory and good fortune of the enemies of the kingdom of God, to think that God is with them. He knows their going out and their coming in, their rage and their arrogance. They are in His hand and He uses them without their knowledge for His own purposes. They cannot take a step beyond the limits which He has set for them. When they have done what He intended them to do, He puts His bridle in their mouths and leads them back by the way by which they came. (As Sennacherib came to Jerusalem, so came Napoleon to Moscow. Then the Lord called to him: “So far and no farther!” and led him back by the way by which he came.) Isa_14:5-6; Isa_10:12-15.
2Ki_19:29. All sowing and reaping should be to us a sign of what God does for us and what we ought to do for Him (Gal_6:7-9; 2Co_9:6; Jer_4:3; Hos_8:7; Jam_3:18; Sir_7:3; Ecc_11:4; Ecc_11:6). God does not always give full harvests in order that we may learn to be satisfied with little, and may not forget that His blessing is not tied to our labor, but that He gives it where and when He will.
2Ki_19:30-31. Starke: In the midst of all calamities God preserves a faithful remnant for Himself which shall praise and spread abroad His name (Psa_46:3-5; Psa_22:30).—The Same: The Church of Christ is invincible. However much it may be oppressed at times, yet God preserves a secret seed for Himself (Mat_16:18; 1Ki_19:18).—The deliverance goes forth from Zion (Isa_2:2-3); salvation comes from the Jews (Joh_4:22).—The saved form the holy seed (Isa_6:13), which takes root below and bears fruit above. The ground in which they take root and stand firm is Christ (Eph_3:17; Col_2:7). The fruit which they bear is love, joy, peace, &c. (Gal_5:22). They never perish. They continue from generation to generation. However small their number, and however fiercely the world may rage against them, they nevertheless endure, for the Lord is their confidence, His truth is their shield (Psa_91:4). Therefore, “Fear not, little flock,” &c. (Luk_12:32).
2Ki_19:32-34. Jerusalem, the earthly City of God, a Type of the Eternal City, the Church of Christ. If God protected the former so that no arrow could come into it, how much more will He protect the latter, break in pieces the bows of its enemies, and burn their chariots in fire. Cf. Psalms 46, and Luther’s hymn: “Ein’ feste Burg,” &c.
2Ki_19:35-37. Sennacherib’s Fall. (a) A miracle of the saving power and faithfulness of God; (b) a terrible judgment of the Holy and Just God (see Histor. § 9).—Cf. Psalms 46, 75, , 76. Von Gerlach: When such times recur, similar psalms and hymns are given to the Church, as in 1530 the hymn: “Ein, feste Burg ist unser Gott,” which is founded on Psalms 46, was composed. (Compare the noble hymn of Joh. Heermann: “Herr, unser Gott, lass nicht zu Schanden werden.”)—God’s judgments are often delayed for a long time, but then they come all the more suddenly and mightily (Psa_73:19). A single night may change the whole face of the matter. Where is now the boaster? Where is the multitude of his chariots? Luk_12:20.—Sennacherib’s calamity and his retreat proclaim to all the world that God resisteth the proud, and they are a testimony to the truth of 1Sa_2:6-10.—He who had smitten whole kingdoms and peoples fell under the blows of his own sons. “With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again” (Luk_6:38).—Osiander: When God has sufficiently chastised His Church, He throws the rod of His wrath into the fire, Isa_33:1.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki_18:4.—[ויקרא is singular, but with the indefinite subject, equivalent to an English indefinite plural.
[2]2Ki_18:4.—[נחשׁתן, the thing of brass.
[3]2Ki_18:13.—[ויתפשׂם;—The masculine suffix is used (though the feminine would be correct) as the more general. and universal. This is not rare. Cf. Gen_31:9; Amo_3:2; Jer_9:19; 2Sa_20:3; Ew. § 184, c.—In the classical passages (“Prose of the priests”) such irregularities do not occur, but in the prose of less cultivated writers (laymen), in popular poetry, and in the later language, they are frequent. See 2Ki_18:16, and 2Ki_19:11 (Böttcher, § 877, 3).
[4]2Ki_18:16.—[האמנות:—Elsewhere we find מְזוּזוֹת for door-posts. Bähr says that the words are synonymous, but Thenius’ explanation is better. He thinks that האמנות refers, not only to the door-posts, but also the door-frame, sill, and lintel; i.e., all which gives stability, strength, and shape, (אמן), to the door-opening.—On the suffix in ויתנם, see Gramm. note 3, above.—The patach in קצַּץ is due to the guttural which follows. Cf. 2Ki_21:3 : אִבַּד חזקיה (Böttcher, § 378. 1.)—W. G. S.]
[5]2Ki_18:29.—Instead of מִיָּדוֹ, which is wanting in the text of Isaiah, we must read, with all the old versions, מִיָּדִי.—Bähr.
[6]2Ki_18:30.—[The אֶת before הָעִיר is wanting in Isa_36:15. It is important as bearing on the question whether אֶת ever stands with a proper nominative. Ewald admits that, if the אֶת in this place were properly in the text, we should have one instance. He adopts the reading in Isaiah, erases the אֶת, and says that this particle “never become unfaithful to its primary force so far as to designate a simple nominative” (Lehrb. § 277, d, note 2). Böttcher (§ 516. β) affirms that אֶת occurs with the nominative. Cf. Gen_9:28; Deu_20:8; 2Sa_21:22; Jer_36:22. These are cases where it occurs with the passive. It is used with the active, also, in the sense of “self,” or “even,” or “very” (this very one). Cf. 2Ki_6:5; 2Ki_8:28, Gramm. notes. The instances are certainly sufficiently strong to support the reading with אֶת which our text offers us:=“This very city,” or, “This city here.”
[7]2Ki_19:3.—[מַשְׁבֵר: orificium uteri.
[8]2Ki_19:11.—[On the suffix in להחרימם, see Gramm. note on 2Ki_18:13 (note 3, above).
[9]2Ki_19:15.—[In Isaiah we find שָׁלַח instead of שְׁלָחוֹ. “The suffix refers to דברי as a singular object,=the message” (Thenius), so also Ewald and Keil.
[10]2Ki_19:23.—[I prefer the chetib. Bähr adopts the keri (see Exeg. on the verse). However, as he says, the sense is the same. The idiom in the chetib is similar to the one by which it is rendered in the translation.—W. G. S.]
[11]2Ki_19:25.—לַהשׁוֹת is shortened from the keri לְהַשְׁאוֹת, which is found in Isa_37:2.—Bähr.
[12]2Ki_19:27.—[It is impossible to reproduce in English the pregnant brevity of this line. Whether thou abidest at home (abstainest from any interference with other nations), or goest forth (with plans of attack and conquest), or returnest (victorious), all takes place under my cognizance (by my ordinance, and under my permission). It is folly, therefore, for thee to boast of thy deeds, as against me; it is false for thee to cite my approval; and I will punish thine arrogance which rages against my controlling hand, and only claims my approval to serve its own purpose.—W. G. S.]
[13]2Ki_19:31.—The words “of Hosts” are furnished by the keri, which inserts here the word: צְבָאוֹת, as in Isa_37:32; Isa_9:6.—Bähr.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 27 HE DESTROYS IDOLATRY. (2Ki. 18:4-37)
HE DESTROYS IDOLATRY. (2Ki. 18:4-37)
He removed the high places and brake the images, &c.--The methods adopted by this good king for extirpating idolatry, and accomplishing a thorough reformation in religion, are fully detailed (Ch2 20:3; Ch2 31:19). But they are indicated very briefly, and in a sort of passing allusion.
Read full note →
brake in pieces the brazen serpent--The preservation of this remarkable relic of antiquity (Num 21:5-10) might, like the pot of manna and Aaron's rod, have remained an interesting and instructive monument of the divine goodness and mercy to the Israelites in the wilderness: and it must have required the exercise of no small courage and resolution to destroy it. But in the progress of degeneracy it had become an object of idolatrous worship and as the interests of true religion rendered its demolition necessary, Hezekiah, by taking this bold step, consulted both the glory of God and the good of his country.
unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it--It is not to be supposed that this superstitious reverence had been paid to it ever since the time of Moses, for such idolatry would not have been tolerated either by David or by Solomon in the early part of his reign, by Asa or Jehoshaphat had they been aware of such a folly. But the probability is, that the introduction of this superstition does not date earlier than the time when the family of Ahab, by their alliance with the throne of Judah, exercised a pernicious influence in paving the way for all kinds of idolatry. It is possible, however, as some think, that its origin may have arisen out of a misapprehension of Moses' language (Num 21:8). Serpent-worship, how revolting soever it may appear, was an extensively diffused form of idolatry; and it would obtain an easier reception in Israel because many of the neighboring nations, such as the Egyptians and Phœnicians, adored idol gods in the form of serpents as the emblems of health and immortality.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36 BEGINNING OF HEZEKIAH’S REIGN, 2Ki_18:1-8.
SECTION THIRD.
HISTORY OF JUDAH FROM THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. — CHAPS. 18-25.
Read full note →
BEGINNING OF HEZEKIAH’S REIGN, 2Ki_18:1-8.
1. In the third year — Near the close of the third year, so that the greater part of Hezekiah’s first year would fall in the fourth year of Hoshea, and the greater part of Hezekiah’s fourth year would fall in the seventh of Hoshea. See 2Ki_18:9-10.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 Chap. 2Ki_18:1-8. Hezekiah king of Judah. He reigns well…
Chap. 2Ki_18:1-8. Hezekiah king of Judah. He reigns well and destroys the brasen serpent. Some of his successes in war (2Ch_29:1-2)
1. in the third year of Hoshea] In 2Ki_16:2 we are told that Ahaz reigned sixteen years: in 2Ki_17:1 that Hoshea began to reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz, and here that Hezekiah succeeded his father Ahaz in Hoshea’s third year. We can see from this that the sixteen years of Ahaz must have been made up of fourteen complete years, and a broken year at the commencement, and another at the close of his reign. This makes Hezekiah to have been born when his father was extremely young. He ascended the throne at twenty-five. Ahaz had done so at twenty (2Ki_16:2). Add to this a little more than fourteen years (say fifteen) for his reign. Thus his whole life must have been but thirty-five years; so that his son, according to this chronology, must have been born when Ahaz was ten years of age.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 (1) Hezekiah.—See Note on 2Ki_16:20 and 2Ch_29:1. The name…
XVIII.—XIX.
THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH IN JUDAH. THE GREAT DELIVERANCE FROM SENNACHERIB.
Read full note →
(1) Hezekiah.—See Note on 2Ki_16:20 and 2Ch_29:1. The name in this form means, “My strength is Jah” (Psa_18:2), and its special appropriateness is exemplified by Hezekiah’s history.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–37 Ch. 18-25. THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH…
Ch. 18-25. THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH AFTER THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
2Ki_19:37. THE ACCESSION OF HEZEKIAH. HIS SUCCESSES. HIS WAR WITH SENNACHERIB.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-8. THE EARLY YEARS Or HEZEKIAH. From his narrative of the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria, the writer turns, with evident relief, to the accession of the good king Hezekiah in Judah, and to a brief account of
(1) his religious reformation (vers. 3-6);
(2) his revolt from Assyria (ver. 7); and
(3) his war with the Philistines (ver. 8).
The narrative is still exceedingly brief, and has to be filled out from the Second Book of Chronicles, where the religious reformation of Hezekiah is treated with great fullness. (2Ki 29 2Ki 30 2Ki 31)
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah King of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz King of Judah began to reign. There can scarcely be any doubt of this synchronism, which is in close accordance with the dates in vers. 9, 10 of this chapter, and agrees well with the Assyrian inscriptions. Hezekiah"s accession may be placed almost certainly in B.C. 727.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN. Vers. 1-8. The secret of a successful fife; or, trust in God, and its results.
What a refreshing contrast to some of the lives we have been considering, is this description of the life of Hezekiah! How pleasant it is to read of such a life as his, after we have read of so many kings of Judah and Israel, that "they did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin"! It is a pleasant contrast even to the life of Hezekiah"s own father Ahaz. It is a somewhat strange thing that, brought up amid such evil surroundings, Hezekiah should have turned out so well. The chances were all against him. His father"s example was anything but favorable to the development of religion in his son. How careful parents should be as to the example they set their children! The best help parents can give their children to begin life with is godly training and a Christian example. I read lately, "that of the anarchists at Chicago, who were executed for their crimes some time ago, almost all had either been deprived of their parents when young, or had never received any home training; they had never been to a Sunday school; the influences surrounding them had been utterly godless." What a responsibility rests on parents to train their children well! Much of their future happiness depends upon the home life of childhood and youth. Perhaps Hezekiah had a good mother. Perhaps he had been entrusted to the care of some one of the priests who remained faithful to God amid the prevailing unfaithfulness, idolatry, and sin. Perhaps he was early brought under the influence of Isaiah. At any rate, we read of him that he did right in the sight of the Lord. He is singled out for special praise. It is said of him that he trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him" (ver. 5). What was the consequence? Just what the consequence will be to all who put their trust in the Lord and walk in his ways: "The Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.
I TRUST IN GOD LEADS TO PERSONAL RELIGION. Hezekiah"s faith in God was not a mere idle profession. It did not consist in the mere belief of certain historical facts. It did not consist in the mere assent to certain doctrinal truths. It did not consist in the mere observance of certain outward forms and ceremonies. It was a real faith. It extended to his whole life. "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did" (ver. 3). "He clave unto the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses" (ver. 6). Suck is true religion. Religion is the dedication of the heart and life to God. A man may differ from me in creed, and in the way he worships the same God; but if he loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and serves God in sincerity, he is a truly religious man. "In every nation he that feareth God, and. worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." How expressive and instructive are some of these quaint old phrases! He clave unto the Lord." Hezekiah set before him one great aim at the commencement of his life, and that was to please God. Whatever it might cost, he made up his mind to keep close to God. It is a grand resolution for the young to make. It is a grand aim to keep before them in life. But Hezekiah had not merely a goal at which he aimed. He had certain well-defined lines along which he reached that goal. He knew that, to please God, he must keep his commandments. He did not set up his own will in opposition to the will of God, king though he was. He did not dispute the wisdom of God"s commands. He felt that God knew much better than he did the path of wisdom and of duty. This is one of the best evidences of true faith of real trust in God. We may not see the reason for a command of God, but let us obey it. A parent will give his child many commands, for which it is quite unnecessary, perhaps undesirable, that the child should know the reason. Obedience based on faith is one of the first principles of life. Here, then, was the beginning of Hezekiah"s success in life. It began with the state of his own heart. He trusted in God. That trust in God molded his whole character, and character is the foundation of all that is permanent in life.
II TRUST IN GOD LEADS TO PRACTICAL EFFORT. Hezekiah very soon showed by his conduct that he was determined to serve God. He did not leave the people long in doubt as to which side he was on. In the very first year of his reign, and in the first month of it, he opened the doors of the temple of the Lord, which his father had closed, and repaired them. (2Ch_29:3) As soon as the temple was set in proper order, he caused the priests and the Levites to commence at once the public service of God. Then, in the second month, he issued a proclamation throughout all the land of Israel and Judah, inviting the people to come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover in the house of the Lord. What a festival and time of rejoicing that was! For seven days they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread with great gladness, and the Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the Lord. Peace offerings were offered; confession of sin was made, not to the priests, but to the Lord God of their fathers; and the presence of the Lord was so manifested among the large congregation, that when the seven days of the Passover were ended, the whole assembly unanimously agreed to keep seven days more. "So there was great joy in Jerusalem: for since the time of Solomon the son of David King of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem" The effect of the service was electrical When the Passover was finished, the people went out to all the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars until they had utterly destroyed them all. In all this work of destroying the symbols of idolatry, Hezekiah the king took a leading part. Even the brazen serpent which Moses had made did not escape the destroying hand. It was an interesting relic of Israel"s journeying in the wilderness, and of their wonderful deliverance by God. But it had become a snare to the people. It had become an object of worship to some, as relics and images become to many professing Christians. They worshipped it and burnt incense to it. Hezekiah was not the man to destroy anything that was a help to true devotion. He encouraged the Levites to use the trumpets, the harp, and the psaltery, to stir up and stimulate the singing of the congregation, and to render to God a hearty and glorious service of praise. But he saw that the brazen serpent had become an idol in itself, and was leading the thoughts of the people away from the true Object of worship. So be broke it in pieces. All honor to the determined reformer, who destroyed everything that had become dishonoring to God! All honor to those stern reformers who from time to time have broken in pieces the symbols of idolatry in the Church of Christ! Would that in the Church of Rome today some such reformer would arise, who would denounce and overthrow its image-worship and Mariolatry! Such was the work of reformation which Hezekiah accomplished among his people. It shows how God honor s those who are determined to serve him, and how he blesses immediate and decided action. Hezekiah might well have hesitated in this work. The whole country was given over to idolatry. He might have dreaded a rebellion. In some parts of the country he got little sympathy in his efforts to restore the ancient religion. When the messengers inviting the people to the Passover passed through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh and. Zebulon, the people there laughed them to scorn and mocked them. Such manifestations of popular feeling might have caused Hezekiah to falter in his decision. He might have thought that he would introduce his reforms gradually. But no! the idolatry was wrong, and it must be put down at once. The worship of the true God was right, and it must at once be resumed, Hezekiah was right . Had he waited, had he begun his reign by tolerating idolatry for a while, he would have found it much harder to overthrow afterwards. Is there not here a lesson for us all? If you see the right loath clearly pointed out to you, resolve to walk in it, though all men should be against you. Remember the brave words of Athanasius. He was mocked at for his zeal for the truth. Some one said to him, "Athanasius, all the world is against you; " then said he, "Athanasius is against the world." Follow the light of conscience and of duty. What matter though you may incur danger or worldly loss by so doing?
And because right is right, to follow right Were reason in the scorn of consequence.
Furthermore, whatever work you see needs to be done, do it at once. Promptness and decision are two essential elements of success in life. Do you see that you need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ if you are to be saved? Then come to him today. A more convenient season may never arrive. We know not what a day may bring forth. Do you hear God calling you by his Word to perform some act of kindness or forgiveness? Then do it at once. Do you hear God calling you to some work of usefulness in his Church? Begin at once to undertake it. If our trust in God is a real trust, it will lead us, not only to personal religion, but also to practical effort. We can trust him to take care of us when we are doing his work. "Therefore be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.
III TRUST IN GOD LEADS TO SUCCESS IN LIFE. "And the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth" (ver. 7). He was victorious over his enemies. He threw off the yoke of the King of Assyria, and drove back the Philistines, who had made great inroads during the previous reign. When the people honor ed God, their God honor ed them and gave them victories over their enemies. As a reward of Hezekiah"s faith and faithfulness, God gave him much riches and honor. Hezekiah had trusted God at the beginning of his reign. He had done God"s will, though he did not know what it might cost him, and before he was established on the throne. And God did not disappoint his trust, but made him greater and more honored than all the kings of Judah before or after his time. Even in a temporal point of view, no one ever loses by trusting God and doing what is right. Christ promises that every one who is willing to give up every earthly possession for his sake will receive a hundredfold more in this life, and in the world to come life everlasting. We saw, above, the dangers of prosperity. Hezekiah"s career shows us what is the safeguard of prosperity. "The Lord was with him." Where that can be said, there is no danger in prosperity. In the godless man, prosperity is often a curse. It hardens his heart. He thinks that he is rich and increased in goods and has need of nothing. But the prosperity of the Christian may be a great blessing to himself and others. Take with you into your business, into your social relations, into every plan you make and every work you undertake, the presence of God, the fear of God, the commandments of God; and then there will be no fear of your success. Trust in the Lord. Put your eternal interests into the hands of Jesus. He is worthy of your trust. They that trust themselves to him shall never perish. Trust in the Lord, that it may lead you to personal religion, to practical effort, to success in life.
Set thou thy trust upon the Lord. And be thou doing good, And so thou in the land shalt dwell, And verily have food. C.H.I.
Vers. 1-37. A striking reformation, a ruthless despotism, and an unprincipled diplomacy.
it came to pass," etc. Amongst the incidents recorded and the characters mentioned in this chapter, there stand out in great prominence three subjects for practical contemplation:
(1) a striking reformation;
(2) a ruthless despotism; and
(3) an unprincipled diplomacy.
The many strange and somewhat revolting historic events that make up the bulk of this chapter will come out in the discussion of these three subjects.
I A STRIKING REFORMATION. Hezekiah, who was now King of Judah, and continued such for about twenty-nine years, was a man of great excellence. The unknown historian here says that "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did," etc. (vers. 3-8). This is high testimony, and his history shows that on the whole it was well deserved. Compared with most of his predecessors and contemporaries, he appears to have been an extraordinarily good man. He lived in a period of great national trial and moral corruption. Israel, Judah"s sister-kingdom, was in its death-throes, and his own people had fallen into idolatry of the grossest kind. In the very dawn of his reign he sets himself to the work of reformation. We find in 2Ch_29:2-36 a description of the desire for a thorough reformation which displayed itself. But the point of his reformative work, on which we would now fasten our attention, is that mentioned in ver. 4, "He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan." His method for extirpating idolatry from his country is detailed with minuteness in 2Ch_29:3 2Ch_30:1-9. In this destruction of the brazen serpent we are struck with two things.
1. The perverting tendency of sin. The brazen serpent (we learn from (Num_21:9) was a beneficent ordinance of God to heal those in the wilderness who had been bitten by the fiery serpents. But this Divine ordinance, designed for a good purpose, and which had accomplished good, was now, through the forces of human depravity, become a great evil. The Jews turned what was a special display of Divine goodness into a great evil. I am disposed to honor them for preserving it for upwards of seven hundred years, and thus handing it down from sire to son as a memorial of heavenly mercy; but their conduct in establishing it as an object for worship must be denounced without hesitancy or qualification. But is not this the great law of depravity? Has it not always perverted the good things of God, and thus converted blessings into curses? It has ever done so. It is doing so now. See how this perverting power acts in relation to such Divine blessings as
(1) health;
(2) riches;
(3) genius;
(4) knowledge;
(5) governments; and
(6) religious institutions.
2. The true attributes of a reformer. Here we observe:
(1) spiritual insight. Hezekiah (if our translation is correct) saw in this serpent, which appeared like a god to the people, nothing but a piece of brass What is grand to the vulgar is contemptible to the spiritually thoughtful. The true reformer peers into the heart of things, and finds that the gods of the people are but of common brass.
(2) Invincible honesty. He not only saw that it was brass, but said so declared it in the ears of the people. How many there are who have eyes to see the vile and contemptible in the objects which popular feeling admires and adores, but who lack the honesty to express their convictions! A true man not only sees the wrong, but exposes it.
(3) Practical courage. This reformer not only had the insight to see, and the honesty to expose the worthlessness of the people"s gods, but he had the courage to strike them from their pedestal. "He brake in pieces the brazen serpent." I have no hope of any man doing any real spiritual good who has not these three instincts. He must not only have an eye to penetrate the seeming and to descry the real, nor merely be honest enough to speak out his views, but he must have also the manly hand to "break in pieces" the false, in order to do the Divine work of reform. The man that has the three combined is the reformer. Almighty Love! multiply amongst us men of this threefold instinct men which the age, the world demands!
3. The true soul of a reformer. What is that which gave him the true insight and attributes of a reformer which in truth was the soul of the whole?
(1) Entire consecration to the right. "He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him but kept his commandments which the Lord commanded Moses. He trusted in and clave to the One true and living God, and kept his commandments. And this is right, and there is no right but this.
(2) Invincible antagonism to the wrong. "And he rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not." "The yearly tribute his father had stipulated to pay, he withheld. Pursuing the policy of a truly theocratic sovereign, be was, through the Divine blessing which rested on his government, raised to a position of great public and national strength. Shalmaneser was dead; and assuming, consequently, that full independent sovereignty which God had settled on the house of David, he both shook off the Assyrian yoke, and, by an energetic movement against the Philistines, recovered the credit which his father Ahaz had lost in his war with that people." (2Ch_28:18)
II A RUTHLESS DESPOTISM. There are two despots mentioned in this chapter Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both kings of Assyria. A brief description of the former we have in vers. 9, 10, 12. What is stated in these verses is but a repetition of what we have in the preceding chapter, and the remarks made on it in our last homily preclude the necessity of any observations here. This Shalmaneser was a tyrant of the worst kind. He invaded and ravaged the land of Israel, threw Hoshea into prison, laid siege to Samaria, carried the Israelites into Assyria, and located in their homes strangers from various parts of the Assyrian dominions. Thus he utterly destroyed the kingdom of Israel. The other despot is Sennacherib (vers. 13-16). Shalmaneser is gone, and this Sennacherib takes his place. The ruthlessness of this man"s despotism appears in the following facts, recorded in the present chapter.
1. He had already invaded a country in which he had no right. "Sow in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib King of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them." "The names of the principal of these cities are perhaps enumerated by Micah (1:11-16), viz. Saphir, lying between Ashdod and Eleutheropolis (Eusebius and Jerome, "Onomast.," Saphir; cf. Robinson, "Bibl. Researches," 2. p. 370); Zaanan or Zenan, (Jos_15:37) (Septuagint Xeunaar); Beth-Ezel or, (Zec_14:5) near Saphir and Zaanan; Maroth or Maarath, (Jos_15:59) between these towns and Jerusalem; Lachish (Um Lakis); Moresheth-Gath, situated in the direction of Gath; Achzib, between Keilah and Mareshah; (Jos_15:44) Mareshah, situated in the low country of Judah; (Jos_15:44) Adullam, near Mareshah (cf. Isa_24:1-12) Overrunning Palestine, Sennacherib laid siege to the fortress of Lachish, which lay seven Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, and, therefore, southwest of Jerusalem on the way to Egypt. Amongst the interesting illustrations of sacred history, furnished by the recent Assyrian excavations, is a series of bas-reliefs representing the siege of a town a fenced town among the uttermost cities of Judah." (Jos_15:39; Robinson"s "Biblical Researches Now mark, he now determines on another invasion, although:
2. He had received from the king most humble submission and large contributions to leave his country alone. Mark his humiliating appeal, "And Hezekiah King of Judah sent to the King of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear." Alas! herein is a yielding of this great man"s courage. Why did he apologize, pay the tribute which his ancestor had immorally pledged? Up to this point he had been bold in withholding it. But here, in crouching fear, he makes an apology. And more than this, he unrighteously promises a large contribution in answer to the despot"s demands. "And the King of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah King of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold." The sum that he promised was extravagant, amounting to three hundred and fifty thousand pounds; but what was worse, this sum was abstracted from the public funds, to which he had no right, and was also rifled from the temple, which was a desecration. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king"s house. At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah King of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the King of Assyria" The conduct of Hezekiah in this matter cannot be justified. Inasmuch as Sennacherib accepted the offering, he was in honor bound to abandon all idea of another invasion. Albeit, contrary to every principle of justice and kindness, not to say honor, he dispatches his army again into Judaea. "And the King of Assyria sent Tartan," etc. (ver. 17). What monsters are such despots! and yet they are not rare. Is there a nation existing on the face of the earth to-day, whatever its form of government, that has not at one time or another played this part?
III AN UNPRINCIPLED DIPLOMACY. On behalf of Hezekiah, "Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder," appeared before the invading soldiers, and they are thus addressed by Rabshakeh, one of the leaders of the invading host: "And Rahshakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?" etc. He appears as the diplomatist of the Assyrian war-king, and what does he do? By an impassioned harangue, fraught with insolence, falsehood, and blasphemy, he urges Hezekiah and his country to surrender. In doing this:
1. He represents his master, the King of Assyria, to be far greater than he is. "Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyria." Great, indeed! A flashing meteor and a gorgeous bubble, nothing morel A diplomatist is ever tempted to make his own country fabulously great in the presence of the one with whom he seeks to negotiate.
2. He seeks to terrify them with a sense of their utter inability to resist the invading army. "What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Vers. 1-8. Hezekiah the good. It is with a sense of relief that we emerge from the dark and oppressive atmosphere of the time of Ahaz into the "clear shining" (2Sa_23:4) of a reign like that of Hezekiah. Once more Divine mercy gave Judah a king in whom the best traditions of the theocracy were revived.
I RIGHT CONDUCT.
1. An evil upbringing belied. As if to set laws of heredity at defiance, the worst King of Judah hitherto is succeeded by one of the best the best after David. It is difficult on human principles to account for such a phenomenon. Hezekiah had every disadvantage in inherited tendency, in evil example, and in adverse surrounding influences. But Divine grace triumphed over all, and made out of him "a chosen vessel". (Act_9:15) Doubtless some human agency unknown to us was employed in molding the young prince"s character. It may have been his mother, "Abi, the daughter of Zachariah;" or perhaps the Prophet Isaiah, who had afterwards so much to do with him.
2. A good example followed, Hezekiah took as his model, not his own father, but David, the founder of his line, of whom God had said, "I have found David the son of Jesse a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will". (Act_13:22) Hezekiah is the new David. Of no other since the times of Asa is it affirmed that he did "according to all that David his father did;" and even of Asa the testimony is less emphatic than here. (1Ki_15:11) Hezekiah mounted to the original model. David was the model for the kings of Judah; we have a yet higher one Christ. It is well in ordering our lives to go back to this ultimate standard, judging ourselves, not by the degree of likeness or unlikeness to our neighbors, but by the measure of conformity to him.
II REFORMING ZEAL. Hezekiah evidenced the reality of his piety by his works. In carrying out his reforms Hezekiah would no doubt be strengthened and assisted by the prophets; and the people were perhaps prepared to acquiesce in them by their disgust at the extravagant idolatries of Ahaz. (cf. 2Ch_28:27)
1. Temptation removed. Hezekiah early took the step which had hitherto been neglected by even the best kings he "removed the high places." This centralized the worship at Jerusalem, and did away with the temptations to idolatry which the local altars afforded. It was further important as an evidence of his thorough-going determination to carry out the provisions of God"s Law. We may wonder how Hezekiah could venture on such a step without awakening widespread resistance and disaffection; but the Book of Chronicles shows that it happened while the wave of enthusiasm created by the great Passover was yet at its height a sufficient explanation. (2Ch_31:1)
2. Destruction of monuments of idolatry. Hezekiah next proceeded to clear the land of those idols of which Isaiah, at an earlier period, had said that it was full. (Isa_2:8) He brake the images, and cut down the asherah. These vigorous measures were indispensable if true religion was to be reestablished. It is not otherwise with the individual heart. True repentance is a stripping the soul of its idols love of money, fashion, gaiety, dress, etc. "Ye cannot serve God and mammon". (Mat_6:24) "Covetousness, which is idolatry". (Col_3:5)
The dearest idol I have known, Whate"er that idol be, Help me to tear it from thy throne, And worship only thee.
3. Breaking of the brazen serpent. Another noteworthy act of Hezekiah was his breaking in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made. This is the first and last glimpse we get of this venerable relic since the time when it was set up in the wilderness. Its preservation was natural; it had done a wonderful work in its day; it was the symbol of a great deliverance; it had clustered around it the associations of miracle; it was the type even of the salvation of Messiah. We cannot marvel that it was reverenced as a sacred object. Yet now it had become a snare to the people, who burnt incense to it, and Hezekiah ruthlessly destroyed it, calling it (or it was called) contemptuously Nehushtan piece of brass." We see from this how things originally sacred may become a snare and a temptation. Superstition is a fungus of rank growth, and fastens on nothing more readily than on the objects which call forth a natural reverence. Cf. the story of Gideon"s. (Jud_1:8:24 27) Thus from the veneration of martyrs in the Christian Church there grew the worship of relics. So with all other aids to devotion, conceptions that fitly invest religious feelings, which, as Carlyle says ("On Heroes") are eidola, things seen, symbols of the invisible. When the sense and spiritual meaning goes out of these, and they become objects of superstitious reverence in themselves, it is time for them to be broken up. Even an object so sacred as the serpent which Moses made sinks to the level of a mere "piece of brass." We are reminded of Knox"s reply when a prisoner in the galleys, and the image of the Virgin was presented to him to kiss. "Mother? Mother of God?" he said. "This is no mother of God; this is a painted bread a piece of painted wood and flung the thing into the river.
III PRE-EMINENT GODLINESS.
1. Hezekiah the best of his line. Additional emphasis is given to the commendation of Hezekiah by the statement, "After him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him." It is good to be preeminent, but most of all to be pre-eminent for godliness. When we remember that among the kings with whom Hezekiah is here compared are such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Uzziah before him, and Josiah after him, we see that the praise is very great.
2. The praise particularized. The general statement is expanded into its particulars. Hezekiah trusted in the Lord; he clave to the Lord; he departed not from following him; he kept his commandments, as given to Moses. Trust, fidelity, obedience, and perseverance, in all these were his distinctive characteristics. Some kings had trusted, but not with so entire a heart; some had been obedient, but not so fully; some had been faithful for a time, but had failed to persevere. Hezekiah had the better record. God puts special honor on whole-hearted service. We are to see, however, that, exceptional as his goodness was, Hezekiah was not perfect. He bad his flaws, his sins, his failures too. The intention of the text is not to represent him as sinless, but only as pre-eminently great and good. "There is not a just man on earth that doeth good, and sinneth not". (Ecc_7:20)
IV DIVINE REWARD. Hezekiah"s piety won for him Divine favor, protection, and success.
1. Freedom from servitude. "He rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not." He thus rescued the kingdom from the humiliating dependence into which it had been brought by Ahaz.
2. Victory over enemies. Hezekiah had also important victories over the Philistines, and was prospered "whithersoever" he went forth. Spiritually, God gives to those who fear him deliverance from the power of sin within, and victory over the world, the devil, and the flesh. J.O.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13 Now it came to pass in the third year…
2Ki_18:1-37
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea.
Read full note →
A striking reformation, a ruthless despotism, and an unprincipled diplomacy
I. A striking reformation (2Ki_18:3-8).
1. The perverting tendency of sin. The brazen serpent was a beneficent ordinance of God to heal those in the wilderness who had been bitten by the fiery serpent. But this Divine ordinance, designed for a good purpose, and which had accomplished good, was now, through the forces of human depravity, become a great evil. See how this perverting power acts in relation to such Divine blessings, as
(1) health;
(2) riches;
(3) genius;
(4) knowledge;
(5) governments; and
(6) religious institutions.
2. The true attributes of a reformer. Here we observe
(1) Spiritual insight. Hezekiah saw in this serpent which appeared like a God to the people, nothing but a piece of brass--Nehushtan.
(2) Invincible honesty. He not only saw that it was brass, but said so,--thundered it into the ears of the people.
(3) Practical courage. He brake in pieces the brasen serpent.
3. The true soul of a reformer. What is that which gave him the true insight and attributes of a reformer, which in truth was the soul of the whole?
(1) Entire consecration to the right.
(2) Invincible antagonism to the wrong.
II. A ruthless despotism. There are two despots mentioned in this chapter--Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both kings of Assyria.
1. He had already invaded a country in which he had no right.
2. He had received from the king most humble submission and large contributions to leave his country alone. Mark his humiliating appeal.
III. An unprincipled diplomacy,
1. He represents his master, the King of Assyria, to be far greater than he is.
2. He seeks to terrify them with a sense of their utter inability to resist the invading army. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Hezekiahs good reign
The history of Gods ancient people is full of surprises. The whole course of their national life was marked by wonderful Divine interpositions. An public records, when carefully studied, disclose the fact that God, through His providence, is acting as master of affairs, and though statesmen and political economists refer the shifting events of national career to natural causes, it is evident to the clear thinker that God is an uncalculated factor, the explanation is meagre and faulty. But in the history of the elect people, the Divine element was unmistakably prominent. In these particulars the history of the Jews was unique, and sublime above that of any other nation. And yet the behaviour of the people was quite as surprising. With only the thinnest of veils separating them from God--their daily experience august with the manifestations of His presence--the penalties of sin and the rewards of righteousness, things tangible and perceptible, they went on in a mad career of impiety and wickedness as recklessly as though they had never heard of Jehovah. But there are lights as well as shadows to the picture. Now and then a man in authority rose to the level of his responsibility and ruled in the fear of God, and the nation, as nations commonly do, catching inspiration from their leader, entered upon an era of prosperity. Notable among these faithful few was Hezekiah, King of Judah.
1. Hezekiah did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. His theory of government was a simple one; to make it as far as possible a transcript of the Divine government. Statesmanship, in his conception of it, was no familiarity with human precedents, a mastery of the wiles and contrivances by which men in power manage to make all events subserve their purpose, a skilful sword-play in which some trick of fence is more highly esteemed than truth and righteousness. With that one purpose sovereign and constant, all details of administration grouped themselves about it, and in harmony with it, as the atoms of the gem aggregate themselves about the centre of crystallization, the value and lustre of the jewel, due to its unity. No government of contradictions this, whose worth was to be ascertained by averaging its failings and its merits, but an honest attempt on the part of the king to make his rule an answer to the prayer, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. It is the fatal defect in most forms of government that this overrule of God is ignored. Men are dull scholars, slow to learn that to do right is to do well, in public affairs as well as in private conduct. To do that which is fight in the sight of the Lord is the fundamental and unalterable principle in all policies of government that vindicate themselves in history. Treasuries and armies and the intrigues of cabinets may win temporary successes; but they are short-lived.
2. Hezekiah trusted in the Lord God of Israel. That gave him confidence and made him uncompromising in all his measures. He was no cautious strategist, trying experiments, uncertain of their issue, advancing so slowly that there would be opportunity to retrace his steps if the event seemed likely to disappoint his expectation a He did not trust in his own shrewdness and far-sightedness. He was not anxious about the signs of the times, a calculator of popular weather probabilities. No one more well aware than he of the unreliability of the tone and temper of public moods. He trusted in God, the eternal and the unchanging, a personal God, the Lord God of Israel, doing His pleasure in the armies of heaven and among the children of men. So he had no responsibility except for duty; consequences were in higher and wiser hands than his. Like a soldier under command, he had only to obey orders. And withal he had a serene and satisfying assurance that he should be contented with last results. The Divine wishes could not be thwarted, and whatever pleased God would please him. When the first Napoleon came to the throne, and saw how unbelief was destroying both the faith and the conscience of the French nation, he said to his advisers, If there is no God, we must create one. No man can prosperously direct the affairs of a great people without personal faith in God. There are crises in affairs when he loses heart and hope unless he endures as seeing Him who is invisible. There are hours when the policy of strict righteousness threatens immediate disaster, and the temptation to slight concessions for large apparent good is strong, and how can king or president resist it unless they are able to look up through the obscurity and confidently say, Clouds and darkness are round about Him, but judgment and justice are the habitation of His throne? Religion is too often depreciated as the superstition of the cloister and the Church, but all history shows that it has been the most practical and powerful force in the administration of government.
3. Hezekiah clave to the Lord and departed not from following Him. This religious faith was something more than an intellectual assent to certain general truths, more even than the recognition that Divine Providence is the operative factor in human history. His convictions had a personal force, and caused him to see that he ought to be, and led him to endeavour to be, himself a good man. Behind all the righteous measures he proposed, there was the weight and push of a righteous character. It was not enough that the service due to God had mention in public documents and on state occasions; he himself must render that service in his private capacity. The people must see, in his individual behaviour, the recognition of the sovereignty of those principles that were embedded in the statutes, and gave shape and colour to the national policy. Other things being equal, the better the character of king and governor and legislator, the stronger the presumption that their administration of affairs will be judicious, sound, and strong. The man who governs himself rightly has taken the first step towards knowing how to govern others for their good.
4. And the Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went. This is the brief but significant summing up of the history of Hezekiahs reign. The account is notable for its omissions. There is no record of new territory added to the kingdom, of armies organised, of treasuries filled, of advance in industrial enterprise and business prosperity, the specifications that figure so largely in the common description of national growth. In the thought of the inspired writer, the enumeration of items like these was of small importance in comparison with the great overshadowing fact that the Divine presence was visible, and the Divine favour evident, in the whole course of the peoples history. That of itself was sufficient to ensure success and renown. Since God was for them, who or what could be against them? (Monday Club Sermons.)
Hezekiahs good reign
Heredity is fickle, or wicked Ahaz would not have had a son like Hezekiah. The piety of the father does not necessarily involve the godliness of the son, nor does the iniquity of the parent make virtue impossible in his posterity. Judah had no worse king than Ahaz, and no better than Hezekiah. There are surprises of goodness in bad families, and of wickedness in families which bear an honoured name. There is also a sweet word of hope for the offspring of bad people. Hezekiah and Josiah were sons of such evil monsters as Ahaz and Amon. The surroundings and character of Hezekiah supply useful lessons.
I. An evil environment. Hezekiahs life boldly challenged and denied the supremacy of circumstances, and emphasised the truth that real manhood rules circumstances, and is not ruled by them.
1. Evil in the home. Ahaz contributed in the fullest measure possible, both by precept and example, to the moral ruin of his family. Every form of heathenism he found in the land he strenuously supported, and introduced new varieties of sin from other lands. There is not a single virtuous thing recorded of him during his whole life. The kindest thing he ever did was to die, and even that service was performed involuntarily.
2. A corrupt nation. Evil was popular. The flowing tide of public sentiment was with Ahaz, idolatry, and vice. The nation had lost its conscience. The last restraints of decency and custom had been removed. There was not an institution in all the land for the protection of youth,, and the young prince, and any other virtuous youth, might say with literal truth, No man careth for my soul.
II. A splendid character. Untoward circumstances develop brave men. Battles and storms make heroes possible.
1. Unwavering decision. In the first month of the first year of his reign, he set about the work of reform (2Ch_29:3). He was only twenty-five years of age. But his youth had been wisely spent, and when opportunity of great usefulness came, he was ready.
2. Religious enthusiasm. He restored the purity and dignity of Divine worship (verses 4-6). He went back to first principles; he dug down to the only sure foundation of national strength. No nation can be strong whose temple doors are closed.
3. Widespread success. His achievements were so great and complete, that he eclipsed all the kings who preceded and succeeded him (verse 5). His trust was in the Lord (verse 5), and his faith was honoured of God (verses 7, 8). Truly character is above circumstances, and the history of this Jewish prince is a lesson of hope for the young people of to-day. (R. W. Keighley.)
A just ruler a type of God
John Ruskin, in Stones of Venice, calls attention to the pleasing fact that in the year 813 the Doge of Venice devoted himself to putting up two great buildings--St. Marks, for the worship of God, and a palace for the administration of justice to man. Have you ever realised how much God has honoured law in the fact that all up and down the Bible He makes the Judge a type of Himself, and employs the scene of a court-room to set forth the grandeurs of the great judgment day? Book of Genesis: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Book of Deuteronomy: The Lord shall judge His people. Book of Psalms: God is Judge Himself. Book of the Acts: Judge of quick and dead. Book of Timothy: The Lord the righteous Judge. Never will it be understood how God honours judges and court-rooms until the thunderbolt of the last day shall sound the opening of the great assize--the day of trial, the day of clearance, the day of doom, the day of judgment. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
The spiritual scores successes
Remember that flesh dies and spirit lives: in the long run, it is the spiritual that is mighty. Think of that insignificant-looking little black-eyed Jew clanking his chains in Rome, and writing to the saints that are in Ephesus. Think of Athanasius calmly facing the Arian rabble. Think of Leo the Great consolidating a spiritual empire when the old Roman civilisation was shattered and failing in ruins. Think of Augustine writing the City of God in 410 when the world was thrilled with dismay because Rome had been stormed by Alaric the Goth. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. To be spiritual is to be already victorious.
The religious-the greatest of reforms
In his History of the Eighteenth Century, Mr. Lecky said: Although the career of the elder Pitt and the splendid victories by land and sea that were won during his ministry formed unquestionably the most dazzling episodes in the reign of George II., they must yield in real importance to that religious revolution which shortly before had begun in England by the preaching of the Wesleys and Whitefield. Methodism was the least result of Wesleys efforts, for, as Green the historian had said, the noblest result of the religious revival was the steady attempt which had never ceased from that day to this to remedy the guilt, the ignorance, the physical suffering, and the social degradations of the profligate and the poor. Wesley preached and taught in his class-meetings and in his journals the true application of the great saying of burke, that whatever is morally wrong can never be politically right.--
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 13 2 Kings 18
HEZEKIAH
B.C. 715-686
Read full note →
2 Kings 18
"For Ezekias had done the thing that pleased the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David his father, as Esay the prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision, had commanded him."
- ECCLUS. 48:22
THE reign of Hezekiah was epoch-making in many respects, but especially for its religious reformation, and the relations of Judah with Assyria and with Babylon. It is also most closely interwoven with the annals of Hebrew prophecy, and acquires unwonted luster from the magnificent activity and impassioned: eloquence of the great prophet Isaiah, who merits in many ways the title of "the Evangelical Prophet," and who was the greatest of the prophets of the Old Dispensation.
According to the notice in 2Ki_18:2, Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign in the third year of Hoshea of Israel. This, however, is practically impossible consistently with the dates that Ahaz reigned sixteen years and became king at the age of twenty, for it would then follow that Hezekiah was born when his father was a mere boy-and this although Hezekiah does not seem to have been the eldest son; for Ahaz had burnt "his son," and, according to the Chronicler, more than one son, to propitiate Moloch. Probably Hezekiah was a boy of fifteen when he began to reign. The chronology of his reign of twenty-nine years is, unhappily, much confused.
The historian of the Kings agrees with the Chronicler, and the son of Sirach, in pronouncing upon him a high eulogy, and making him equal even to David in faithfulness. There is, however, much difference in the method of their descriptions of his doings. The historian devotes but one verse to his reformation-which probably began early in his reign, though it occupied many years. The Chronicler, on the other hand, in his three chapters manages to overlook, if not to suppress, the one incident of the reformation which is of the deepest interest. It is exactly one of those suppressions which help to create the deep misgiving as to the historic exactness of this biased and late historian. It must be regarded as doubtful whether many of the Levitic details in which he revels are or are not intended to be literally historic. Imaginative additions to literal history became common among the Jews after the Exile, and leaders of that day instinctively drew the line between moral homiletics and literal history. It may be perfectly historical that, as the Chronicler says, Hezekiah opened and repaired the Temple; gathered the priests and the Levites together, and made them cleanse themselves; offered a solemn sacrifice; reappointed the musical services; and-though this can hardly have been till after the Fall of Samaria in 722-invited all the Israelites to a solemn, but in some respects irregular, passover of fourteen days. It may be true also that he broke up the idolatrous altars in Jerusalem, and tossed their debris into the Kidron; and (again after the deportation of Israel) destroyed some of the bamoth in Israel as well as in Judah. If he re-instituted the courses of the priests, the collection of tithes, and all else that he is said to have done, {2Ch_31:2-21} he accomplished quite as much as was effected in the reign of his great-grandson Josiah. But while the Chronicler dwells on all this at such length, what induces him to omit the most significant fact of all-the destruction of the brazen serpent?
The historian tells us that Hezekiah "removed the bamoth"-the chapels on the high places, with their ephods and teraphim-whether dedicated to the worship of Jehovah or profaned by alien idolatry. That he did, or attempted, something of this kind seems certain; for the Rabshakeh, if we regard his speech as historical in its details, actually taunted him with impiety, and threatened him with the wrath of Jehovah on this very account. Yet here we are at once met with the many difficulties with which the history of Israel abounds, and which remind us at every turn that we know much less about the inner life and religious conditions of the Hebrews than we might infer from a superficial study of the historians who wrote so many centuries after the events which they describe. Over and over again their incidental notices reveal a condition of society and worship which violently collides with what seems to be their general estimate. Who, for instance, would not infer from this notice that in Judah, at any rate, the kings suppression of the "high places," and above all of those which were idolatrous, had been tolerably thorough? How much, then, are we amazed to find that Hezekiah had not effectually desecrated even the old shrines which Solomon had erected to Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom "at the right hand of the mount of corruption"-in other words, on one of the peaks of the Mount of Olives, in full view of the walls of Jerusalem and of the Temple Hill!
"And he brake the images," or, as the R.V more correctly renders it, "the pillars," the matstseboth. Originally-that is, before the appearance of the Deuteronomic and the Priestly Codes-no objection seems to have been felt to the erection of a matstsebah. Jacob erected one of these baitulia or anointed stones at Bethel, with every sign of Divine approval. Moses erected twelve round his altar at Sinai. Joshua erected them in Shechem and on Mount Ebal. Hosea, in one passage, {Hos_3:4} seems to mention pillars, ephods, and teraphim as legitimate objects of desire. Whether they have any relation to obelisks, and what is their exact significance, is uncertain; but they had become objects of just suspicion in the universal tendency to idolatry, and in the deepening conviction that the second commandment required a far more rigid adherence than it had hitherto received.
"And cut down the groves"-or rather the Asherim, the wooden, and probably in some instances phallic, emblems of the nature-goddess Asherah, the goddess of fertility. She is sometimes identified with Astarte, the goddess of the moon and of love; but there is no sufficient ground for the identification. Some, indeed, doubt whether Asherah is the name of a goddess at all. They suppose that the word only means a consecrated pole or pillar, emblematic of the sacred tree.
Then comes the startling addition, "And brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it." This addition is all the more singular because the Hebrew tense implies habitual worship. The story of the brazen serpent of the wilderness is told in Num_21:9; but not an allusion to it occurs anywhere, till now-some eight centuries later-we are told that up to this time the Children of Israel bad been in the habit of burning incense to it! Comparing Num_21:4, with Num_33:42, we find that the scene of the serpent-plague of the Exodus was either Zal-monah ("the place of the image") or Punon, which Bochart connects with Phainoi, a place mentioned as famous for copper-mines. Moses, for unknown reasons, chose it as an innocent and potent symbol; but obviously in later days it subserved, or was mingled with, the tendency to ophiolatry, which has been fatally common in all ages in many heathen lands. It is indeed most difficult to understand a state of things in which the children of Israel habitually burned incense to this venerable relic, nor can we imagine that this was done without the cognizance and connivance of the priests. Ewald makes the conjecture that the brazen Saraph had been left at Zalmonah, and was an occasional object of Israelite adoration in pilgrimage for the purpose. There is, however, nothing more extraordinary in the prevalence of serpent-worship among the Jews than in the fact that, "in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, we (the Jews), and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, burnt incense unto the Queen of Heaven." If this were the case, the serpent may have been brought to Jerusalem in the idolatrous reign of Ahaz. It shows an intensity of reforming zeal, and an inspired insight into the reality of things, that Hezekiah should not have hesitated to smash to pieces so interesting a relic of the oldest history of his people, rather than see it abused to idolatrous purposes. Certainly, in conduct so heroic, and hatred of idolatry so strong, the Puritans might well find sufficient authority for removing from Westminster Abbey the images of the Virgin, which, in their opinion, had been worshipped, and before which lamps had had been perpetually burned. If we can imagine an English king breaking to pieces the shrine of the Confessor in the Abbey, or a French king destroying the sacred ampulla of Rheims or the goupillon of St. Eligius, on the ground that many regarded them with superstitious reverence, we may measure the effect produced by this startling act of Puritan zeal on the part of Hezekiah.
"And he called it Nehushtan." If this rendering-in which our A.V and R.V follow the LXX and the Vulgate-be correct, Hezekiah justified the iconoclasm by a brilliant play of words. The Hebrew words for "a serpent" (nachash) and for brass (nedwsheth) are closely akin to each other; and the king showed his just estimate of the relic which had been so shamefully abused by contemptuously designating it-as it was in itself and apart from its sacred historic associations "nehushtan," a thing of brass. The rendering, however, is uncertain, for the phrase may be impersonal-"one" or "they" called it Nehushtan-in which case the assonance had lost any ironic connotation.
For this act of purity of worship, and for other reasons, the historian calls Hezekiah the best of all the kings of Judah, superior alike to all his predecessors and all his successors. He regarded him as coming up to the Deuteronomic ideal, and says that therefore "the Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth."
The date of this great reformation is rendered uncertain by the impossibility of ascertaining the exact order of Isaiahs prophecies. The most probable view is that it was gradual, and some of the kings most effective measures may not have been carried out till after the deliverance from Assyria. It is clear, however, that the wisdom of Hezekiah and his counselors began from the first to uplift Judah from the degradation and decrepitude to which it had sunk under the reign of Ahaz. The boy-king found a wretched state of affairs at his accession. His father had bequeathed to him "an empty treasury, a ruined peasantry, an unprotected frontier, and a shattered army"; but although he was still the vassal of Assyria, he reverted to the ideas of his great-grandfather Uzziah. He strengthened the city, and enabled it to stand a siege by improving the water supply. Of these labors we have, in all probability, a most interesting confirmation in the inscription by Hezekiahs engineers, discovered in 1880, on the rocky walls of the subterranean tunnel (siloh) between the spring of Gihon and the Pool of Siloam. He encouraged agriculture, the storage of produce, and the proper tendance of flocks and herds, so that he acquired wealth which dimly reminded men of the days of Solomon.
There is little doubt that he early meditated revolt from Assyria; for renewed faithfulness to Jehovah had elevated the moral tone, and therefore the courage and hopefulness, of the whole people. The Forty-Sixth Psalm, whatever may be its date, expresses the invincible spirit of a nation which in its penitence and self-purification began to feel itself irresistible, and could sing:-
"God is our hope and strength,
A very present help in trouble.
Therefore will we not fear, though the earth be moved,
Though the hills be carried into the midst of the sea,
There is a river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God,
The Holy City where dwells the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; therefore shall she not be shaken;
God shall help her, and that right early.
Heathens raged and kingdoms trembled:
He lifted His voice-the earth melted away.
Jehovah of Hosts is with us;
Elohim of Jacob is our refuge." {Psa_46:1-11}
It was no doubt the spirit of renewed confidence which led Hezekiah to undertake his one military enterprise-the chastisement of the long-troublesome Philistines. He was entirely successful. He not only won back the cities which his father had lost, {2Ch_28:18} but he also dispossessed them of their own cities, even unto Gaza, which was their southernmost possession-"from the tower of the watchman to the fenced city." There can be no doubt that this act involved an almost open defiance of the Assyrian King; but if Hezekiah dreamed of independence, it was essential for him to be free from the raids and the menace of a neighbor so dangerous as Philistia, and so inveterately hostile. It is not improbable that he may have devoted to this war the money which would otherwise have gone to pay the tribute to Shalmaneser or Sargon, which had been continued since the date of the appeal of Ahaz to Tiglath-Pileser II. When Sargon applied for the tribute Hezekiah refused it, and even omitted to send the customary present.
It is clear that in this line of conduct the king was following the exhortations of Isaiah. It showed no small firmness of character that he was able to choose a decided course amid the chaos of contending counsels. Nothing but a most heroic courage could have enabled him at any period of his reign to defy that dark cloud of Assyrian war which ever loomed on the horizon, and from which but little sufficed to elicit the destructive lightning-flash.
There were three permanent parties in the Court of Hezekiah, each incessantly trying to sway the king to its own counsels, and each representing those counsels as indispensable to the happiness, and even to the existence, of the State.
I. There was the Assyrian party, urging with natural vehemence that the fierce northern king was as irresistible in power as he was terrible in vengeance. The fearful cruelties which had been committed at Beth-Arbel, the devastation and misery of the Trans-Jordanic tribes, the obliteration and deportation of the heavily afflicted districts of Zebulon, Naphtali, and the way of the sea in Galilee of the nations, the already inevitable and imminent destruction of Samaria and her king and the whole Northern Kingdom, together with that certain deportation of its inhabitants of which the fatal policy had been established by Tiglath-Pileser, would constitute weighty arguments against resistance. Such considerations would appeal powerfully to the panic of the despondent section of the community, which was only actuated, as most men are, by considerations of ordinary political expediency. The foul apparition of the Ninevites, which for five centuries afflicted the nations, is now only visible to us in the bas-reliefs and inscriptions unearthed from their burnt palaces. There they live before us in their own sculptures, with their "thickset, sensual figures," and the expression of calm and settled ferocity on their faces, exhibiting a frightful nonchalance as they look on at the infliction of diabolical atrocities upon their vanquished enemies. But in the eighth century before Christ they were visible to all the eastern world in the exuberance of the most brutal parts of the nature of man. Men had heard how, a century earlier, Assurnazipal boasted that he had "dyed the mountains of the Nairi with blood like wool"; how he had flayed captive kings alive, and dressed pillars with their skins; how he had walled up others alive, or impaled them on stakes; how he had burnt boys and girls alive, put out eyes, cut off hands, feet, ears, and noses, pulled out the tongues of his enemies, and "at the command of Assur his god" had flung their limbs to vultures and eagles, to dogs and bears. The Jews, too, must have realized with a vividness which is to us impossible the cruel nature of the usurper Sargon. He is represented on his monuments as putting out with his own hands the eyes of his miserable captives; while, to prevent them from flinching when the spear which he holds in his hand is plunged into their eye-sockets, a hook is inserted through their nose and lips and held fast with a bridle. Can we not imagine the pathos with which this party would depict such horrors to the tremblers of Judah? Would they not bewail the fanaticism which led the prophets to seduce their king into the suicidal policy of defying such a power? To these men the sole path of national safety lay in continuing to be quiet vassals and faithful tributaries of these destroyers of cities and treaders-down of foes.
II. Then there was the Egyptian party, headed probably by the powerful Shebna, the chancellor. His foreign name, the fact that his father is not mentioned, and the question of Isaiah-"What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulcher here?"-seem to indicate that he was by birth a foreigner, perhaps a Syrian. The prophet, indignant at his powerful interference with domestic politics, threatens him, in words of tremendous energy, with exile and degradation. He lost his place of chancellor, and we next find him in the inferior, though still honorable, office of secretary, {sopher, 2Ki_18:18} while Eliakim had been promoted to his vacant place (Isa_22:21). Perhaps he may have afterwards repented, and the doom have been lightened. Circumstances at any rate reduced him from the scornful spirit which seems to have marked his earlier opposition to the prophetic counsels, and perhaps the powerful warning and menace of Isaiah may have exercised an influence on his mind.
III. The third party, if it could even be called a party, was that of Isaiah and a few of the faithful, aided no doubt by the influence of the prophecies of Micah. Their attitude to both the other parties was antagonistic.
1. As regards the Assyrian, they did not attempt to minimize the danger. They represented the peril from the kingdom of Nineveh as Gods appointed scourge for the transgressions of Judah, as it had been for the transgressions of Israel.
Thus Micah sees in imagination the terrible march of the invader by Gath, Akko, Beth-le-Aphrah, Maroth, Lachish, and Lamentations. He plays with bitter anguish on the name of each town as an omen of humiliation and ruin, and calls on Zion to make herself bald for the children of her delight, and to enlarge her baldness as the vultures, because they are gone into captivity. He turns fiercely on the greedy grandees, the false prophets, the blood-stained princes, the hireling priests, the bribe-taking soothsayers, who were responsible for the guilt which should draw down the vengeance. He ends with the fearful prophecy-which struck a chill into mens hearts a century later, and had an important influence on Jewish history-"Therefore, because of you shall Zion be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem become ruins, and the hill of the Temple as heights in the wood"; -though there should be an ultimate deliverance from Migdal-Eder, and a remnant should be saved.
Similar to Micahs, and possibly not uninfluenced by it, is Isaiahs imaginary picture of the march of Assyria, which must have been full of terror to the poor inhabitants of Jerusalem.
"He is come to Aiath!
He is passed through Migron!
At Michmash he layeth up his baggage:
They are gone over the pass:
Geba, they cry, is our lodging.
Ramah trembleth:
Gibeah of Saul is fled!
Raise thy shrill cries O daughter of Gallim!
Hearken, O Laishah! Answer her, O Anathoth!
Madmenah is in wild flight (?).
The inhabitants of Gebim gather their stuff to flee.
This very day shall he halt at Nob.
He shaketh hishand at the mount of the daughter of Zion,
The hill of Jerusalem."
Yet Isaiah, and the little band of prophets, in spite of their perils, did not share the views of the Assyrian party or counsel submission. On the contrary, even as they contemplate in imagination this terrific march of Sargon, they threaten Assyria. The Assyrian might smite Judah, but God should smite the Assyrians. He boasts that he will rifle the riches of the people as one robs the eggs of a trembling bird, which does not dare to cheep or move the wing. But Isaiah tells him that he is but the axe boasting against the hewer, and the wooden staff lifting itself up against its wielder. Burning should be scattered over his glory. The Lord of hosts should lop his boughs with terror, and a mighty one should hew down the crashing forest of his haughty Lebanon.
2. Still more indignant were the true prophets against those who trusted in an alliance with Egypt. From first to last Isaiah warned Ahaz, and warned Hezekiah, that no reliance was to be placed on Egyptian promises-that Egypt was but like the reed of his own Nile. He mocked the hopes placed on Egyptian intervention as being no less sure of disannulment than a covenant with death and an agreement with Sheol. This rebellious reliance on the shadow of Egypt was but the weaving of an unrighteous web, and the adding of sin to sin. It should lead to nothing but shame and confusion, and the Jewish ambassadors to Zoan and Egypt should only have to blush for a people that could neither help nor profit. And then branding Egypt with the old insulting name of Rahab, or "Blusterer," he says, -
"Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose.
Therefore have I called her Rahab, that sitteth still."
Indolent braggart-that was the only designation which she deserved! Intrigue and braggadocio-smoke and lukewarm water, -this was all which could be expected from her!
Such teaching was eminently distasteful to the worldly politicians, who regarded faith in Jehovahs intervention as no better than ridiculous fanaticism, and forgot Gods Wisdom in the inflated self-satisfaction of their own. The priests-luxurious, drunken, scornful-were naturally with them. Men were fine and stylish, and in their religious criticisms could not express too lofty a contempt for any one who, like Isaiah, was too sincere to care for the mere polishing of phrases, and too much in earnest to shrink from reiteration. In their self-indulgent banquets these sleek, smug euphemists made themselves very merry over Isaiahs simplicity, reiteration, and directness of expression. With hiccoughing insolence they asked whether they were to be treated like weaned babes; and then wagging their heads, as their successors did at Christ upon the cross, they indulged themselves in a mimicry, which they regarded as witty, of Isaiahs style and manner. With him they said it is all, - which may be imitated thus:-With him it is always "Bit and bit, bid and bid, forbid and forbid, forbid and forbid, a little bit here, a little bit there." Monosyllable is heaped on monosyllable; and no doubt the speakers tipsily adopted the tones of fond mothers addressing their babes and weanlings. Using the Hebrew words, one of these shameless roysterers would say, "Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav, quav-la-quav, quav-la-quav, Zeir sham, Zeir sham, -that is how that simpleton Isaiah speaks." And then doubtless a drunken laugh would go round the table, and half a dozen of them would be saying thus, "Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav, " at once. They derided Isaiah just as the philosophers of Athens derided St. Paul-as a mere spermologos, " a seed-pecker!" {Act_17:18} or "picker-up of learnings crumbs." Is all this petty monosyllabism fit teaching for persons like us? Are we to be taught by copybooks? Do we need the censorship of this Old Morality?
On whom, full of the fire of God, Isaiah turned, and told these scornful tipplers, who lorded it over Gods heritage in Jerusalem, that, since they disdained his stammerings, God would teach them by men of strange lips and alien tongue. They might mimic the style of the Assyrians also if they liked; but they should fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. {Isa_28:7-22}
It must not be forgotten that the struggle of the prophets against these parties was far more severe than we might suppose. The politicians of expediency had supporters among the leading princes. The priests-whom the prophets so constantly and sternly denounce-adhered to them; and, as usual, the women were all of the priestly party. {comp. Isa_32:9-20} The king indeed was inclined to side with his prophet, but the king was terribly overshadowed by a powerful and worldly aristocracy, of which the influence was almost always on the side of luxury, idolatry, and oppression.
3. But what had Isaiah to offer in the place of the policy of these worldly and sacerdotal advisers of the king? It was the simple command "Trust in the Lord." It was the threefold message "God is high; God is near; God is Love." Had he not told Ahaz not to fear the "stumps of two smouldering torches," when Rezin and Pekah seemed awfully dangerous to Judah? So he tells them now that, though their sins had necessitated the rushing stroke of Assyrian judgment, Zion should not be utterly destroyed. In Isaiah "the calmness requisite for sagacity rose from faith." Mr. Bagehot might have appealed to Isaiahs whole policy in illustration of what he has so well described as the military and political benefits of religion. Monotheism is of advantage to men not only "by reason of the high concentration of steady feeling which it produces, but also for the mental calmness and sagacity which surely spring from a pure and vivid conviction that the Lord reigneth." Isaiahs whole conviction might have been summed up in the name of the king himself: "Jehovah maketh strong."
King Hezekiah, apparently not a man of much personal force, though of sincere piety, was naturally distracted by the counsels of these three parties: and who can judge him severely if, beset with such terrific dangers, he occasionally wavered, now to one side, now to the other? On the whole, it is clear that he was wise and faithful, and deserves the high eulogy that his faith failed not. Naturally he had not within his soul that burning light of inspiration which made Isaiah so sure that, even though clouds and darkness might lower on every side, God was an eternal Sun, which flamed forever in the zenith, even when not visible to any eye save that of Faith.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 13 2Ki_18:1. Hezekiah the son of Ahaz began to reign—See…
THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH THE GOOD
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—
Read full note →
2Ki_18:1. Hezekiah the son of Ahaz began to reign—See Note on chap. 2Ki_16:2 as to the age of Ahaz.
2Ki_18:4. He removed the high places, and brake the images—His sweeping reformation, by which the land was purged of idols, and the true religion of Jehovah re-established, is more fully depicted in 2 Chronicles 29. The brazen serpent that Moses had made—For even that symbol of salvation by faith had become prostituted to idolatrous purposes, just as the symbol of the cross of Christ has become abused in degenerate Christendom. He called it Nehushtan—A thing of brass, or “the so-called brass god” (Ewald).
2Ki_18:7. He rebelled against the king of Assyria—Emancipated Judah from the hateful yoke. At this time Shalmanezer was engaged in war with Tyre; and Hezekiah, acting out his noble faith in Jehovah as his nation’s Supreme King, threw off heathenish opp ession, and placed himself and people under the Theocracy again. 2Ki_18:9-12. Record of Israel’s deportation by Shalmanezer—Interposed in the story to mark the date of its occurrence in Hezekiah’s reign. So that while this good king was restoring Judah to alliance with Jehovah, and recovering the independency of the kingdom, the debasing kingdom of Israel was falling into ruins.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki_18:1-12
A RESOLUTE RELIGIOUS REFORMER
I. Is characterised by the possession of a profound and genuine personal piety (2Ki_18:5-6). The great movements that have blessed the world sprung from the religious spirit. Hezekiah’s piety was the actuating force in his reforming work. “He trusted in, he clave to, the Lord”: these words reveal the secret of his inspiration and power. We trace the beginning of his religious life to a similar source where many a great and good man received his best and most lasting impressions—the potent influence of a mother’s teaching. It is suggestively stated in the text—“His mother’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah” (2Ki_18:2): on which Wordsworth remarks—“The names of the mothers of all the later kings of Judah are mentioned in holy scripture, intimating the importance of a mother’s influence, especially in evil days. It needs a brave heart and vigorous hand to attack and reform abuses that have become chronic and popular, and only the man who is sustained by the most intense religious convictions will attempt it.
II. Is fearless and unhesitating in destroying all popular symbols of idolatry (2Ki_18:4). As soon as the king began his reforming work he found there was plenty to do. His kingdom was studded with heathen shrines and idolatrous images. Among the rest was the brazen serpent of Moses, which would acquire a mysterious sanctity because of its antiquity and associations, and would readily be made an object of worship by a people so habituated to idolatry. To the practical eyes of the reformer this object of reverence was but a piece of brass, and he did not hesitate to snap it in pieces. It might seem sacrilege to break up such a relic, but it was idolatry to preserve it; it must share the same fate as the rest. The earnest reformer has a sharp definition in his own mind of what is essential and non-essential, and he makes a clean sweep of whatever balks the attainment of his loved object. He deals in what to him are stern realities. He cannot tolerate shams: away with them!
III. Secures the prospering blessing of Jehovah (2Ki_18:7-8). God honours the man who is zealous for His glory. So Hezekiah soon realized. He withheld tribute from Assyria, and asserted the freedom and independence of his kingdom. He crushed the Philistines who, encouraged by the weakness of preceding rulers, had harassed the borders of Judah. “He prospered whithersoever he went forth.” His kingdom was small; no larger than the triangle in the North of England defined by the towns of Stockton-on-Tees, Whitehaven, and Berwick-on-Tweed—rather smaller than Yorkshire; but it had great natural resources for maintaining a considerable population. (For an interesting description of “Judah in Hezekiah’s day,” see Geikie’s “Hours with the Bible”). How, so insignificant a territory rose to such importance and affluence under Hezekiah is explained by the recorded fact—“The Lord was with him.”The man that works for God shall not go unblessed; and the most enriching blessing is the Divine Presence. It gives strength to weakness, grandeur to the insignificant, turns defeat into victory, and suffering into joy.
IV. Is stimulated and encouraged in his reforming work by witnessing the disastrous results of apostacy (2Ki_18:9-12). The destruction of the kingdom of Israel was regarded as an event of such significance that the sacred writer interrupts his narrative once more to refer to it, and to reiterate the truth that disobedience was the cause of its ruin. With the example of the fate of the neighbouring kingdom before his eyes, Hezekiah would be excited to fresh zeal in carrying out his reforming work. He saw unless he rooted out idolatry, it would root him out. It is related of a celebrated British ambassador to the Court of Berlin that at one time he possessed a huge boa constrictor, and interested himself in watching its habits. One day the monster escaped from the box where he supposed it was asleep, quietly wound itself around his body, and began gradually to tighten its folds. His position became extremely perilous; but the consummate coolness and self-possession which had enabled him to win many a diplomatic triumph, befriended him in this emergency. He remembered there was a bone in the throat of the serpent which, if he could find and break, he would save himself. He was aware that either he or the snake must perish. Not a moment must be lost in hesitation. He deliberately seized the head of the serpent, thrust his hand down its throat, and smashed the vital bone. The coils were relaxed, the victim fell at his feet, and he was free! So Hezekiah saw his kingdom enswathed in the deadly coils of idolatry, and that unless he acted with promptitude and vigour, both he and his kingdom would perish as Israel had done. He attacked the vulnerable part of the evil with such resolution that he and, for a time his people, were saved.
LESSONS:—
1. No man can be a reformer who has not deep religious convictions.
2. It is an important advantage when reform is championed by royalty.
3. Genuine reform arrests the progress of decay and ruin.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki_18:1-3. Israel is gone. Judah is left standing; or rather, some few sprigs of those two tribes. So we have seen, in the shredding of some large timber tree, one or two boughs left at the top to hold up the sap. Who can but lament the poor remainders of that languishing kingdom of David! Yet, even now, out of the gleeds of Judah, doth God raise up a glorious light to His forlorn Church; yea, from the wretched loins of Ahaz doth God fetch a holy Hezekiah. It had been hard to conceive the state of Judah worse than it was; neither was it more miserable than sinful, and, in regard of both, desperate. When beyond hope, God revives this dying stock of David, and, out of very ruins, builds up His own house. Good Hezekiah makes amends for his father’s impiety, and puts a new life into the heartless remnant of God’s people. The wisdom of our good God knows when His aid will be most seasonable, most welcome, which He then loves to give when He finds us left of our hopes. That merciful hand is reserved for a dead lift; then He fails us not.—Bp. Hall.
2Ki_18:3. The conversion of Hezekiah was not due to Isaiah, but to a less famous contemporary. It would seem that the corrupt state of morals and religion, against which the prophets of the age of Uzziah complained, continued into Hezekiah’s reign. Suddenly, in the midst of an assembly, in which the king himself was present, there appeared the startling apparition, in the simplicity of his savage nakedness, of the prophet Micah. With the sharp, abrupt, piercing cry peculiar to his manner, he commanded each class to hear him. The people listened with awe to the bitter satire with which the nobles were described as preparing their cannibal feast out of the flesh and bones of the poor. They heard him denounce the unholy compact, then first begun, between the mercenary priests and the traitor prophets (Micah 3). There was a pause when he concluded. It would seem as if for a moment an indignant king and people would rise and crush the audacious seer. But Hezekiah was not a mere tool in the hands of nobles, or priests, or prophets. Micah was left unscathed. And even in the prophet’s own life-time—it may be almost immediately after his warning—succeeded the promise of a prosperity before unknown; when the nation should in peace be like the gentle dew, in war like the lion in forest and fold, or like a fierce bull treading down his enemies on the threshing-floor, with horns of iron and hoofs of brass. The wild dirge of Micah had been aimed against the moral evils of the nation. Of any moral reformation the chronicler tells us nothing. But the outward reformation which he describes was doubtless the expression of an inward change also.—Stanley.
—Hezekiah and Luther—a parallel.
1. Both had a personal realization of the truth.
2. They had a high regard and love for the Divine Word.
3. They were distinguished by strong faith. “Trusted in the Lord God of Israel.”
4. They were men of prayer. Chap. 2Ki_19:15-19. Isa_37:6-20. Luther said he could not get on without spending three hours a day in prayer.
5. They had definite beliefs and convictions.
6. They had the courage of their convictions. Seen in definite and decisive action. Hezekiah attacked the idolatries of his time, and Luther the ecclesiastical corruptions of his day.
7. They enjoyed the guardian providence of God. How marvellously did God interfere in both histories.
8. They witnessed the success of their efforts. The Lord was with them and prospered them. Which of these traits of character do we possess in our sphere as reformers?—J. Holmes.
—Iconoclast. The first and second commandments make a full sweep of idolatry. We are not to worship any other god; we are not to worship the true God by the use of representative symbols. Our reformers acted well, and after a scriptural model, when they poured contempt upon the idols of Rome, and made a mockery of her saints, relics, images, masses, and priests. There was a deep meaning in their breaking of crosses and the burning of holy roods. Whenever we see superstition in any shape, we must not flatter the folly; but, according to our ability, act the iconoclast’s part and denounce it. First, we shall apportion a share of image-breaking work to believers; and secondly, prescribe another form of this same work for seeking souls.
I. We have much idol-breaking work for Christians to do.
1. There is much idol-breaking to be done in the church of God. We are all too apt as Christians to place some degree of reliance upon men whom God, in His infinite mercy, raises up to be leaders in the Christian Church. We must get beyond men, or else we shall be very babes in grace. We are not to exalt the pipes, but the fountain head; not the windows, but the sun must we thank for light; not the basket which holds the food, or the lad who brings the loaves and fishes, must we reverence, but the Divine master who blesses and multiplies the bread, and feeds the multitude. Love the ministers of Christ, but fall not into that form of brazen serpent worship which will degrade you into the servants of men. There is too much exaltation of talent and dependence upon education, especially in reference to ministers. On the slabs of stone which mark the burial places of the early Christians in the catacombs of Rome, the inscriptions are nearly all ill-spelt, grammar is forgotten, and orthography violated; a proof that the early Christians who thus commemorated the martyred dead, were many of them uneducated persons; but, for all that, they crushed the wisdom of the sages, and smote the gods of classic lands. We are not to select our pastors simply because of their talents and acquirements; we must regard their unction, we must look at their call, and see whether the spirit of God is with them. The same may be said of human eloquence. Let the men speak well—the truth ought to be delivered in the best of sentences; but the noblest language ever uttered by man never convinced a soul of sin, or bound up a wounded conscience, or raised a sinner from his death in sin, for oratory is but a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal if the Holy Ghost be not there.
2. Much superstition requires to be broken down in reference to a rigid adhesion to certain modes of Christian service. There is a class of persons who object to every holy project for evangelisation, however right and judicious, if it happens to be novel; and they will continue to object till the work has been long in action and has placed itself beyond fear of their opposition or need of their assistance. Fetters are none the less burdensome for being antique. Let the brazen serpent be broken if it become a barrier to the onward progress of the cross.
3. Let us turn to the temple of our own hearts, and we shall find much work to be done there. Are you congratulating yourself upon your advanced position? Do you think twenty years’ experience has changed your corruptions, that your tendencies to sin are not so strong as they were, that you have less need to watch, less need to depend simply on the merit of Christ and the work of His Spirit? I have heard that more horses fall at the bottom of the hill than anywhere else, and I know that more professors make shipwreck towards the close of life than at any other time. The falls recorded in the Old and New Testaments are the falls, not of young men in the heat of passion, but of old or middle-aged men. Lot was no boy when he disgraced himself. David was no young man when he transgressed with Bathsheba. Peter was no child when he denied his Lord. An old Puritan quaintly says, suppose a loving husband were to give to his wife many rings and jewels out of love to her, and she should come to think so highly of the love tokens that she sat and admired them and forgot her husband, would he not be rather inclined to take these things away to turn her love once again to himself? So with our graces and enjoyments; if we think too much of them, the iconoclastic hammer will come in, and these things will vanish because they have provoked the Lord to jealousy.
II. Those who are seekers of Jesus. There is some idol-breaking to be done for them. Many think they ought to be much better than they are; they have faults to be corrected; their minds are in a wrong condition, they must be put right, and they are trying to do this with the intention, when they feel better, to put their trust in Jesus. With some, the Nehushtan which they set up is their sense of sin; either they do not feel the need of Christ as they ought, or else they do feel their need, and therefore think they are in a fair condition. Many are resting in their fear of self-deception. Do you think that your being afraid of presumption is a better thing than believing God’s testimony concerning His Son? Many are resting in sermon hearing, or in reading the Bible regularly; others are making an idol of brass out of their prayers. Seekers of Christ continually start new difficulties. Their doubts, reasonings, and questions are like an endless chain: pull up one link, and it brings up another. Their suspicions are like a chain of dredging buckets that come up all full of mire, and over they go and empty themselves but to come up full again. If one-tenth part of the ingenuity they use in rebelling against the command of God, which bids them believe, were used in simply investigating what they are told to believe, they would come to faith and be saved from their doubts. Sinner, let thy artful doubts and reasonings be nailed to yonder tree: crucify them. God grant you grace to break up these idols of yours, and take your Saviour now.—C. H. Spurgeon.
2Ki_18:4. The preservation of this remarkable relic of antiquity (the brazen serpent) might, like the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, have remained an interesting and instructive monument of the Divine goodness and mercy to the Israelites in the wilderness; and it must have required the exercise of no small courage and resolution to destroy it. But in the progress of degeneracy it had become an object of idolatrous worship; and as the interests of true religion rendered its demolition necessary, Hezekiah, by taking this bold step, consulted both the glory of God and the good of his country. Amongst the numerous hypotheses advanced to account for the origin of this singular reverence, not the least likely is, that it arose from vague and distorted rumours of the miraculous healing of the Israelites in the wilderness; and the image of a serpent became the deified symbol of something good and beneficent. The prevalence of ophiolatry in Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Assyria, could scarcely fail to arrest the attention and impress the minds of the Hebrew people, till in times of ignorance and idolatry they adopted the same superstition; and, although the brazen serpent in the wilderness had no symbolic import, but was merely an external sign, selected, probably, for the general ground of removing all ideas of the natural accomplishment of the cure, yet the tradition concerning the animal, the sight of which had restored the wounded Hebrews, and the reverence felt for it by the neighbouring nations, naturally produced similar sentiments in the minds of the Israelites, till admiration for a venerable relic of antiquity, combined with the contagion of contemporary usages, had, in the degenerate times of the monarchy, gradually led to the worship of the brazen serpent.—Jamieson.
2Ki_18:5. The character and life of Hezekiah. I. His public life.
1. The spiritual was in his estimation the foundation of the political.
2. Was indebted for his religious training to a pious mother. II. His great characteristics.
1. Strong faith in God.
2. Generous ideas.
3. Great zeal in carrying out great movements.
4. Penitent submission under affliction.
5. Vanity which proved fatal.—H. Kendall.
2Ki_18:5-8. Religion, the strength of a ruler.
1. When founded in a deep and firm trust in God.
2. Is evidenced by practical obedience.
3. Ensures the mighty help of Jehovah.
4. Enhances the prestige and authority of the throne.
5. Promotes national freedom and prosperity.
2Ki_18:5-6. True piety.
1. Consists of a faith which is at once trust and confidence (Heb_11:1).
2. Clinging to the Lord in adversity and in prosperity without departing from him (Psa_73:25).
3. Keeping the commandments of God (Jas_2:17; 1Jn_5:3).—Lange.
2Ki_18:7. Pursuing the policy of a truly theocratic sovereign, he was, through the Divine blessing, which rested on his government, raised to a position of great public and national strength. Besides the revived activity and moral vigour of the people of Judah, connected with the material prosperity of the country, and the religious reforms carried on by Hezekiah, and which, doubtless, was the primary motive that encouraged him to shake off the Assyrian yoke, it is necessary to take into account the secret influence of Egypt upon the councils of the king. Against this, Isaiah all along raised a decided and earnest protest (Isa_30:1-5; Isa_31:1; Isa_31:3). In counselling Hezekiah, he did not advocate either revolt or submission; he proceeded upon a principle entirely different from that of ordinary politics—that of urging an unwavering faith in the protection of the Divine King and Head of the nation, by an immediate and universal re-establishment of the worship and law of God. This step he recommended to the king as, in the first instance, the most becoming a theocratic ruler, and the most certain of realizing the fulfilment of the promises made to his people. Acting in this way, the prophet assured him he would find that, with the Divine favour, “one would chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight:” whereas, without help from above, all his military preparations and strategic manœuvres would not secure the deliverance of his kingdom.—Jamieson.
2Ki_18:9-12. The fate of nations.
1. Is in the hands of God.
2. The ruin of one nation recorded as a warning to others.
3. The potent cause of national decay and extinction is neglect of God.
—Hoshea and Hezekiah. The former came to the throne by conspiracy and murder, and he did not do what was pleasing to the Lord, therefore he perished with his people. The latter trusted in the Lord and clung to Him, and therefore he came out with his people victoriously from the peril.—Lange.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 2Ki 18:4
2Ki 18:4
Nehushtan: a mere "piece of brass." So Hezekiah named the brazen serpent. He was bent on the work of national reformation. He saw that incense was being burnt to this brazen serpent; that was enough for him. Whatever it might have been to the people in the past, it was clearly a curse now, and had better be destroyed at once.
Read full note →
Observe:—
I. A blind veneration for the past is always an obstacle in the path of progress. There are multitudes who cling with unintelligent grasp to institutions and customs simply because they have come down to them from their fathers. If there be a tendency to worship the brazen serpent instead of the living God, then the truest wisdom is to grind it to powder.
II. Even that which has been ordained by God Himself for a blessing may be so misused as to become a curse. We see this in the case (1) of art and science; (2) of the weekly day of rest; (3) of the Bible; (4) of our sanctuaries.
III. Every symbol loses its significance and value in proportion as it is converted into an idol. The brazen serpent was a material token of the pitying mercy of God, a symbol of the Divine power, a reminder of the Divine holiness. But when the Jews began to worship it, its worth departed. And so it always is. (1) Every creed is a symbol, an attempt to express the truth of God in the words of man. Such words are valuable only as pointing to that which is more valuable than themselves. The claim of God is that we honour Him and truth, and burn no incense to mere confessions of faith. (2) The Sacraments also are symbols. Whenever they begin to be idolised, they lose much of their significance and value. (3) The Cross is the grandest symbol in all history. But it is not intended that we should rest in the outward circumstances of the Crucifixion. The looking to the Cross which brings salvation is a looking through the Cross to that which it reveals.
T. C. Finlayson, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 160.
References: 2Ki 18:4.—W. Lindsay Alexander, Sermons, p. 260; T. R. Stevenson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 236; W. Walters, Ibid., vol. xx., p. 237. 2Ki 18:4, 2Ki 18:5.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi., No. 960. 2Ki 18:5.—Weekly Pulpit, vol. i., p. 3.
2Ki 18:9-12
I. In the time of David and Solomon, the small people of the Jews became a very powerful nation, respected and feared by all the kingdoms round. But when they fell into idolatry and forsook the true God and His law, all was changed. Idolatry brought sin; and sin brought bad passions, hatred, divisions, weakness, ruin. Elijah’s warnings had been in vain, and Elisha’s warnings also. At heart the Israelites liked Ahab’s and Jezebel’s idolatries better than the worship of the true God. And why? Because if they worshipped God and kept His laws, they must needs have been more or less good men, upright, just, merciful, cleanly and chaste livers; while, on the other hand, they might worship their idols and yet be as bad as they chose. They chose the worse part, and refused the better; and they were filled with the fruit of their own devices, as every unrepenting sinner surely will be.
II. The king of Assyria, we read, brought heathens from Assyria and settled them in the Holy Land, instead of the Israelites. From the Jewish priest that they asked for these poor people got some confused notion of the one true God, and they went on for several hundred years worshipping idols and the true God at the same time. But as time went on the Samaritans seem to have got rid of their old idolatry, and built themselves a temple on Mount Gerizim, and there worshipped they knew not what. But still they did their best, and their reward came at last.
III. When Jesus rested by Jacob’s well, His heart yearned over these poor ignorant Samaritans and over the sinful woman who came to draw water at the well. For hundreds of years the Samaritans had felt after God, and in due time they found Him, for He came to them, and found them, and spoke with them face to face.
IV. All Christ asks of you is to receive Him when He comes to you, and to love, and thank, and try to be like Him, while for the rest, to whom little is given, of him shall little be required; and to him who uses what he has, be it little or much, more shall be given, and he shall have abundance.
C. Kingsley, Town and Country Sermons, p. 362.
Reference: 2Ki 18:13-16.—H. B. Tristram, Sunday Magazine, 1873, p. 795.
2Ki 18:36
I. How strong must have been the temptation to answer the apostate Rabshakeh. And what rendered silence more difficult was the easiness of the answer which might have been given by reference to the mighty hand and to the outstretched arm by which Jehovah had rescued His people from the house of bondage. But the king’s commandment was wise. No good could possibly have arisen from the verbal controversy which the apostate Rabshakeh tried to provoke. Angry passions might have been excited and inflamed, but Hezekiah knew that "the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." Let us learn wisdom from Hezekiah. When we find a man arguing, not for truth, but for victory; when, instead of approaching high and holy subjects with meekness and reverence, instead of showing kindness and tender-heartedness towards those whom he may think in error, he evinces bitterness, and wrath, and clamour, and evil-speaking, our wisdom is, though sorrowful, still to be silent.
II. We have the same instruction from still higher authority, even the example of Hezekiah’s Lord. "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth." Instead of answering, He silenced His opponents, and in His reply, instead of entering into a discussion with them, exposed either their ignorance or their malice, and so in effect answered them not.
III. In all our religious investigations and inquiries the essential thing is to have an honest and good heart. When we seek for spiritual improvement, we must have recourse to self-examination and prayer. We must pray to God to give us an honest heart before we venture to inquire into the things of God.
W. F. Hook, Parish Sermons, p. 140.
References: 2Ki 18:37.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 199. 2Ki 18—Parker, vol. viii., p. 279. 2Ki 18-19—E. H. Plumptre, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 437.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v5 2 Kings
2 Kings
HEZEKIAH, A PATTERN OF DEVOUT LIFE
Read full note →
2Ki 18:5 - 2Ki 18:6.
Devout people in all ages and stations are very much like each other. The elements of godliness are always the same. This king of Israel, something like two thousand six hundred years ago, and the humblest Christian to-day have the family likeness on their faces. These words, which are an outline sketch of the king’s character, are really a sketch of the religious life at all times and in all places. He realised it; why may not we? He achieved it amid much ignorance; why should not we amid our blaze of knowledge? He accomplished it amid the temptations of a monarchy; why should not we in our humbler spheres?
There are four things set forth here as constituting a religious life. We begin at the bottom with the foundation of everything. ‘He trusted in the Lord God of Israel.’ The Old Testament is just as emphatic in declaring that there is no religion without trust, and that trust is the very nerve and life-blood of religion, as is the New. Only that in the one half of the book our translators have chosen to use the word ‘trust,’ and in the other half of the book they have chosen to use, for the very same act, the word ‘faith.’ They have thus somewhat obscured the absolute identity which exists in the teaching of the Old and of the New Testament as regards the bond which unites men to God. That union always was, and always will be, begun in the simple attitude and exercise of trust, and everything else will come out of that, and without that nothing else will come.
So this king had a certain measure of knowledge about the character of God, and that measure of knowledge led him to lean all his weight upon the Lord. You and I know a great deal more about God and His ways and purposes than Hezekiah did, but we can make no better use of it than he did-translate our knowledge into faith, and rely with simple, absolute confidence on Him whose name we know in Christ more fully and blessedly than was possible to Hezekiah.
And need I remind you of how, in this life of which the outline is here given and the inmost secret is here disclosed, there were significant and magnificent instances of the power of humble trust to bring to an else helpless man all the blessings that he needs, and to put a crystal wall round about him that will preserve him from every evil, howsoever threatening it may seem?
‘It has come addressed to me, but it is meant for Thee. Vindicate Thine own cause by delivering Thine own servant.’ And so, ‘when the morning dawned, they were all dead men,’ and faith rejoiced in a perfect deliverance. And you and I may get the same answer, in the midst of all our trials, difficulties, toils, and conflicts, if only we will go the same way to get it, and let our faith work, as Hezekiah’s worked, and take everything that troubles us to our Father in the heavens, and be quite sure that He is the God ‘who daily bears our burdens.’ Let us begin with the simple act of confidence in Him. That is the foundation, and on that we may build everything besides.
Let us see what this man further built upon it. The second story, if I may so say, of the temple-fortress of his life, upon the foundation of faith, was, ‘He clave to the Lord.’
That is to say, the act of confidence must be followed and perfected by tenacious adherence with all the tendrils of a man’s nature to the God in whom he says that he trusts. The metaphor is a very forcible one, so familiar in Scripture as that we are apt to overlook its emphasis. Let me recall one or two of the instances in which it is employed about other matters which throw light on its force here.
First of all, remember that sweet picture of the widow woman from Moab and the two daughters-in-law, one sent back, not reluctantly, to her home; and the other persisting in keeping by Naomi’s side, in spite of difficulties and remonstrances. With kisses of real love Orpah went back, but she did go back, to her people and her gods, but ‘Ruth clave unto her.’ So should we cling to God, as Ruth flung her arms round Naomi, and twined her else lonely and desolate heart about her dear and only friend, for whose sweet sake she became a willing exile from kindred and country. Is that how we cleave to the Lord?
More sacred still are the lessons that are suggested by the fact that this is the word employed to describe the blessed and holy union of man and woman in pure wedded life, and I suppose some allusion to that use of the expression underlies its constant application to the relation of the believing soul to Jehovah. For by trust the soul is wedded to Him, and so ‘joined to the Lord’ as to be ‘one spirit.’
Or if we do not care to go so deep as that, let us take the metaphor that lies in the word itself, without reference to its Scriptural applications. As the limpet holds on to its rock, as the ivy clings to the wall, as a shipwrecked sailor grasps the spar which keeps his head above water, so a Christian man ought to hold on to God, with all his energy, and with all parts of his nature. The metaphor implies tenacity; closeness of adhesion, in heart and will, in thought, in desire, and in all the parts of our receptive humanity, all of which can touch God and be touched by Him, and all of which are blessed only in the measure in which, yielding to Him, they are filled and steadied and glorified.
And there is implied, too, not only tenacity of adherence, but tenacity in the face of obstacles. There must be resistance to all the forces which would detach, if there is to be union with God in the midst of life in the world. Or, to recur for a moment to the figure that I employed a moment ago, as the sailor clings to a spar, though the waves dash round him, and his fingers get stiffened with cold and cramped with keeping the one position, and can scarcely hold on, but he knows that it is life to cling and death to loosen, and so tightens his grasp; thus have we to lay hold of God, and in spite of all obstacles, to keep hold of Him. Our grasp tends to slacken, and is feeble at the best, even if there were nothing outside of us to make it difficult for us to get a good grip. But there are howling winds and battering waves blowing and beating on us, and making it hard to keep our hold.
Do not let us yield to these, but in spite of them all let our hearts tighten round Him, for it is only in His sweet, eternal, perfect love that they can be at rest. And let our thoughts keep close to Him in spite of all distractions, for it is only in the measure in which His light fills our minds and His truth occupies our thoughts that our thinking spirits will be at rest. And let our desires, as the tentacles of some shell-fish fasten upon the rock, and feel out towards the ocean that is coming to it, let our desires go all out towards Him until they touch that after which they feel, and curl round it in repose and in blessedness.
The whole secret of a joyful, strong, noble Christian life lies here-that on the foundation of faith we should rear tenacious adherence to Him in spite of all obstacles. So it was a most encyclopaedic, though laconic, exhortation that that ‘good man’ sent down from Jerusalem to encourage the first heathen converts gave, when instead of all other instruction or advice, or inculcation of less important, and yet real, Christian duties, Barnabas exhorted them all ‘that with purpose of heart’-the full devotion of their inmost natures-’they should cleave to the Lord.’
Then the third stage, or the third story, in this building is that, cleaving to the Lord, ‘he departed not from following Him.’ The metaphor of cleaving implies proximity and union; the metaphor of following implies distance which is being diminished. These two are incongruous, and the very incongruity helps to give point to the representation. The same two ideas of union and yet of pursuit are brought still more closely together in other parts of Scripture. For instance, there is a remarkable saying in one of the Psalms, translated in our Bible-’My soul followeth hard after Thee. Thy right hand upholdeth me,’ where the expression ‘followeth hard after’ is a lame attempt at translating the perhaps impossible-to-be-translated fullness of the original, which reads ‘My soul cleaveth after Thee.’ It is an incongruous combination of ideas, by its very incongruity and paradoxical form suggesting a profound truth-viz. that in all the conscious union and tenacious adherence to God which makes the Christian life, there is ever, also, a sense of distance which kindles aspiration and leads to the effort after continual progress. However close we may be to God, it is always possible to press closer. However full may be the union, it may always be made fuller; and the cleaving spirit will always be longing for a closer contact and a more blessed sense of being in touch with God.
So, as we climb, new heights reveal themselves, and the further we advance in the Christian life the more are we conscious of the infinite depths that yet remain to be traversed. Hence arises one great element of the blessedness of being a Christian-namely, that we need not fear ever coming to the end of the growth in holiness and the increase of joy and power that are possible to us. So that weariness, and the sense of having reached the limits that are possible on a given path, which sooner or later fall upon men that live for anything but God, can never be ours if we live for Him. But the oldest and most experienced will have the same forward-looking glances of hope and forward-directed steps of strenuous effort as the youngest beginner on the path; and a Paul will be able to say when he is ‘Paul the aged,’ and ‘the time of his departure is at hand,’ that he ‘forgets the things that are behind, and reaches forth unto the things that are before, while he presses towards the mark.’ Let us be thankful for the endless progress which is possible to the Christian, and let us see to it that we are never paralysed into supposing that ‘to-morrow must be as this day,’ but trust the infinite resources of our God, and be sure that we growingly make our own the growing gifts which He bestows.
And so, lastly, the fourth element in this analysis of a devout life is ‘He kept the commandments of the Lord.’ That is the outcome of them all. Faith, adhesion, aspiration, and progress, all vindicate their value and reality in the simple, homely way of practical obedience.
Let us learn two things. One as to the worthlessness of all these others, if they do not issue in this. Not that these inward emotions are ever to be despised, but that, if they are genuine in our hearts, they cannot but manifest themselves in our lives. And so, dear Christian friends! do you not build upon your faith, on your adherence to God, on your aspirations after Him, unless you can bring into court, as witnesses for these, daily and hourly, your efforts after the conformity of your will to His, in the great things and in the small. Then, and only then, may we be sure that our confidence is not a delusion, and that it is to Him that we cleave when our feet tread in the paths of goodness.
And on the other hand, let us learn that all attempts to be obedient to a divine will which do not begin with trust and cleaving to Him are vain. There is no other way to get that conformity of will except by that union of spirit. All other attempts are beginning at the wrong end. You do not begin building your houses with the chimney-pots, but many a man who seeks to obey without trusting does precisely commit that fault. Let us be sure that the foundations are in, and then let us be sure that we do not stop half-way up, lest all that pass by should mock and say, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’
How many professing Christians’ lives are half-finished and unroofed houses, because they have not ‘added to their faith’-that is, to their ‘cleaving to the Lord’-endless aspiration and continual progress, and to their aspiration and their progress the peaceable fruit of practical righteousness! If these things be in us and abound, they mark us as devout men after God’s pattern. And if we want to be devout men after God’s pattern, we must follow God’s sequence, which begins with trust and ends with obedience.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Hezekiah and Sennacherib
Hezekiah and Sennacherib
This chapter describes the reign of Hezekiah of Judah, his religious reforms, and the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib, king of Assyria, who sent one of his officers to demand the surrender of Jerusalem.
Read full note →
1. Now it came to pass, etc.] The northern kingdom having been destroyed, the history is henceforward confined to the events connected with Judah only.
2. Twenty and five years old] Probably an error, for if Ahaz was only 36 at his death (2Ki_16:2) his son could scarcely be 25.
4. He removed the high places] cp. 2Ki_18:22. This was the first attempt to put an end to the provincial shrines which had co-existed with the Temple as seats of worship from the time of Solomon onward: see 1Ki_14:23; 1Ki_15:14; 1Ki_22:43; 2Ki_12:3; 2Ki_14:4; 2Ki_15:4; Though dedicated to the service of the Lord, the rites conducted at them were peculiarly liable to corruption, and the interests of true religion were now seen to require their abolition. But the religious reform here described cannot have been very thorough, for the 'high places' built by Solomon for his foreign wives were not destroyed until the reign of Josiah (2Ki_23:13); and Isaiah, in prophecies belonging to this reign, alludes to graven and molten images as being still objects of adoration (Isa_30:22; Isa_31:7). The brasen serpent] see Num_21:9. Nothing is recorded of its history since the time of Moses. Nehushtan] It is not clear whether this was the name ('the Brasen') by which it was known when an object of worship, or a term of contempt ('a mere piece of brass') applied to it when marked for destruction.
5. None like him] The same praise is given to Josiah (2Ki_23:25).
7. The Lord was with him] Though Hezekiah, in consequence of pursuing a mistaken policy, experienced great calamities in the course of his reign, yet his fidelity to the Lord had its reward in a signal overthrow of the same Assyrian power that within Hezekiah's lifetime had destroyed the much stronger kingdom of Israel.
He rebelled] It may be inferred from Isa_14:28-32 that Hezekiah at the beginning of his reign received from the Philistines a proposal urging him to join a movement against Assyria, but that Isaiah, confident that the Lord would protect Zion, sought to dissuade him from accepting it. Probably Isaiah's counsel prevailed, and the king continued for a time to be a vassal of Assyria. But when in 705 Sargon was succeeded by Sennacherib, several of the vassal states again attempted to regain their independence; and with a view to obtaining Hezekiah's help, envoys were sent to Judah (about 703) by Merodach Baladan of Babylon (see 2Ki_20:12.) and by the Ethiopians (Isaiah 18), the latter probably on behalf of the king of Egypt. At the Judaean court the hope of an Egyptian alliance exercised a strong attraction (see Isaiah 30, 31), but it was opposed by Isaiah, who continued to advocate confidence in the Lord, the promotion of social and religious reforms, and abstention from foreign entanglements. Eventually those who supported the alliance with Egypt prevailed; and in 701 Hezekiah, in cooperation with a section of the Philistines, rebelled against Assyria.
8. Smote the Philistines] probably such as remained loyal to Assyria.
9. Shalmaneser.. came up] 2Ki_18:9-12 repeat in brief the account of the capture of Samaria already given in 2Ki_17:5.
11. The cities of the Medes] Media was the mountainous district S. of the Caspian.
13. In the fourteenth year] The Assyrian invasion here described took place in 701, and therefore according to this v. Hezekiah's accession was in 714 but 2Ki_18:10 states that Samaria, which fell in 722, was captured in Hezekiah's 'sixth' year, which makes 727 the date of his accession. The section 2Ki_18:13, 2Ki_18:17-37 recurs in Isa_36:1-22.
Sennacherib] succeeded Sargon in 705. The beginning of his reign was much disturbed, and his first campaign was against the Babylonian prince, Merodach Baladan, whom he drove from his capital. This was followed by an invasion of the Cassi, a people of Elam; and then in 701 he undertook the expedition against Judah and the other Palestinian states, which is described in the text.
Against all the fenced cities] Sennacherib in his inscriptions relates that he captured fortysix cities of Judah and deported more than 200,000 of the inhabitants. Hezekiah himself was besieged in his capital and compelled to tender submission, as recorded in 2Ki_18:14.
14. Lachish] The place at this time was being besieged by Sennacherib (2Ch_32:9). Three hundred talents] According to the inscriptions the fine was 800 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold, besides other treasures.
17. The king of Assyria sent] It is probable that the surrender, described in 2Ki_18:14, was expected by the Jews to secure their city from further molestation; but Sennacherib was moving towards Egypt, and doubtless thought it dangerous to leave so strong a fortress in other hands than his own. The consequent demand for its capitulation, here recorded, exposed Sennacherib to the charge of breaking his covenant: see Isa_33:8.
Tartan.. Rabsaris.. Rab-shakeh] the titles of military officers, meaning respectively 'commander-in-chief,' 'chief of the princes,' and 'chief of the captains.' The conduit of the upper pool] This pool has been identified by some with the modern Birket Mamilla, situated W. of the city; but more probably it is the pool of Siloam, near the S. end of Mt. Zion, to which the conduit here mentioned carried water from the spring of Gahon in the Kidron valley (see on 1Ki_1:33).
18. Shebna] Shebna, who, from his name, was probably a foreigner, had previously occupied the position now filled by Eliakim (Isa_22:15), and seems to have advocated reliance upon the support of Egypt, a policy which Isaiah had opposed. When Hezekiah was compelled to make submission to the Assyrian king, Shebna naturally fell into disgrace and was degraded to an inferior office, Eliakim being promoted in his room.
21. This bruised reed] For a similar contemptuous estimate of Egypt cp. Eze_29:6.
Pharaoh] This was probably Shabako, the successor of So (2Ki_17:3). The inability of Egypt to help those who trusted it, as shown in the case of Hoshea of Israel (see 2Ki_17:4-6), was again displayed by the defeat of an Egyptian army at Eltekeh, which had come to relieve Ekron, one of the Philistine towns besieged by Sennacherib. It was this success which left the Assyrian king free to invade Judah, as described in 2Ki_18:13.
22. Whose high places, etc.] Rabshakeh thought that such sacrilege was calculated to provoke the anger of the Lord, whereas Hezekiah's action really conduced to religious purity: see on 2Ki_18:4.
23. Give pledges] RM 'make a wager.'
24. Put thy trust.. horsemen] For reliance upon. Egypt for a supply of horses see Isa_31:1-3.
25. Am I now come up without the Lord?] He might have regarded his capture of the Judsean cities, described in 2Ki_19:13, as an indication that the Lord had given them up into his hand because of Hezekiah's action in removing the high places.
26. The Syrian language] i.e. Aramean, a language which served as the principal medium of intercourse between the various nationalities in the East. This would be intelligible to the state officials both of Assyria and Judah, but unfamiliar to the bulk of the citizens of Jerusalem; and so Eliakim, who desired to keep both the threats and promises of the Assyrian officer from the multitude, wished the conference to be conducted in it.
27. That they may eat, etc.] The garrison had taken up their position on the ramparts, with all the extremities of starvation before them; and Rabshakeh now appealed from the king and his advisers to the rank and file of his army (in violation of all honourable usage).
31. Come out] i.e. capitulate, before incurring the further calamities of a protracted siege.
34. Hamath, etc.] For most of the towns here named see on 2Ki_17:24. Arpad has been identified with some ruins NW. of Aleppo.
35. That the Lord should deliver, etc.] The Assyrian argued that the national god of a little state like Judah would not be able to defend His people more effectually than the deities of other nations, subdued by the Assyrians, had done. He had to learn that the God of the Jews was also the Lord of all the earth.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 5, 11 (See Scofield "Psa 19:9").
feared
(See Scofield "Psa 19:9").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 1. Hezekiah and Sennacherib’s Invasion
IV. THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH, MANASSEH AND AMON
1. Hezekiah and Sennacherib’s Invasion
Read full note →
CHAPTER 18
1. Hezekiah, King of Judah (2Ki 18:1-3; 2 Chron. 29-32)
2. The Revival (2Ki 18:4-7)
3. Victory over the Philistines (2Ki 18:8)
4. Israel’s captivity (2Ki 18:9-12)
5. Sennacherib’s invasion (2Ki 18:13-16)
6. Sennacherib’s messengers and message (2Ki 18:17-25; 2Ch 32:9-19)
7. The request of Hilkiah, Shebna and Joah (2Ki 18:26)
8. Rabshakeh’s insulting answer (2Ki 18:27-37)
Hezekiah (strength of Jehovah) was the pious son of a very wicked father. It is refreshing to read now after the long list of kings who did evil in God’s sight that Hezekiah “did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David did.” According to the book of Chronicles, the first thing he did was to open the doors of the house of the LORD (which Ahaz his father had closed) and repair them (2Ch 29:3). This was a true beginning. We shall find in Chronicles the details of the great revival and the restoration of the temple-worship, the keeping of the Passover, as well as the other reforms which took place under his reign. All these will be considered in the annotations on Second Chronicles. He destroyed also all forms of idolatry. Especially mentioned is the brazen serpent which Moses had made. This interesting object had been preserved since the days when Moses had lifted it up in the wilderness, the wonderful type of Him who knew no sin and who was made sin for us on the cross. The children of Israel in their apostasy had made the brazen serpent an object of worship. He broke it in pieces and called it Nehushtan, which means “brazen.” Thus negatively and positively a great reformation was accomplished. The secret of it all we find tersely stated in one sentence. “He trusted in the LORD God of Israel.” Because he trusted Jehovah, Jehovah was with him. “And the LORD was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.” This is the way of A true recovery and the way to blessing.
The evil alliance with the king of Assyria, which his father had made, the God-fearing king refused to own. “He rebelled against the king of Assyria and served him not.” Immediately after he smote the ancient enemy of God’s people, the Philistine. (The fate of Samaria, the Kingdom of Israel, is once more mentioned in verses 9-12 obviously because chronologically it followed Hezekiah’s victory over the Philistines.) In annotations of Judges we learned the typical significance of the Philistines. They represent ritualistic Christendom. After Hezekiah’s restoration of the true worship of Jehovah and after the breaking down of all false altars and idol worship, a complete victory over the Philistines has a special meaning, Ritualism, the deadly foe of true worship, can only be overcome by a return to that true worship and trust in the Lord. Protestantism attempted this, but it has failed.
The rebellion of Hezekiah against Assyria may have been under the reign of Shalmaneser. Then followed Sargon, who was succeeded by his son Sennacherib. In all probability Sennacherib was co-regent with his father Sargon. The Assyrian inscriptions concerning Sennacherib covering this period are very interesting though not always correct and often mixed and confusing. In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib came against the fenced cities of Judah and they fell before him. Isaiah 10 gives us additional information on this invasion. True, Hezekiah’s faith was severely tested. Sennacherib had not yet come near to Jerusalem and Hezekiah sent to him at Lachish, saying “I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear.” It was not according to faith, but the godly king had acted in fear and unbelief. No mention is made by Isaiah of this occurrence, nor do we find a record of it in the Chronicles. The tribute was very heavy, amounting to over one million and a half dollars. Hezekiah had to use the silver and the gold of the Temple and the palace to meet this obligation.
Then Sennacherib decided to attack Jerusalem. Here we have three accounts of what took place: 2 Kings 18-19; 2 Chron. 32 and Isaiah 36-37. These Scriptures should be carefully read and compared. From 2Ch 32:1-8 we learn the wise preparations Hezekiah made in anticipation of the coming attack. The water supply for the invading army was cut off; he made strong fortifications; he reorganized the army. But the best of all are the words he addressed to the people. “Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor discouraged for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him; for there be more with us than with him. With him is an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles.” These were noble words. No wonder the people leaned upon them in that hour of trial. We hear in them an echo of Isaiah’s faithful ministry. The head of the expedition and negotiations for the surrender of Jerusalem were entrusted to the “Tartan,” the commander-in-chief of the army: “Rabsaris,” which has been explained to mean “chief of the eunuchs” and Rabshakeh, the Assyrian title of “chief captain.” The message which Rabshakeh brought was delivered from the same spot where Isaiah stood when he gave his message to Ahaz (Isa 7:3). The words of the emissary of Sennacherib were coarse; they reveal the blindness of a heathen, who thought of Jehovah having been offended by Hezekiah’s great reformation (verse 22). Politically and religiously it was misrepresentation. He ended up with a lie, “The LORD said to me, Go up against this land and destroy it.”
When the representatives of Hezekiah requested for the sake of the populace not to speak in Hebrew, but in Aramean, which the common people did not understand, Rabshakeh became very abusive and shouted a vulgar appeal to the people. It needs no further commentations. The people were obedient to the king. They answered not a word. And the king’s representatives return to the king with clothes rent.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 9, 17 Hezekiah King over Judah
Hezekiah King over Judah
v. 1. Now, It came to pass in the third year of Hoshea, son of Elah, king of Israel, that Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. The apparent difficulty with regard to the dates at this period is readily solved by remembering that the years of the two kings do not run exactly parallel. "If we assume that Hezekiah’s accession took place near the end of Hoshea’s third year, then his fourth and sixth years correspond, for the most part, with the sixth and ninth of Hoshea. " (Keil. )
Read full note →
v. 2. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi (or Abijah, 2Ch 29:1), the daughter of Zachariah.
v. 3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David, his father, did. Instead of patterning after his wicked father, Hezekiah, most likely under the influence of a pious mother, took the example of his illustrious ancestor, the founder of the dynasty, before him.
v. 4. He removed the high places, something which even the sincere believers before him had not accomplished, and brake the images, the stone statues erected to idols, and cut down the groves, the wooden Asherah idols or Astarte columns 1Ki 14:23, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made, Num 21:5-9, which the people, in the course of the years, had made an object of idolatrous veneration; for unto those days the children of Israel, from time to time, as the passion for idolatry took hold of the nation, did burn incense to it. And he called it Nehushtan, a contemptuous name, meaning "a piece of brass. " This story is a fine illustration of the relic-worship which is still found, especially in the Roman Church.
v. 5. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. He was distinguished by a most unusual amount of confidence and firmness of faith.
v. 6. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following Him, never became guilty of idolatry, but kept His commandments which the Lord commanded Moses.
v. 7. And the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth, he was fortunate in all his undertakings. And he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not. The wicked Ahaz placed his kingdom in the power of Assyria; Hezekiah, faithful to Jehovah, declared Judah to be an independent nation.
v. 8. He smote the Philistines, the ancient enemy of Judah on the west, even unto Gaza and the borders thereof, the southernmost of their city-states, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city, the smallest hamlet as well as the most strongly fortified town. When any person, especially, however, a mighty ruler, clings to the Lord with all faithfulness and does not forsake His ways, this is a great mercy of God.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36 General Information:
General Information:
Hezekiah becomes king over Judah in place of his father King Ahaz.
Read full note →
Hoshea ... Elah ... Zechariah
These are the names of men. (See: How to Translate Names)
Abijah
This is the name of a woman. (See: How to Translate Names)
He did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh
"In the eyes" here is a metaphor for Yahweh's attention and care. AT: "King Hezekiah did what was right to Yahweh" or "Hezekiah did things that Yahweh said are right" (See: Metaphor)
translationWords
Hoshea
king
kingdom of Israel
Hezekiah
Ahaz
kingdom of Judah
reign
Jerusalem
name
Yahweh
David
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 37 18:1-12 The accession statement concerning Hezekiah’s reign (18:1-2) is…
18:1-12 The accession statement concerning Hezekiah’s reign (18:1-2) is accompanied by a lengthy evaluation of Hezekiah’s spiritual commitment (18:3-7a), followed by background details of the political situation in his time (18:7b-12).
18:1-2 the third year of King Hoshea’s reign in Israel: The date given for Hezekiah’s accession refers to his co-regency with his father, Ahaz. Since Hoshea began his reign in 732 BC, Hezekiah began to rule in about 728 BC, when he was twelve years old. When Ahaz died in 715 BC, Hezekiah began his sole reign at age twenty-five. This marks the start of his reign of twenty-nine years (715–686 BC).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.