Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, “Yahweh, the God of Israel says, ‘Because you have prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria, this is the word which Yahweh has spoken concerning him. The virgin daughter of Zion has despised you and ridiculed you. The daughter of Jerusalem has shaken her head at you. Whom have you defied and blasphemed? Against whom have you exalted your voice and lifted up your eyes on high? Against the Holy One of Israel. By your servants, you have defied the Lord, and have said, “With the multitude of my chariots I have come up to the height of the mountains, to the innermost parts of Lebanon. I will cut down its tall cedars and its choice cypress trees. I will enter into its farthest height, the forest of its fruitful field. I have dug and drunk water, and with the sole of my feet I will dry up all the rivers of Egypt.”
“ ‘Have you not heard how I have done it long ago, and formed it in ancient times? Now I have brought it to pass, that it should be yours to destroy fortified cities, turning them into ruinous heaps. Therefore their inhabitants had little power. They were dismayed and confounded. They were like the grass of the field, and like the green herb, like the grass on the housetops, and like a field before its crop has grown. But I know your sitting down, your going out, your coming in, and your raging against me. Because of your raging against me, and because your arrogance has come up into my ears, therefore I will put my hook in your nose and my bridle in your lips, and I will turn you back by the way by which you came.
“ ‘This shall be the sign to you. You will eat this year that which grows of itself, and in the second year that which springs from it; and in the third year sow and reap and plant vineyards, and eat their fruit. The remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah will again take root downward, and bear fruit upward. For out of Jerusalem a remnant will go out, and survivors will escape from Mount Zion. The zeal of Yahweh of Armies will perform this.’
“Therefore Yahweh says concerning the king of Assyria, ‘He will not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither will he come before it with shield, nor cast up a mound against it. He will return the way that he came, and he won’t come to this city,’ says Yahweh. ‘For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.’ ”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35 Whom God had chosen to himself as a chaste…
Whom God had chosen to himself as a chaste virgin, and over whom he had care to preserve her from the lusts of the tyrant, as a father would have over his daughter.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v21 We may here observe, 1. That those who receive…
We may here observe, 1. That those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah's prayer in God's name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: "Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard." Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly that ch. 10) and bid him pick out an answer from thence; but, that he might have abundant consolation, a message is sent him on purpose. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God's side. 2. Those who magnify themselves, especially who magnify themselves against God and his people, do really vilify themselves, and made themselves contemptible, in the eyes of all wise men: "The virgin, the daughter of Zion, has despised Sennacherib, and all his impotent malice and menaces; she knows that, while she preserves her integrity, she is sure of the divine protection, and that though the enemy may bark he cannot bite. All his threats are a jest; it is all but brutum fulmen - a mere flash," 3. Those who abuse the people of God affront God himself; and he takes what is said and done against them as said and done against himself: "Whom hast thou reproached? Even the Holy One of Israel, whom thou hast therefore reproached because he is a Holy One." And it aggravated the indignity Sennacherib did to God that he not only reproached him himself, but set his servants on to do the same: By thy servants, the abjects, thou hast reproached me. 4. Those who boast of themselves and their own achievements reflect upon God and his providence: "Thou hast said, I have digged, and drunk water; I have done mighty feats, and will do more; and wilt not own that I have done it," Isa 37:24-26. The most active men are no more than God makes them, and God makes them no more than of old he designed to make them: "What I have formed of ancient times, in an eternal counsel, now have I brought to pass" (for God does all according to the counsel of his will), "that thou shouldst be to lay waste defenced cities; it is therefore intolerable arrogance to make it thy own doing." 5. All the malice, and all the motions and projects, of the church's enemies, are under the cognizance and check of the church's God. Sennacherib was active and quick, here, and there, and every where, but God knew his going out and coming in, and had always an eye upon him, Isa 37:28. And that was not all; he had a hand upon him too, a strict hand, a strong hand, a hook in his nose and a bridle in his lips, with which, though he was very headstrong and unruly, he could and would turn him back by the way which he came, Isa 37:29. Hitherto he shall come and no further. God had signed Sennacherib's commission against Judah (Isa 10:6); here he supersedes it. He has frightened them, but he must not hurt them, and therefore is discharged from going any further; nay, his commitment is here signed, by which he is clapped up, to answer for what he had done beyond his commission. 6. God is his people's bountiful benefactor, as well as their powerful protector, both a sun and a shield to those that trust in him. Jerusalem shall be defended (Isa 37:35), the besiegers shall not come into it, no, nor come before it with any regular attack, but they shall be routed before they begin the siege, Isa 37:33. But this is not all; God will return in mercy to his people, and will do them good. Their land shall be more than ordinarily fruitful, so that their losses shall be abundantly repaired; they shall not feel any of the ill effects either of the enemies' wasting the country or of their own being taken off from husbandry. But the earth, as at first, shall bring forth of itself, and they shall live and live plentifully upon its spontaneous productions. The blessing of the Lord can, when he pleases, make rich without the hand of the diligent. And let them not think that the desolations of their country would excuse them from observing the sabbatical year, which happened (as it should seem) the year after, and when they were not to plough or sow; no, though they had not now their usual stock beforehand for that year, yet they must religiously observe it, and depend upon God to provide for them. God must be trusted in the way of duty. 7. There is no standing before the judgments of God when they come with commission. (1.) The greatest numbers cannot stand before them: one angel shall, in one night, lay a vast army of men dead upon the spot, when God commissions him so to do, Isa 37:36. Here are 185,000 brave soldiers in an instant turned into so many dead corpses. Many think the 76th Psalm was penned upon occasion of this defeat, where from the spoiling of the stout-hearted, and sending them to sleep their long sleep (Isa 37:5), it is inferred that God is more glorious and excellent than the mountains of prey (Isa 37:4), and that he, even he, is to be feared, Isa 37:7. Angels are employed, more than we are aware of, as ministers of God's justice, to punish the pride and break the power of wicked men. (2.) The greatest men cannot stand before them: The great king, the king of Assyria, looks very little when he is forced to return, not only with shame, because he cannot accomplish what he had projected with so much assurance, but with terror and fear, lest the angel that had destroyed his army should destroy him; yet he is made to look less when his own sons, who should have guarded him, sacrificed him to his idol, whose protection he sought, Isa 37:37, Isa 37:38. God can quickly stop their breath who breathe out threatenings and slaughter against his people, and will do it when they have filled up the measure of their iniquity; and the Lord is known by these judgments which he executes, known to be a God that resists the proud. Many prophecies were fulfilled in this providence, which should encourage us, as far as they look further, and are designed as common and general assurances of the safety of the church and of all that trust in God, to depend upon God for the accomplishment of them. He that has delivered does and will deliver. Lord, forgive our enemies; but, so let all thy enemies perish, O Lord!
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 vv21–35 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed?.... A creature like…
Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed?.... A creature like thyself? no, but a God, and not one like the gods of the nations, the idols of wood and stone, but the living God:
and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice? alluding to Rabshakeh's crying with a loud voice, Isa 36:13,
Read full note →
and lifted up thine eyes on high? as proud and haughty persons do, disdaining to look upon those they treat with contempt:
even against the Holy One of Israel; that is, Israel's God, and will protect him; "a Holy One", and of purer eyes than to behold with pleasure such a proud blaspheming creature, and cannot look upon him but with indignation; for against such he sets himself; these he resists, pulls down, and destroys.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 Verse 21. Then Isaiah - sent unto Hezekiah] The…
Verse 21. Then Isaiah - sent unto Hezekiah] The Syriac and Septuagint understand and render the verb passively, was sent.
Whereas thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib - "Thy prayer unto me concerning Sennacherib - I have heard"] שמעתי shamati; this word, necessary to the sense, is lost in this place out of the Hebrew text. One MS. of Dr. Kennicott's and one of De Rossi's have it written above the line in a later hand. The Septuagint and Syriac found it in their copies; and it is preserved in the other copy; 2Kg 19:20.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv21–35 Whereas thou hast prayed - Because thou hast come…
Whereas thou hast prayed - Because thou hast come to me instead of relying on thy own resources and strength. In 2Ki 19:20, it is, ‘That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib, king of Assyria, I have heard.’
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 vv24, 25, 29, 30, 35 Carmel. See 4 Kings xix. (Challoner)
Carmel. See 4 Kings xix. (Challoner)
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 v21 21then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah,…
5. ISAIAH’S MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH CONCERNING THE DANGER THREATENED BY SENNACHERIB
Isa_37:21-35
Read full note →
21then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, 21Whereas thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria: 22this is the word which the Lord hath spoken 22concerning him;
The Virgin, the daughter of Zion hath despised thee,
And laughed thee to scorn;
The daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head 23at thee.
23 Whom hast thou reproached and 24blasphemed?
And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice,
And lifted up thine eyes on high?
Even against the Holy One of Israel.
24 25By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said,
By the multitude of my chariots am I come up
To the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon;
And I will cut down 26the tall cedars thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof;
And I will enter into the height of his 27border, and 28the forest 29of his Carmel.
25 I have digged and drunk water;
And with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers 30of the 31besieged places.
26 32Hast thou not 33heard long ago, how I have done it;
And of ancient times, that I have formed it?
Now have I brought it to pass,
That thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities into ruinous heaps,
27 34Therefore their inhabitants were 35of small power,
They were dismayed and confounded:
They were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb,
As the grass on the housetops,
And 36as corn blasted before it be grown up,
28 iBut I know thy 37abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in,
And 38thy rage against me.
29 Because kthy rage against me, and thy 39tumult, is come up into mine ears,
Therefore will I put my hook in thy nose,
And my bridle in thy lips,
And I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.
30 And this shall be a sign unto thee,
Ye shall eat this year such as groweth of itself;
And the second year that which springeth of the same:
And in the third year sow ye, and reap,
And plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.
31 And 40the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah
Shall again 41take root downward,
And bear fruit upward:
32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant,
And 42they that escape out of Mount Zion:
The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.
33 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria,
He shall not come into this city,
Nor shoot an arrow 43there,
Nor come before it with 44shields,
Nor cast a bank against it.
34 By the way that he came, by the same shall he return,
And shall not come into this city, saith the Lord.
35 For I will defend this city to save it
For mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Isa_37:21. שׁלח is here, not merely “to send” generally, but to send a message, as appears from לאמר: comp. Gen_38:25; 2Sa_14:32; 1Ki_9:5; 2Ki_5:8, etc.—The clause אשׁר התפללת וגו׳ can be construed grammatically as the premise to the apodosis זה הדבר וגו׳ Isa_37:22, or as a relative explanatory clause to יהוה אלהי י׳ Isa_37:21. The latter is possible because in Hebrew, by a prepositive אשׁרְ even the casus obliqui of the pronouns of the first and second persons can receive a relative meaning. Comp. Isa_41:8-9; Isa_64:10; Gen_45:4. But the latter explanation seems to me unsuitable because a clause like “I to whom thou hast prayed,” does not sound well in the mouth of God. For does not that assume that Hezekiah might have prayed to some other? But the harshness of the first explanation, according to which in the premise Jehovah Himself speaks, while in the conclusion He is spoken of, is an objection to it. Hence the reading of 2Ki_19:22, at the end, שׁמעתי, which the Isaiah text omits as needless, is the more correct; especially as there appears to be an intentional echo of God’s promise to Solomon 1Ki_9:3.
Isa_37:22. The accents designate the verb בָּזָה as Milra. According to that, it would be either part. fem. from בּוּז, or 3 pers. masc. Kal from בָּזָה. The latter would be grammatically possible, so far as בזה can be regarded as prepositive predicate. But, although בוז and בזה mean the same, still the latter is more frequently joined with the accusative and the former with the dative. For בזה occurs with ל only 2Sa_6:16 (1Ch_15:29), whereas בוז mostly appears joined with לְ (Pro_6:30; Pro_11:12; Pro_13:13; Pro_14:21; Pro_23:9; Pro_30:17; Zec_4:10; Son_8:1; Son_8:7). Besides these בוז occurs only Pro_1:7; Pro_23:22. As the Masoretic pointing is not binding, I would rather regard our בזה as 3 pers. fem. Kal. from בוז, corresponding to לעגה.—Also לעג is mostly joined with לְ; Psa_2:4; Psa_59:9; Psa_80:7; Pro_17:5; Pro_30:17; Jer_20:7, etc.—הניע ראשׁ a gesture of derision as in Psa_22:8; Psa_109:25; Job_16:4; Lam_2:15.
Isa_37:23. חרף and גדף comp. Isa_37:4; Isa_37:6.—קדוֹשׁ י׳ is a specifically Isaianic expression.
Isa_37:24. This verse contains a number of variations on 2Ki_19:23, that, from the stand-point of our author, represent emendations.—On קומה see Isa_10:33.—In יער כרמלו of an adjective notion is made a substantive. For כדמל has here its appellative meaning: “fruitful field or garden.”
Isa_37:25. יאדי מצור comp. on Isa_19:1; Isa_19:6.
Isa_37:26. למדחוק is, like מימי קדם (simplified from למימי 2Ki_19:25), to be referred to what follows. Properly the prep, מן before רחוק would suffice; but the Hebrew favors the cumulation of prepositions (comp. 2Sa_7:19; Job_36:9; 2Ch_26:15. etc.). By the prefixed לְ is expressed the thought that the divine doing relates to a period beginning far back.—On ימי קדם comp. Isa_23:7; Isa_51:9.—By עתה הבאתיה (comp. Isa_46:11) the Prophet affirms that precisely what the Assyrian pretended he had done by his own power, was only the accomplishment of Jehovah’s thought. Hence ותהי must also be construed as 2 pers. masc. and referred to the Assyrian. היח with לְ following is used in the sense of “to serve for something” as in Isa_5:5; Isa_44:15.—השׁאות is Hiph. from שׁאה strepere, tumultuari. But the word means also the noise, the cracking of something falling in, and hence not only Kal (Isa_6:11) and the corresponding Niph. (ibid.) and Hiph. (our text and 2 Kings) have the meaning “to fall in ruins, to be laid waste,” but also the substantive שָׁאוֹן means interitus, pernicies Psa_40:3; Jer_44:11).—The words גלים נצים, according to Heb. usage, express the result of the destruction in the form of apposition with the thing to be destroyed; comp. Isa_6:11; Isa_24:12. נִצִּים is part. Niph. from נצה, and occurs in the sense of “waste” only here and Jer_4:7.
Isa_37:27. The expression קצרי־יד “short-handed,” i. e., weak, original in Num_11:23, occurs again only Isa_50:2; Isa_59:1, the adjective קָצֵר only here.—חתו ובשׁו as in Isa_20:5.—Everywhere else the expression “grass of the field” reads עֵשֶׂב הַשָׂדֶה as in Gen_2:5; Gen_3:18, etc.—ירק דשא only here; comp. Psa_37:2.—In 2Ki_19:26 the fourth comparison is שְׁדֵפָה “blasting,” or “blasted field,” instead of שְׁדִמָה “a field.” It is no doubt a stronger figure, and as a climax, more in place. It is far more likely that it is the primitive reading and that our text is secondary.
Isa_37:29. On יען first depends the infin., which then as in Isa_30:12, continues in the verb fin.—Instead of שַֽׁאֲנַנְֽךָ 2Ki_19:27 has שַֽׁאֲנָֽנְֽךָ. [In some editions it is precisely the reverse.—Tr.]. Are both Infin. as Olshausen (§ 187, a and § 251, b, p. 552) maintains; or is only the former, as Ewald seems to assume (§ 157, b, comp. §120, a) [also Green, see § 122, 1 and 187, 1, d—Tr.]? To me the latter seems more probable, for I do not see why, when שַֽׁאֲנַן is infin., it would be pointed שַֽׁאֲנָנּךָ whereas this is quite easily explained if שַֽׁאֲנָנְךָ be derived from the adjective שַֽׁאֲנָן “quiet.”
Isa_37:30. אָכוֹל in the inf. absol. presents the verbal notion without determining the time or manner. The Prophet thereby affirms simply what actually is, what occurs according to nature.—שָׁחִים is ἅπ. λεγ. 2Ki_19:29 has סָחִישׂ. The latter word is devoid of any etymological basis, as there is no root סָחַשׁ either in Hebrew or the kindred dialects. Moreover there is no agreement about the root of the form שׁחים. There is no root שָׁחַם in Hebrew. Of various explanations, that may deserve the preference which connects שׁהים with the Arabic schahis, which means “scattered, standing thin,” unless perhaps the fundamental meaning is “to divide itself, to cut loose from,” so that שׁחים would mean “that which separates itself from the root, grows out of it.” שׁחים would then be the sprouts of the root (Aquila and Theod. translate αὐτοφυῆ).—The imperative in זרעו וגו׳ involves so for an exhortation that the Prophet would say to the Israelites to lay aside all anxiety about the enemy for the third year, and carry on agriculture confidently.—Instead of ואכול K’ri has וְאִכְלוּ which is also the reading of 2Ki_19:29, and seems to be the more original. For ואכול may be suspected of being imitated from the same word beginning the verse, and moreover it would involve a certain emphasis which, accurately considered, would be out of place here. It would = “and—in short—eat your fruit;” thus it would recapitulate and say in brief. It can, however, naturally refer only to כרמים (comp. Isa_65:21; Jer_29:5; Jer_29:28; Amo_9:14).
Isa_37:32. The word צבאות is wanting in K’thibh of 2Ki_19:31. The books of Kings have this word of the divine name only three times, viz., 1Ki_18:15; 1Ki_19:10; 1Ki_19:14; 2Ki_3:14 in the history of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. In Isaiah, on the other hand, it is of frequent occurrence; see Isa_9:6 (7) the parallel passage and on Isa_1:9.
Isa_37:33. שָׁם here stands for שָׁמָּה as in 1Sa_2:14; 1Ki_18:10; Jer_19:14.—קִדֵּם is never used in the transitive sense = “to make come before, cause to meet,” so as to construe the word with a double accusative of the place and the nearer object. But as after other verbs the instrument can be designated by the accusative (comp. Isa_1:20), as well as the use of בְּ, so also קִדְּם can be used with בְּ (comp. Deu_23:5; Isa_21:14; Psa_95:2) and with the simple accus. instrum. as in Psa_21:4. We have here a double accusative of the place and of the instrument.
Isa_37:34. יבא intimates that the Assyrian must be thought of as not in the land, but on the way to Jerusalem.
Isa_37:35. On גנותי see on Isa_31:5; Isa_38:6.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. To Hezekiah’s prayer (Isa_37:16-20) the Lord gives an answer through Isaiah, which announces the triumph of Jerusalem (Isa_37:22), convicts the Assyrian of blasphemy against God, in that he spoke haughtily against the Holy One of Israel, and ascribed to himself the glory of conquests in which he was only the instrument (Isa_37:23-27). But the Lord knows him thoroughly, and will make him know himself by unmistakable treatment (Isa_37:28-29). To Judah a sign is given, that it is to be free forever from the Assyrian (Isa_37:30-32). For the immediate future it is announced that the Assyrian shall not even come near Jerusalem, but shall return home by the way he came; and God is declared to be the protector of Jerusalem (Isa_37:33-35).
2. Then Isaiah—at thee
Isa_37:21-22. See Text. and Gram. Jerusalem shall see the Assyrian retreating with aims unaccomplished. Then it will look after him (אחרִיך) with derision. [“Hitzig supposes that the shaking of the head, with the Hebrews as with us, was a gesture of negation, and that the expression of scorn consisted in a tacit denial that Sennacherib had been able to effect his purpose. Thus understood, the action is equivalent to saying in words, no, no! i. e., he could not do it. A similar explanation is given by Hentgstenberg, on Psa_22:8.”—J. A. Alex. For another view see Baehr, on 2Ki_19:21.—Tr.].
3. Whom hast thou reproached—besieged places.
Isa_37:23-25. The question extends to “thine eyes;” and thus “against the Holy,” etc., is the answer to all the preceding questions (Vitringa, Gesen., Delitz.). Others construe “against the Holy,” etc., with the foregoing words “and lifted up,” etc., as the answer; so that the question ends with “voice.” But against the latter it may be urged that the question and answer do not correspond; the question is not answered, and the answer given refers to something about which nothing is asked. According to our construction it is asked: “Whom hast thou blasphemed, and against whom hast thou insolently raised voice and eyes (comp. Psa_18:28; Psa_101:5; Pro_6:17; Pro_21:4)?” The answer is: “against the Holy,” etc.; wherein, according to familiar usage, the form of the answer corresponds to the final member of question. This appears more evident in 2Ki_19:22, as על־קדושׁ י׳ connects more exactly with על־מי ה׳ [“Ewald carries the interrogation through the verse, and renders ו at the beginning of the last clause, that or so that, while Hitzig makes the whole of that clause an exclamation. This construction is more natural—the answer begins with the next verse where he is expressly charged with blasphemy against Jehovah.”—J. A. Alex.].
Isa_37:24-25 express more exactly how he has blasphemed. It was done by his servants. (The “hand of” figurative expression for “organ, service, means” generally Isa_20:2; Jer_37:2; Jer_50:1; Hag_1:1; Hag_1:3; Hag_2:1). The emphatic thought is that servants of men have blasphemed the Lord of the world.
This blasphemy consisted mainly (Isa_36:7; Isa_36:15; Isa_36:18) in representing trust in Jehovah as folly, and in the inference that, because they had conquered heathen nations, it was logically necessary that the people of God might be conquered, and thus in placing Jehovah on a level with idols. Moreover what they did, they supposed they had done by their own might, and that what was to be done yet could be done in the same way. Isaiah expresses this thought in Isa_37:24-25, with close adherence to the circumstances, so as to divide as it were the task of the Assyrian into two parts. The first part was the conquest of the Syrian, Phœnician and Palestinian districts. All these lands lie about Lebanon. One traveling from Nineveh by Carchemish to Phœnicia must in any case go past Lebanon, which, by its lofty, snow-covered summits, gives distant notice of the locality of these lands. Lebanon therefore may serve as an emblem. Moreover in the Scriptures it is not uncommon to represent Zion under the image of Lebanon (comp. Jer_22:6-7; Jer_22:23; Eze_17:3), partly because in general Lebanon is the image of what is lofty and admirable (comp. Isa_2:13; Isa_10:33 sq.; Isa_35:2; Isa_60:13; Hos_14:6 sqq.; Zec_11:1 sq.), partly and especially because the king’s palace in Zion had grown on Lebanon, i. e., was built of cedars of Lebanon, (comp. 1Ki_7:2 “house of the forest of Lebanon,” or “house of the forest,” Isa_22:8). It is inconceivable that Sennacherib or one of his predecessors ever scaled Lebanon with horse and chariot, and destroyed the cedars. The Prophet rather makes him boast that he had conquered the lands of Lebanon. And Hamath, Arphad, Syria, Phœnicia, the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, the greater part of Judah and Philistia, were actually in his possession. With reference to this, one might well represent him as saying: I have ascended up the heights of the mountains, up the sides (properly the shanks, comp. on Isa_14:13) of Lebanon. The chief work seemed done, the chief summits were surmounted. It only remained to penetrate into the inmost part, and there destroy the ornament of Lebanon, its glorious standing timber of cedar and cypress. By עליהי the Prophet manifestly refers to what has been accomplished, i. e., the occupation of the Lebanon districts. But ואכדת and ואבוא refer to what remains to be done. Only Jerusalem remained for Sennacherib to conquer (comp. on Isa_36:1). Thus the best, the real ornament, the central point of the Palestinian Lebanon lands was not yet his. Jerusalem with its temple and its king’s palace, the two Lebanon houses (because with both cedars of Lebanon had so much to do, comp, 1Ki_6:9 sqq.; Isa_7:2 sqq.) might well be compared to the crown of Lebanon with its ornament of cedars. Such is the understanding of Thenius and Baehr, with whom I agree. The expression “tall-growth of its cedars, choice of its cypress,” quite agrees with the Latin mode of expression, by which can be said e.g.cibum partim unguium tenacitate arripiunt, partim aduncitate rostrorum” (Cic.Deor. Nat. II. 47, 122). Comp. Friedr. Naegelsbach’sLatein. Stilistik, § 74; Isa_1:16; Isa_22:7; Isa_25:12; Isa_30:30. The Prophet does not ascribe to the Assyrian the intention of destroying the height of the cedars, while he would leave them their other qualities, but that he would utterly cut down the high cedars as they are.—On ברושׁ, the cypress, comp. on Isa_14:8. “The height of his end or border” is also no more than his highest summit. The notion height is not already expressed in “the uttermost,” as Baehr supposes. For a mountain has an uttermost in every direction. One may therefore speak of an uttermost in the direction upward, and of a height of the uttermost.—The forest of his garden-land is then the forest that, as it were, forms the garden of Lebanon, that adorns Lebanon like a pleasure park. The most luxuriant, glorious standing forest of Lebanon is meant.
In Isa_37:25 the Prophet speaks of the second task presented to Sennacherib, which was to conquer Egypt. That concerned a certain campaign, not in a mountainous region, but in a level land, partly waste and without water, partly abounding in water. While Sennacherib stood on the south of Palestine the great army had no superabundance of water. When, e. g., we read of Moses’ request to Edom (Num_20:17 sqq.) it cannot seem strange that the Prophet imputed to Sennacherib the boastful assertion that so far he has provided his mighty host with water in a strange land, that he has dug wells, because the existing ones were insufficient, and had drunk away their water from the inhabitants. For such is the meaning of מים זרים2Ki_19:24, which our author has omitted for the sake of simplicity. Had the Assyrian traversed the desert et-Tih, digging wells would, of course, have been a still greater necessity. But on the border of it, whither Sennacherib penetrated, it may have been needful. He boasts, moreover, that where there is much water, and the water is a bulwark for the inhabitants, as the Nile with its canals is to Egypt, he will easily destroy this bulwark. For by the sole of his tramp shall the streams of Egypt be dried up. Thus his warriors will dry up the streams of Egypt like a puddle, merely by the tramp of their feet. The expression “sole of the tramp” is found only here. It is metonymy. Still in respect to the act of stepping, “step” and “foot” are often interchanged. Comp. Psa_140:5 with Psa_116:8; Psa_17:5 with Psa_38:17, etc. [“The drying up of the rivers with the soles of the feet is understood by Vitringa as an allusion to the Egyptian mode of drawing water with a tread-wheel (Deu_11:10).”—J. A. Alex.].
4. Hast thou not heard—thou camest?
Isa_37:26-29. The Assyrian imagined that he pushed, and he was pushed. He regarded all he did as the product of his own free fancy, and of his power to do. The Prophet however says to him that he had only been an instrument in the hands of God. With “hast thou not heard,” the Prophet, so to speak, appeals to the better understanding of the Assyrian. Has it not somehow, if not from without, still from within, come to thy hearing (comp. Psa_62:12) that it is not as thou thinkest? Does not thy conscience, the voice of God within thee say that it was not thou that hast planned and carried out all this, but that I, the Almighty God, long ago (Isa_22:11; Isa_25:1) laid it out and have accomplished it? Therefore the Assyrian was to be a thorough destroyer of things. But when God destroys the things, He intends always a corresponding effect on the persons. The latter is the thought of Isa_37:27. Their inhabitants (i. e., of the cities named Isa_37:26), as short-handed, (i. e., weak), are dismayed and confounded. Then with strong figures this effect is more nearly characterized. The sorely visited inhabitants are compared to the “grass of the field,” “the green herb,” “the grass on the house tops” (in shallow soil, weak rooted; the expression again only Psa_129:6), “the grain field before the standing fruit” (i. e., all blade and no stalk), and thus soft and tender like grass.—But not only is the foregoing true of the Assyrian as the instrument of God’s purpose, but all his doing and not doing has been directed by the Lord without his knowing it: what he proposed at home, his march forth, his coming into the Holy Land, and his hostile raging against the people of God, all was under the notice of the Lord, and must run the course determined by Him. “Sitting, going forth, coming home,” are expressions for the total activity of a man (comp. Deu_28:6; Psa_121:8; Psa_139:2). רגז stands for every vehement emotion whether of fear, of anger, or of joy (comp. Isa_5:25; Isa_13:13; Isa_14:9; Isa_14:16; Isa_23:11; Isa_28:21, etc.). The Hithp. occurs only here and Isa_37:29. Because the Assyrian with this התדגז had sinned against the Lord and rebelled, and would not hear of his being dependent on the Lord, but only the report of his proud security came to the Lord, he must feel his dependence in the most incisive way. He must return home by the way he came, as it were, led by a ring through the nose like a wild beast (comp. Eze_19:4; Eze_19:9; Eze_29:4; Eze_38:4), or by a bridle between the lips, like a tame beast. On the ruins of Chorsabad are figures of prisoners whom the “royal victor holds to a rope by means of a ring fastened in their lips.” Comp. Thenius on 2Ki_19:28.
5. And this shall—do this.
Isa_37:30-32. The Prophet turns to Hezekiah. In Isa_37:22; Isa_37:29 he had in a general way held out the prospect of the pitiful retreat of the Assyrian out of the Holy Land. Now he names a sign to the king that shall be a pledge of the promise given and place it in the right light. It may be asked: how can this sign, that requires two years for its accomplishment, be a pledge for an event that is to take place at once; according to 2Ki_19:35, even that very night? I believe that two things are to be considered here. First: Israel receives the promise, not merely of a momentary, but of a definite deliverance from the power of Assyria. This appears, evident from our prophecy itself. The scorn with which Zion greets the retreat of the Assyrian (Isa_37:22) would be ill-timed if he could return to take vengeance. According to Isa_37:29 he is so thoroughly led off that he is certain to have no wish to come back. According to Isa_37:33; Isa_37:35 he is not to come before Jerusalem. It is not said, however, that this shall not happen only this time and in the present danger. The Assyrian shall never come any more. Assyria is done away. The Theocracy has nothing more to fear from it. We have shown above that this thought occurs in chaps. 28–33, especially in 33. It cannot surprise one that a promise so all-important, that Assyria shall nevermore hurt the Theocracy, is guaranteed by a sign requiring years for its realization. A promise to be fulfilled after some hours properly requires no pledge.
In the second place: it is to be noticed that there is no exact statement in our prophecy as to the way in which Assyria is to be expelled from Judah. It is neither said that it shall be so suddenly, nor in this fashion. Hence the question might arise after the event, whether this sudden expulsion is to be explained by accidental or natural causes, or as the operation of divine omnipotence. Did the Lord give a sign and the sign come about, it would prove that that first mighty blow carried out against Assyria was also intended by the Lord. But it may be asked: how can a series of events serve for a sign, which in fact take a very natural course, which could not happen otherwise? It might be urged that it took mighty little prophetic insight to know that no regular seeding and harvest could be possible before the third year. That is true. Yet only He for whom there is properly no future could know beforehand that in the third year there would certainly be a seeding and harvest. For it was quite possible that the Assyrian invasion would last for years still. What the Prophet predicts here is the favorable aspect of the future that was in general possible. Better could not happen. I construe Isa_37:30 essentially as Drechsler does, and think that the subject has been needlessly made hard. According to the Assyrian monuments, the expedition of Sennacherib against Syria, Palestine and Egypt occupied only the one year, 700 B. C. For in the year 699 we find him on another theatre of war, employed against Suzub of Babylon. Comp. the canon of Regents in Schrader, p. 319, and our remarks on Isa_39:1. If, then, this campaign lasted no longer than a year, still it certainly demanded the whole of the time of a year suitable for warfare. Therefore Sennacherib certainly was in Palestine in Spring before the harvest, and when it was ripe seized on it, for his immense army. He conquered in fact the whole land, and shut up Hezekiah in Jerusalem “like a bird in its cage.” But he must have remained in Canaan till late in the year. For when one considers that in this year he made the conquest of Phœnicia, several Philistine cities (Beth-Dagon, Joppa, B’ne-Barak, Azur), forty-six fortified cities of Judah, besides countless castles and smaller places, and then also fought a considerable battle with the Ethiopic army, there is presented a labor for whose accomplishment three-quarters of a year does not appear too much time. But with that the invasion lasted so long that the season for preparing a harvest had passed by; especially when it is considered that the inhabitants needed first to assemble again, put their houses to rights, and provide beasts of labor, as their stock must certainly have fallen a prey to the enemy. Comp. Isa_32:10; Isa_32:12-13 and Isa_33:8-9, which may be taken as a suitable description of the condition brought about by this invasion. For the year after the invasion, therefore, there was no product of the land to be expected in general, but such as would spring up of itself. Not before the third year could there be regular cultivation and a corresponding harvest. And, as already said, that was much, in fact, the best that could happen as things then were. For that end it would be necessary that the Assyrian by the end of the second year should no more be in the land, and have no more power to hinder field-labor. According to this explanation, we have no need of assuming a Sabbatic year, nor a year of jubilee, nor a return of the Assyrian out of Egypt to Palestine, nor an invasion lasting three years, nor that agriculture in Palestine at that time was carried on in the same ceremonious way that, according to Wetstein (in Delitzsch, p. 389 sq.), is the case now-a-days. Naturally, during the invasion, in the first year, there was no fruit of harvest to eat, since the Assyrian had carried it off, but only ספיח (Lev_25:5; Lev_25:11; Job_14:19). The word comes from ספח, which undoubtedly means effundere, profundere, infundere (Hab_2:15; Job_30:7; Isa_5:7), in Niph. and Hithp.: “to pour” (of rivers), “to mouth, debouch,” i. e., se adjungere, adjungi (Isa_14:1; 1Sa_26:19). ספיח, therefore, is effusio, “the outpour, what is poured out, spilt.” Thus all field produce is meant that comes from spilling at seeding or harvest, or that comes from such spilt fruit. In the present case it would be first the former, like crumbs from the rich man’s table, and then the latter, of which the Israelites would get the benefit. On שׁחים see Text. and Gram. See in Gesen. and Knobel proof that in warm countries grain propagates itself partly by spilt seeds and partly by shoots from the root. [The stooling of winter wheat is familiar to agriculturists.—Tr.]
But the Prophet has not only deliverance from ruin to announce to Judah, but also new growth. The escaped (פליטה, comp. Isa_4:2; Isa_10:20; Isa_15:9) of the house of Judah (בית י׳ again only Isa_22:21), the remnant (comp. Isa_11:11; Isa_11:16), shall add on root downwards (Isa_27:6). It shall, however, also bear fruit upwards, thus be a firm-rooted and fruitful tree. It is true that Judah somewhat more than an hundred years later was uprooted. Still it was not, like Israel, quite and forever wrested away from its indigenous soil, but only transplanted for a while, to be replanted again, in order to go and meet a new and final judgment, with which, however, was also combined a transition into a new and higher stage of existence. And precisely for this higher stage of existence the remnant, according to our passage and former statements of the Prophet (Isa_4:3; Isa_6:13; Isa_10:20 sqq.), formed the point of connection. By Isa_37:32 a the Prophet explains how this revivescence of Judah shall be brought about. All Judah fell into the hand of the enemy, and by him was hostilely treated and desolated. Only the capital remained unhurt. Therefore in it had been preserved an untouched nucleus, formed partly of the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves, partly of such men of Judah as had taken refuge in the capital. Hence the Prophet can say: “out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and the escaped from mount Zion.” For of course the repeopling and restoration of the land must proceed from Jerusalem, as from the intact core and heart of the land. On the last clause of Isa_37:32 see on Isa_9:6. The words here are evidently intended in a consolatory sense, and to intimate that what the Lord has promised, He will perform with zeal.
6. Therefore thus saith—David’s sakež.
Isa_37:33-35. In these verses, what was given in the foregoing in a general way is now definitely formulated and applied to the present situation. The Prophet affirms most positively that Jerusalem shall not be besieged by the Assyrian. It is commonly assumed that the Assyrian of course enclosed Jerusalem, and that he met the fearful overthrow narrated Isa_37:36 before its walls. But when Sennacherib received intelligence of the approach of the Ethiopian army, he was at Libnah. From there he retired a little further north to Altakai (Eltekeh), where occurred the battle. Evidently he avoided encountering the Ethiopian near, and especially obliquely south of Jerusalem, so as not to tempt the Jews to aid the enemy, and to avoid having to sustain their attack on his rear. But it is thought that the “great army’ (Isa_36:2) with which Rabshakeh appeared before Jerusalem remained there while he returned to the king (Isa_37:8). The text, however, says nothing of this, and moreover, it is internally not probable. For with the prospect of encountering so great a host as the army of Egypt and Ethiopia doubtless was, Sennacherib would not have weakened himself by sending away a great part of his own army. He might have sent a small corps of observation: but the 185,000 men of which Isa_37:36 speaks certainly did not lie before Jerusalem. There is therefore a climax in Isa_37:33. First it says, Sennacherib shall not come into the city. Then, he shall not shoot an arrow into it. In sieges among the ancients, the shield played a great part as a protection against spears, stones, etc., that were hurled down from the walls, as also against melted pitch (comp. Herz.Real-Encycl. IV. p. 392 sqq.). סללה, “the besiegers’ wall” (2Sa_20:15; Jer_6:6; Eze_4:2, etc.). Isa_37:35 is causal as to its contents. The first clause names, as the reason of the Assyrian’s expulsion, Jehovah’s purpose to protect Jerusalem. But the reason for this protection is the promise given to David (2Sa_7:12 sqq.; comp. 1Ki_15:4) whereby the honor of the Lord itself was at stake (comp. Isa_43:25; Isa_48:11) and thus the preservation of Jerusalem was necessary. It is true that Jerusalem was destroyed, after all, at a later period, and the kingdom of David demolished; but this occurred under circumstances that did not exclude a restoration. Had Judah been destroyed at that time by Sennacherib, it would have had the same fate as the kingdom of Israel.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On Isa_36:4 sqq. “Haec proprie est Satanae lingua et sunt non Rabsacis sed ipsissimi Diaboli verba, quibus non muros urbis, sed medullam Ezechiae, hoc est, tenerrimam ejus fidem oppugnat.”—Luther. “In this address the chief-butler, Satan performs in the way he uses when he would bring about our apostacy. 1) He urges that we are divested of all human support, Isa_36:5; Isaiah 2) We are deprived of divine support, Isa_36:7; Isaiah 3) God is angry with us because we have greatly provoked Him by our sins, Isa_36:7; Isaiah 4) He decks out the splendor, and power of the wicked, Isa_36:8-9; Isaiah 5) He appeals to God’s word, and knows how to turn and twist it to his uses. Such poisonous arrows were used by Satan against Christ in the desert, and may be compared with this light (Mat_4:2 sqq.). One needs to arm himself against Satan’s attack by God’s word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.”—Cramer.
The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiah’s confidence, in two of which he was right and in two wrong. He was right in representing that Hezekiah could rely neither on Egypt, nor on his own power. In this respect he was a messenger of God and announcer of divine truth. For everywhere the word of God preaches the same (Isa_30:1-3; Isa_31:1-3; Jer_17:5; Psa_118:8-9; Psa_146:3, etc.). But it is a merited chastisement if rude and hostile preachers must preach to us what we were unwilling to believe at the mild and friendly voice of God. But in two particulars the Assyrian was wrong, and therein lay Hezekiah’s strength. For just on this account the Lord is for him and against the Assyrian. These two things are, that the Assyrian asserts that Hezekiah cannot put his trust in the Lord, but rather he, the Assyrian is counseled by the Lord against Hezekiah. That, however, was a lie, and because of this lie, the corresponding truth makes all the deeper impression on Hezekiah, and reminds him how assuredly he may build on the Lord and importune Him. And when the enemy dares to say, that he is commissioned by the Lord to destroy the Holy Land, just that must bring to lively remembrance in the Israelite, that the Lord, who cannot lie, calls the land of Israel His land (Joel 4:2; Jer_2:7; Jer_16:18, etc.), and the people of Israel His people (Exo_3:7; Exo_3:10; Exo_5:1, etc.).
2. On Isa_36:12. [“In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe: 1) The Masorets in the Hebrew text have so printed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided. 2) The customs, habits and modes of expression of people in different nations and times, differ. What appears indelicate at one time or in one country, may not only be tolerated, but common in another. 3) Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian. 4) It was of importance to give the true character of the attack which was made on Jerusalem. The coming of Sennacherib was attended with pride, insolence and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it bear the blame.”—Barnes in loc.].
3. On Isa_36:18 sqq. “Observandum hic, quod apud gentes olim viguerit πολύθεια adeo, ut quaevis etiam urbs peculiarem habuerit Deum tutelarem. Cujus ethnicismi exemplum vivum et spirans adhuc habemus apud pontificios, quibus non inscite objici potest illud Jeremiae: Quot civitates tibi, tot etiam Dei (Jer_2:28).”—Foerster.
4. On Isa_36:21. Answer not a fool according to his folly (Pro_26:4), much less the blasphemer, lest the flame of his wickedness be blown into the greater rage (Sir_8:3). Did not Christ the Lord answer His enemies, not always with words, but also with silence (Mat_26:62; Mat_27:14, etc.)? One must not cast pearls before swine (Mat_7:6). After Foerster and Cramer.
5. On Isa_36:21. “Est aureus textus, qui docet nos, ne cum Satana disputemus. Quando enim videt, quod sumus ejus spectatores et auditores, tum captat occasionem majoris fortitudinis et gravius premit. Petrus dicit, eum circuire et quaerere, quem devoret. Nullum facit insidiarum finem. Tutissimum autem est non respondere, sed contemnere eum.”—Luther.
6. [On Isa_37:1-7. “Rabshakeh intended to frighten Hezekiah from the Lord, but it proves that he frightens him to the Lord. The wind, instead of forcing the traveler’s coat from him, makes him wrap it the closer about him. The more Rabshakeh reproaches God, the more Hezekiah studies to honor Him.” On Isa_37:3. “When we are most at a plunge we should be most earnest in prayer. When pains are most strong, let prayers be most lively. Prayer is the midwife of mercy, that helps to bring it forth.”—M. Henry, in loc.]
7. On Isa_37:2 sqq. Hezekiah here gives a good example. He shows all princes, rulers and peoples what one ought to do when there is a great and common distress, and tribulation. One ought with sackcloth, i. e., with penitent humility, to bring prayers, and intercessions to the Lord that He would look on and help.
8. On Isa_37:6 sq. “God takes to Himself all the evil done to His people. For as when one does a great kindness to the saints, God appropriates it to Himself, so, too, when one torments the saints, it is an injury done to God, and He treats sin no other way than as if done to Himself. He that torments them torments Him (Isa_64:9). Therefore the saints pray: ‘Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily’ (Psa_74:22).”—Cramer.
9. On Isa_37:7. “God raises up against His enemies other enemies, and thus prepares rest for His own people. Example: the Philistines against Saul who pursued David, 1Sa_23:27.”—Cramer.
10. On Isa_37:14. Vitringa here cites the following from Bonfin Rerum Hungar. Dec. III. Lib. VI. p. 464, ad annum Isaiah 1444: “Amorathes, cum suos laborare cerneret et ab Vladislao rege non sine magna caede fugari, depromtum e sinu codicem initi sanctissime foederis explicat intentis in coelum oculis. Haec sunt, inquit ingeminans, Jesu Christe, foedera, quae Christiani tui mecum percussere. Per numen tuum sanctum jurarunt, datamque sub nomine tuo fidem violarunt, perfide suum Deum abnegarunt. Nunc Christe, si Deus es (ut ajunt et nos hallucinamur), tuas measque hic injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere et his, qui sanctum tuum nomen nondum agnovere, violatae fidei poenas ostende. Vix haec dixerat .… cum proelium, quod anceps ac dubium diu fuerat, inclinare coepit, etc.”
[The desire of Hezekiah was not primarily his own personal safety, or the safety of his kingdom. It was that Jehovah might vindicate His great and holy name from reproach, and that the world might know that He was the only true God. We have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when we come before God. This motive of prayer is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. Isa_42:8; Isa_43:10; Isa_43:13; Isa_43:25; Deu_32:39; Psa_83:18; Psa_46:10; Neh_9:6; Dan_9:18-19. Perhaps there could have been furnished no more striking proof that Jehovah was the true God, than would be by the defeat of Sennacherib. The time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror of His name, and the report of His power throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army.”—Barnes, on Isa_37:2].
11. On Isa_37:15. “Fides Ezechiae verba confirmata magis ac magis crescit. Ante non ausus est orare, jam orat et confutat blasphemias omnes Assyrii. Adeo magna vis verbi est, ut longe alius per verbum, quod Jesajas ei nunciari jussit, factus sit.”—Luther.
12. On Isa_37:17. [“It is bad to talk proudly and profanely, but it is worse to write so, for this argues more deliberation and design, and what is written spreads further and lasts longer, and does the more mischief. Atheism and irreligion, written, will certainly be reckoned for another day.”—M. Henry].
13. On Isa_37:21 sqq. [“Those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah’s prayer in God’s name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: ‘Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard.’ Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly to that of chap. 10), and bid him pick out an answer from thence. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God’s side.”—M. Henry.].
14. On Isa_37:31 sqq. “This is a promise of great extent. For it applies not only to those that then remained, and were spared the impending destruction and captivity by the Assyrians, but to all subsequent times, when they should enjoy a deliverance; as after the Babylonish captivity, and after the persecutions of Antiochus. Yea, it applies even to New Testament times from the first to the last, since therein, in the order of conversion to Christ, the Jews will take root and bring forth fruit, and thus in the Jews (as also in the converted Gentiles) will appear in a spiritual and corporal sense, what God at that time did to their fields in the three following years.”—Starke.
15. On Isa_38:1. “Isaiah, although of a noble race and condition, does not for that regard it disgraceful, but rather an honor, to be a pastor and visitor of the sick, I would say, a prophet, teacher and comforter of the sick. God save the mark! How has the world become so different in our day, especially in our evangelical church Let a family be a little noble, and it is regarded as a reproach and injury to have a clergyman among its relations and friends, not to speak of a son studying theology and becoming a servant of the church. I speak not of all; I know that some have a better mind; yet such is the common course. Jeroboam’s maxim must rather obtain, who made priests of the lowest of the people (1Ki_12:31). For thus the parsons may be firmly held in rein (sub ferula) and in political submission. It is not at all good where the clergy have a say, says an old state-rule of our Politicorum.” Feuerlein, pastor in Nuremberg, in his Novissimorum primum, 1694, p. 553. The same quotes Spener: “Is it not so, that among the Roman Catholics the greatest lords are not ashamed to stand in the spiritual office, and that many of them even discharge the spiritual functions? Among the Reformed, too, persons born of the noblest families are not ashamed of the office of preacher. But, it seems, we Lutherans are the only ones that hold the service of the gospel so low, that, where from a noble or otherwise prominent family an ingenium has an inclination to theological study, almost every one seeks to hinder him, or, indeed, afterwards is ashamed of his friendship, as if it were something much too base for such people, by which more harm comes to our church than one might suppose. That is to be ashamed of the gospel.”
16. On Isa_38:1. [“We see here the boldness and fidelity of a man of God. Isaiah was not afraid to go in freely and tell even a monarch that he must die. The subsequent part of the narrative would lead us to suppose that, until this announcement, Hezekiah did not regard himself as in immediate danger. It is evident here, that the physician of Hezekiah had not informed him of it—perhaps from the apprehension that his disease would be aggravated by the agitation of his mind on the subject. The duty was, therefore, left, as it is often, to the minister of religion—a duty which even many ministers are slow to perform, and which many physicians are reluctant to have performed.
No danger is to be apprehended commonly from announcing to those who are sick their true condition. Physicians and friends often err in this. There is no species of cruelty greater than to suffer a friend to lie on a dying bed under a delusion. There is no sin more aggravated than that of designedly deceiving a dying man, and flattering him with the hope of recovery, when there is a moral certainty that he will not and cannot recover. And there is evidently no danger to be apprehended from communicating to the sick their true condition. It should be done tenderly and with affection; but it should be done faithfully. I have had many opportunities of witnessing the effect of apprising the sick of their situation, and of the moral certainty that they must die. And I cannot now recall an instance in which the announcement has had any unhappy effect on the disease. Often, on the contrary, the effect is to calm the mind, and to lead the dying to look up to God, and peacefully to repose on Him. And the effect of that is always salutary.” Barnes in loc.]
17. On Isa_38:2. It is an old opinion, found even in the Chald., that by the wall is meant the wall of the temple as a holy direction in which to pray, as the Mahometans pray in the direction of Mecca. But הקיר cannot mean that. Rather that is correct which is said by Forerius: “Nolunt pii homines testes habere suarum lacrymarum, ut eas liberius fundant, neque sensu distrahi, cum orare Deum ex animo volunt.”
18. On Isa_38:8 :—
Non Deus est numen Parcarum carcere clausum.
Quale putabatur Stoicus esse Deus.
Ille potest Solis cursus inhibere volantes,
At veluti scopulos flumina stare facit.”
—Melanchthon.
19. On Isa_38:12. “Beautiful parables that picture to us the transitoriness of this temporal life. For the parable of the shepherd’s tent means how restless a thing it is with us, that we have here no abiding place, but are driven from one locality to another, until at last we find a resting-spot in the church-yard. The other parable of the weaver’s thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks.” Cramer. “When the weaver’s work is progressing best, the thread breaks before he is aware. Thus when a man is in his best work, and supposes he now at last begins really to live, God breaks the thread of his life and lets him die. The rational heathen knew something of this when they, so to speak, invented the three goddesses of life (the three Parcas minime parcas) and included them in this little verse:
Clotho colum gestat, Lachesis trahit,
Atropos occat
But what does the weaver when the thread breaks? Does he stop his work at once? O no! He knows how to make a clever weaver’s knot, so that one cannot observe the break. Remember thereby that when thy life is broken off, yet the Lord Jesus, as a master artisan, can bring it together again at the last day. He will make such an artful, subtle weaver’s-knot as shall make us wonder through all eternity. It will do us no harm to have died.” Ibid.—Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.
[“As suddenly as the tent of a shepherd is taken down, folded up, and transferred to another place. There is doubtless the idea here that he would continue to exist, but in another place, as the shepherd would pitch his tent in another place. He was to be cut off from the earth, but he expected to dwell among the dead. The whole passage conveys the idea that he expected to dwell in another state.” Barnes in loc.].
20. On Isa_38:17. [“Note 1) When God pardons sin, He casts it behind His back as not designing to look upon it with an eye of justice and jealousy. He remembers it no more, to visit for it. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. When we cast our sins behind our back, and take no care to repent of them, God sets them before His face, and is ready to reckon for them; but when we set them before our face in true repentance, as David did when his sin was ever before him, God casts them behind His back. 2) When God pardons sin, He pardons all, casts them all behind His back, though they have been as scarlet and crimson. 3) The pardoning of sin is the delivering the soul from the pit of corruption. 4) It is pleasant indeed to think of our recoveries from sickness when we see them flowing from the remission of sin; then the cause is removed, and then it is in love to the soul.” M. Henry in loc.]
21. On Isa_38:18. [Cannot hope for thy truth. “They are shut out from all the means by which Thy truth is brought to mind, and the offers of salvation are presented. Their probation is at an end; their privileges are closed; their destiny is sealed up. The idea is, it is a privilege to live because this is a world where the offers of salvation are made, and where those who are conscious of guilt may hope in the mercy of God.” Barnes in loc.] God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2Pe_3:9). Such is the New Testament sense of these Old Testament words. For though Hezekiah has primarily in mind the preferableness of life in the earthly body to the life in Hades, yet this whole manner of representation passes away with Hades itself. But Hezekiah’s words still remain true so far as they apply to heaven and hell. For of course in hell, the place of the damned, one does not praise God. But those that live praise Him. These, however, are in heaven. Since then God wills rather that men praise Him than not praise Him, so He is not willing that men should perish, but that all should turn to repentance and live.
22. On Isa_39:2. “Primo (Deus) per obsidionem et bellum, deinde per gravem morbum Ezechiam servaverat, ne in praesumtionem laberetur. Nondum tamen vinci potuit antiquus serpens, sed redit et levat caput suum. Adeo non possumus consistere, nisi Deos nos affligat. Vides igitur hic, quis sit afflictionum usus, ut mortificent scilicet carnem, quae non potest res ferre secundas.” Luther.
23. On Isa_39:7. “God also punishes the misdeeds of the parents on the children (Exo_20:5) because the children not only follow the misdeeds of their parents, but they also increase and heap them up, as is seen in the posterity of Hezekiah, viz.: Manasseh and Amon.”—Cramer.
HOMILETICAL HINTS
[The reader is referred to the ample hints covering the same matter to be found in the volume on 2 Kings 18-20. It is expedient to take advantage of that for the sake of keeping the present volume within reasonable bounds. Therefore but a minimum is here given of what the Author offers, much of which indeed is but the repetition in another form of matter already given.—Tr.]
1. On Isa_37:36. “1) The scorn and mockery of the visible world. 2) The scorn and mockery of the unseen world.” Sermon of Domprediger Zahn in Halle, 1870.
2. On the entire 38. chapter, beside the 22 sermons in FEUERLEIN’S Novissimorum primum, there is a great number of homiletical elaborations of an early date; Walther Magirus, Idea mortis et vitae in two parts, the second of which contains 20 penitential and consolatory sermons on Isaiah 38. Danzig, 1640 and 1642. Daniel Schaller (Stendal) 4 sermons on the sick Hezekiah, on Isaiah 38. Magdeburg, 1611. Peter Siegmund Pape in “Gott geheilighte Wochenpredigten,” Berlin, 1701, 4 sermons. Jacob Tichlerus (Elburg) Hiskiae Aufrichtigkeit bewiesen in Gesundheit, Krankheit und Genesung, 18 sermons on Isaiah 38. (Dutch), Campen, 1636. These are only the principal ones.
3. On Isa_38:1. “I will set my house in order. This, indeed, will not be hard for me to do. My debt account is crossed out; my best possession I take along with me; my children I commit to the great Father of orphans, to whom heaven and earth belongs, and my soul to the Lord, who has sued for it longer than a human age, and bought it with His blood. Thus I am eased and ready for the journey.” Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, p. 620.
4. On Isa_38:1. “Now thou shouldest know that our word ‘order his house’ has a very broad meaning. It comprehends reconciliation to God by faith, the final confession of sin, the last Lord’s Supper, the humble committing of the soul to the grace of the Lord, and to death and the grave in the hope of the resurrection. In one word: There is an ordering of the house above. In reliance on the precious merit of my Saviour, I order my house above in which I wish to dwell. Moreover taking leave of loved ones, and the blessing of them belongs to ordering the house. And finally order must be taken concerning the guardianship of children, the abiding of the widow, and the friend on whom she must especially lean in her loneliness, also concerning earthly bequests.” Ahlfeld, Das Leben im Lichte des Wortes Gottes, Halle, 1867, p. 522.
5. On Isa_38:2-8. This account has much that seems strange to us Christians, but much, too, that quite corresponds to our Christian consciousness. Let us contemplate the difference between an Old Testament, and a New Testament suppliant, by noticing the differences and the resemblances. I. The resemblances. 1) Distress and grief there are in the Old, as in the New Testament (Isa_38:3). 2) Ready and willing to help beyond our prayers or comprehension (Isa_38:5-6) is the Lord in the Old as in the New Testament. II. The differences. 1) The Old Testament suppliant appealed to his having done nothing bad (Isa_38:3). The New Testament suppliant says: “God be merciful to me a sinner,” and “Give me through grace for Christ’s sake what it pleases Thee to give me.” 2) The Old Testament suppliant demands a sign (Isa_38:7-8; comp. Isa_38:22); the New Testament suppliant requires no sign but that of the crucified Son of man, for He knows that to those who bear this sign is given the promise of the hearing of all their prayers (Joh_16:23). 3) In Hezekiah’s case, the prayer of the Old Testament suppliant is indeed heard (Isa_38:5), yet in general it has not the certainty of being heard, whereas the New Testament suppliant has this certainty.
Footnotes:
[21]regarding that that thou hast prayed to me respecting Sennacherib.
[22]against.
[23]after.
[24]reviled.
[25]Heb. By the hand of thy servants.
[26]Heb. the tallness of the cedars thereof, and the choice of the fir trees thereof.
[27]summit.
[28]his most luxuriant forest.
[29]Or, and his fruitful field.
[30]of Egypt.
[31]Or, fenced and closed.
[32]Or, Hast thou not heard how I have made it long ago, and formed if of ancient times? should I now bring it to be laid waste, and defenced cities to be ruinous heaps?
[33]heard I from far back I have done it, from ancient days I have formed, etc.
[34]And.
[35]Heb. short of hand.
[36]a field before the stalk.
[37]Or, sitting.
[38]thy raging.
[39](haughty) security.
[40]Heb. the escaping of the house of Judah that remaineth.
[41]add.
[42]Heb. the escaping.
[43]into it.
[44]Heb. shield.
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 vv21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35 Whereas thou hast prayed to me--that is, hast not…
Whereas thou hast prayed to me--that is, hast not relied on thy own strength but on Me (compare Kg2 19:20). "That which thou hast prayed to Me against Sennacherib, I have heard" (Psa 65:2).
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 vv23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33 23. Whom… blasphemed — Not a senseless idol, like…
23. Whom… blasphemed — Not a senseless idol, like the gods you boast of as being superior to Him, as you will soon know to your harm.
Against whom… exalted thy voice — That is, by Rabshakeh’s speaking to the people on the walls, in a loud and confident tone.
Read full note →
Lifted up thine eyes on high — Descriptive of the haughty and arrogant air assumed against the living and true God.
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 vv21–35 21. The construction of the verse is entirely altered…
21. The construction of the verse is entirely altered in 2Ki_19:20 by the introduction of the words “I have heard.” It then reads “That which thou hast prayed … I have heard.” But the addition is unnecessary; and the text in Isaiah is to be preferred.
21–35. The answer to the prayer comes in the form of a message from Isaiah. The message as here given really consists of two distinct oracles: (1) a poem, on the pride and the approaching humiliation of Sennacherib (Isa_37:22-29); to which is appended a short passage in a different rhythm addressed to Hezekiah (Isa_37:30-32); (2) a definite prediction, in a less elevated style, of the deliverance of Jerusalem (Isa_37:33-35). The lyrical passage (Isa_37:22-32) appears to have been inserted in the narrative from some independent source. Although probably a genuine work of Isaiah, the recitation of a somewhat elaborate poem is hardly a natural form for a prophetic communication to take at so critical a juncture. A terse and pregnant oracle, such as we have in Isa_37:33-35 suits the situation better, and since these verses contain a complete and direct answer to the prayer of Hezekiah, we need not hesitate to regard them as the actual message of the prophet on this occasion. A slight indication of the original connexion of the narrative may possibly be found in the “therefore” of Isa_37:33, referring back to the “whereas” of Isa_37:21.
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 vv21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 (21) Then Isaiah the son of Amoz . .…
(21) Then Isaiah the son of Amoz . . .—According to the rectified chronology, the grand burst of prophecy which follows was the last of Isaiah’s recorded utterances. As such, it will be interesting to note any points of contact that present themselves either with his earlier prophecies or with the great prophetic poem (Isaiah 40-66) traditionally ascribed to him. The prayer of Hezekiah, if he was not present at its utterance, was reported to him, and in the name of Jehovah he was commissioned to reply to it.
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 vv21–35 Then Isaiah... sent to Hezekiah, saying. It seems most…
Then Isaiah... sent to Hezekiah, saying. It seems most natural to understand that the prophet was at once supernaturally informed of Hezekiah"s prayer, as Ananias was of Saul"s, (Act_9:11) and instructed what reply to make to it. But still, it is no doubt possible that some of the facts have been omitted for the sake of brevity.
Vers. 21-29. The intoxication of success, etc.
Read full note →
The first thing of which this passage speaks, and of that it speaks very forcibly, is
I THE INTOXICATION OF UNHOLY SUCCESS. The tone of this Assyrian monarch was one of insolent arrogance. His military achievements had implanted in his mind the notion that he had done much greater things than he had actually accomplished, and had exerted the idea that he could achieve other things which were wholly out of his power. He magnifies his victories and over-estimates his capacity (vers. 23-25). This is the common consequence of success even of success which is not unholy, which is not obtained regardless of the power and will of God; it is sometimes the unhappy result of success in sacred ministries; how much more so must it be, and is it found to be, the result in the case of those who "fear not God, nor regard man"! Unholy success intoxicates. It makes men imagine that they have done far greater things than they have achieved, and that they have become far greater people than they are. It often rears its head so high that, as with Sennacherib, arrogance passes into blasphemy (ver. 23) or into presumptuous impiety.
1. Shrink from all success that is not gained by righteous means and in thefear of the Lord.
2. Take earnest heed that honourable and even sacred success does notdelude and corrupt the soul.
II THE ATTITUDE OF GOD TOWARDS ARROGANT MEN.
1. Continual regard. (Ver. 28.) "I know thy abode," etc. God"s presence, his observant eye, is in the dwelling, is in the chamber of the guilty; it follows their steps whithersoever they go; it witnesses their actions with whatsoever cunning they may be hidden from human eyes.
2. Keen displeasure. The entire passage, particularly ver. 23, is indicative of stern disapproval. Undevout and godless men, still more impious and flagrantly wicked men, should be made to understand that, though they may be congratulating themselves, and though like-minded neighbours may be approving and even applauding them, the God in whose hand their breath is, and to whom they are accountable for everything they do, regards them with deep, Divine displeasure. His awful anger rests upon them that righteous resentment which the Divine Ruler must feel towards those who are spoiling and. degrading the subjects of his rule.
3. The infliction of appropriate penalty. (Ver. 29.) Jehovah would make the arrogant conqueror "go back by the way by which he came." God always visits those whom he has to punish with penalties suited to their sins. The haughty are humbled to the dust; those who partake of unlawful pleasure will suffer corresponding pain; they who rob others of their reputation will fall into utter disrepute; the rogue that preys on society will be impoverished, etc.
4. A Divine use of their lives and actions. (Vers. 26, 27.) Little as it imagined it, the Assyrian power was an instrument in Jehovah"s hand. God will make sinful men"s lives serve as beacons to warn others if they cannot be used in a worthier and more acceptable way.
III THE TRIUMPH OF HOLY TRUSTFULNESS. The virgin daughter of Jerusalem had been greatly despised, but she trusted in the Divine Deliverer, and her hour of rescue and of triumph was at hand (ver. 22). The children of God may have to pass through a period of sore trial, of bitter anguish; their redemption may be long delayed; it may seem as if God"s hand were shortened; (Isa_50:2 Rev_6:10) but the time of deliverance will certainly arrive: whether it be from distracting anxieties, or consuming doubt, or protracted pain, or weary loneliness, or cruel oppression, or the shadow of death, the days of darkness are numbered,and the hour of triumph is drawing near. C.
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 vv23, 31, 33 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed?
Isa_37:23
Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed?
Read full note →
--
Isaiahs saving idea of God
Isaiah in his day saved Jerusalem by teaching the people a better idea of their God. For forty years he had been witnessing to a truer thought of God, and at last the crisis and the triumph of his religious statesmanship came. Jerusalem would have surrendered to Assyria had not Isaiah at last brought king and people, in their despair, to the faith in God to which for forty years he had borne witness. At an hour when the Assyrian was making his rapid march towards the city, two props of the peoples confidence had entirely given way: their reliance upon Egypt, and their confidence in their religion. Isaiah had told them over and over again that these supports were rotten, and would give way when the crash came. And they did when at last came the scourge of the nations which had swept other cities before it reached Jerusalem. For a moment the luridness of the popular despair was lit up by a wild light of passion and revelry: Let us eat and drink, they said, for to-morrow we shall die. Then the hour for the triumph of the prophets lifelong truth was come. He led a sobered people and a humbled king to the Holy One of Israel (Newman Smyth, D. D.)
The Divine holiness and Fatherhood
The historic truth is that wherever a better idea of God prevails men are delivered. The deep, permanent, at all times greatly needed lesson is, that the prophets truer teaching of God is for the salvation of a city. The subject for us to inquire concerning is, whether we are being saved by any truer, stronger ideas of our God? Are we saving our society, our neighbour-hood, our city, our land by nobler knowledge of God?
1. Do you hope to work out the redemption of men by education? It is a means, a sharp instrument for good or evil, but Rabshakeh could blaspheme in two languages. We have to face the question: What leaven is to keep the school itself from moral corruption?
2. But much, it is said, may be accomplished through sanitary and political science. Undoubtedly. Even Ahaz did a good thing when he looked after the water supply of Jerusalem in fear of a siege, although he would not hear a word that Isaiah was saying to him by the upper pool in the fullers field. But if Isaiah had not been the heart and the soul of the city in its critical hour, all the work that the kings had done in repairing the walls and looking after the watercourses, would never have kept the Assyrian out. Sooner or later we shall have to go down to the God on whom we depend, if we are to build anything of permanent worth.
3. What, then, is our better saving thought of God?
(1) We are coming to know better the Divine Fatherhood of men.
(2) Yet, this first truth of the Divine Fatherhood of men, and His special Fatherhood towards the son of His trust and love, does not exhaust our redeeming knowledge of God. Our text exalts the Holy One of Israel. Isaiahs vision of Him whose glory fills the whole earth was the vision of the Holy One. In the holiness of the prophet saw the falsehoods of the court and the people burning as with everlasting fire. And when Jesus Christ in that sublime moment to which St. John has borne witness in the seventeenth chapter of his Gospel, summed up His whole lifelong teaching in His last prayer for the disciples, He lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, Father, Holy Father, O righteous Father.
(3) There is one way in particular by which we, with all our worldliness, may be brought more fully into the saving power of these truths of God. It is through our increasing sense of Gods omnipresence, of the Divine immanence, of Immanuel, God with us. (Newman Smyth, D. D.)
God His peoples defence
A magistrate in Hamburg once held up his finger and said to Mr. Oncken, the Baptist preacher: Do you see that finger, sir? As long as I can hold up that finger I shall put you down. I can see, said Mr. Oncken, what you cannot see; I can see the mighty arm of God, and as long as that arm is held up for my defence, you will never be able to put me down. (Christian Age.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v31 Isa_37:31. And the remnant that is escaped, &c.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH A CONTINUATION OF THE JEWISH
Isa_37:31. And the remnant that is escaped, &c.
Read full note →
When the power and splendour of the family of David were failing, the prophets foretold that the kingdom of the saints should one time be restored. Has this promise yet been fulfilled or not and if fulfilled, in what sense?
There are other prophecies parallel to the text, e.g., Jer_31:31-33; Eze_34:23; Isa_41:14-15; Isa_62:1-2.
That these and a number of other prophecies are fulfilled in the Christian dispensation is plain from the express assertions of inspired persons (Act_15:13-17). This explains the language of Moses, in which the perpetual obligation of the law is asserted, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,” &c.; and after punishment, return of prosperity was promised, on condition of returning to the law (Deu_4:30; Deu_11:22-25).
Consider one or two difficulties—
1. It may be said that the prophecies have not been, and never will be, fulfilled in the letter, because they contain expressions and statements which do not admit, or certainly have not, a literal meaning. But the use of figures in a composition is not enough to make it figurative as a whole; we constantly use figures of speech whenever we speak, although the main course of our conversation is to be taken literally. Now this will apply to the language of the prophets. The words “David,” “Israel,” “Jerusalem,” and the like, are not so much figures as proper names which have a figurative origin, or words which, having first had a confined sense, come, as language proceeds, to have a wide one. All these words convey a literal truth in their substance.
2. It may be asked whether it is possible to consider the Christian Church, which is so different from the Jewish, a continuation of it. It may be argued that Christ founded His Church as a new thing in the earth. Observe—
(1.) That the chosen people had in former ages gone through many vicissitudes, many transformations, before the revolution which followed on Christ’s coming. They had been shepherds, slaves; the place of God’s presence had moved about; they had been governed by a lawgiver, by judges, by kings, by priests. The change when Christ came from a local into a catholic form, was not abrupt, but gradual; what was first a dispersion became a diffusion. And let it be observed, a change in externals was anticipated as regards the city of God in the Old Testament. “Thou shalt be called by a new name,” says the prophet (chap. Isa_62:4).
(2.) It may be objected that the change was internal, not external only; it became a Church of Gentiles, instead of a Church of Jews. But changes of this kind had occurred before, e.g., the change which destroyed the substantive existence of the ten tribes; in an earlier age, only two of those who left Egypt with Moses entered the promised land. The line of continuity, surely, was not less definite when the Church became Christian. The sacred writers show themselves aware of this peculiarity in the mode in which God’s purposes are carried on from age to age. They are frequent in speaking of a “remnant” as alone inheriting the promises (Rom_11:2-5; Isa_1:9; Eze_11:13; Jer_40:15; Hag_1:14; Joe_2:32; Mic_5:8; Zec_8:12). There was no substitution of a new Church for an old; it was but a manifestation of the old law of “the remnant,” by which the many were called and the few chosen. We may consider, then, the word “remnant,” so constantly used in Scripture, to be the token of identity of the Church, in the mind of her Divine Creator, before and after the coming of Christ. Paul expressly inculcates that the promises made to Israel are really accomplished, without any evasion, in the Divine protection accorded to Christians.
To conclude:—
1. Whether we can clear up these points or no, they are not greater than the difficulties which attend on other confessedly fulfilled and very chief and notable prophecies, as that of the dispersion of the Jews. They were threatened with the evils which have befallen them, supposing they did not keep their law; whereas in the event the punishment has come upon them apparently for keeping it; because they would not change the law for the Gospel, therefore have they been scattered through the nations. In this it is implied that in rejecting the Gospel they in some way or other rejected their law, or that the Gospel is the continuation or development of the law. In a similar way are the prophecies concerning the elect remnant fulfilled in the history of the Christian Church. 2. If the prophecies in their substance certainly have had a literal fulfilment, then this will follow, viz., that the very appearance of separation and contrast does but make it more necessary that there should be some great real agreement and inward unity between one and the other, whether we can discover what it is or not on account of which they are called one. All Scripture has its difficulties; but let us not, on account of what is difficult, neglect what is clear. Perchance, if we had learnt from it what we can learn by our own private study, we should be more patient of learning from others those further truths which, though in Scripture, we cannot learn from it ourselves.—John Henry Newman: Sermons on Subjects of the Day, pp. 180–198.
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.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v33 Isa 37:14 - Isa 37:21, Isa 37:33 - Isa…
Isaiah
THE TRIUMPH OF FAITH
Read full note →
Isa 37:14 - Isa 37:21, Isa 37:33 - Isa 37:38.
Is trust in Jehovah folly or wisdom? That was the question raised by Sennacherib’s invasion. A glance at the preceding chapters will show how the high military official, ‘the rabshakeh,’ or chief of the officers, shaped all his insolent and yet skilful mixture of threats and promises so as to demonstrate the vanity of trust in Egypt or in Jehovah, or in any but ‘the great king.’ Isaiah had been labouring to lift his countrymen to the height of reliance on Jehovah alone, and now the crucial test of the truth of his contention had come. On the one hand were Sennacherib and his host, flushed with victory, and sure of crushing this puny kinglet Hezekiah and his obstinate little city, perched on its rock. On the other was nothing but a prophet’s word. Where is the stronger force? And does political prudence dictate reliance on the Unseen or on the visible? The moment is the crisis of Isaiah’s work, and this narrative has been placed, with true insight into its importance, at the close of the first half of this book.
To grasp the significance of the text the preceding events have to be remembered. Hezekiah’s kingdom had been overrun, and tribute exacted from him. The rabshakeh had been sent from the main body of the Assyrian army, which was down at Lachish in the Philistine low country on the road to Egypt, in order to try to secure Jerusalem by promises and threats, since it was too important a post to leave in the rear, if Egypt was to be invaded. That attempt having failed, and the Egyptian forces being in motion, this new effort was made to induce Hezekiah to surrender. A letter was sent, whether accompanied by any considerable armed force or no does not appear. At this point the narrative begins. It may be best studied as an illustration of the trial of faith, its refuge, its pleading, and its deliverance.
I. Note the trial of faith. Rabshakeh had derided the obstinate confidence in Jehovah, which kept these starving men on the walls grimly silent in spite of his coaxing. The letter of Sennacherib harps on the same string. It is written in a tone of assumed friendly remonstrance, and lays out with speciousness the apparent grounds for calling trust in Jehovah absurdity. There are no threats in it. It is all an appeal to common sense and political prudence. It marshals undeniable facts. Experience has shown the irresistible power of Assyria. There have been plenty of other little nations which have trusted in their local deities, and what has become of them? Barbarous names are flourished in Hezekiah’s face, and their wasted dominions are pointed to as warnings against his committing a parallel folly. There is nothing in the letter which might not have been said by a friend, and nothing which was not said by the Jews who had lost their faith in their God. It was but the putting into plain words of what ‘common-sense’ and faint faith had often whispered to Hezekiah. The very absence of temper or demand in the letter gives it an aspect of that ‘sweet reasonableness’ so dear to sense-bound souls.
Mutatis mutandis, the letter may stand for a specimen of the arguments which worldly prudence brings to shake faith, in all ages. We, too, are assailed by much that sounds most forcible from the point of view of mere earthly calculation. Sennacherib does not lie in boasting of his victories. He and his shoals of soldiers are very real and potent. It does seem madness for one little kingdom to stand out, and all the more so because its king is cooped up in his city, as the cuneiform inscription proudly tells, ‘like a bird in a cage,’ and all the rest of his land is in the conqueror’s grip. They who look only at the things seen cannot but think the men of faith mad. They who look at the things unseen cannot but know that the men of sense are fools. The latter elaborately prove that the former are impotent, but they have left out one factor in their calculations, and that is God. One man and God at his back are stronger than Sennacherib and all his mercenaries.
II. Note the refuge of tempted faith. What was Hezekiah to do with the crafty missive? It was hoped that he would listen to reason, and come down from his perch. But he neither yielded nor took counsel with his servants, but, like a devout man, went into the house of the Lord, and spread the letter before the Lord. It would have gone hard with him if he had not been to the house of the Lord many a time before. It is not easy to find our way thither for the first time, when our eyes are blinded by tears or our way darkened by calamities. But faith instinctively turns to God when anything goes wrong, because it has been accustomed to turn to Him when all was right, according to the world’s estimate of right and wrong. Whither should the burdened heart betake itself but to Him who daily bears our burdens? The impulse to tell God all troubles is as truly a mark of the faithful soul as the impulse to tell everything to the beloved is the life-breath of love.
The act of spreading the letter before the Lord is an eloquent symbol, which some prosaic and learned commentators have been dull enough to call gross, and to compare to Buddhist praying-mills! Its meaning is expressed in the prayer which follows. It is faith’s appeal to His knowledge. It is faith’s casting of its burden on the Lord. Our faith is of little power to bless, unless it impels us to take God into confidence in regard to everything which troubles us. If the letter is not grave enough to be spread before Him, it is too small to annoy us. If we truly live in fellowship with God, we shall find ourselves in His house, with the cause of our trouble in our hands, before we have time to think. Instinct acts more quickly than reason, and, if our faith be vital, it will not need to be argued into speaking to God of all that weighs upon us.
III. Note the pleading of faith. Hezekiah’s address to God is no mere formal recapitulation of divine names, but is the effort of faith to grasp firmly the truths which the enemy denies, and on which it builds. So considered, the accumulation of titles in Isa 37:16 is very instructive, and shows how a trustful soul puts forth the energy of its faith in summoning to mind the great aspects of the divine name as bulwarks against suggested fears, and bases of supplication. Hezekiah appeals to ‘the God of Hosts,’ the Ruler of all the embattled forces of the universe, as well as of the armies of angels. What is Sennacherib’s array compared with these? He appeals to the ‘God of Israel,’ as pleading the ancient relationship, which binds the unchangeable Guardian of the people to be still what He has been, and casts the responsibility of Israel’s preservation upon Him. He appeals to Him ‘who sits between the cherubim,’ as thence defending and filling the threatened city. He grasps the thought that Jehovah is ‘God alone’ with a vividness which is partly due no doubt to Isaiah’s teaching, but is also the indignant recoil of faith from the assumption of the letter, that Jehovah was but as the beaten deities of Gozan and the rest. Faith clings the more tenaciously to truths denied, as a dog will hold on to the stick that one tries to pull from it.
Thus, having heartened himself and pled with God by all these names, Hezekiah comes to his petition. It is but translating into words the symbol of spreading the letter before God. He asks God to behold and to hear the defiant words. Prayer tells God what it knows that He knows already, for it relieves the burdened heart to tell Him. It asks Him to see and hear what it knows that He does see and hear. But the prayer is not for mere observance followed by no divine act, but for taking knowledge as the precursor of the appropriate help. Of such seeing and hearing by God, believing prayer is the appointed condition. ‘Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask Him’; but that is not a reason for silence, but for supplication.
Hezekiah rightly regarded Sennacherib’s words as meant to reproach the living God, for the point of the letter was to dissuade from trust in Him, as no more powerful than the petty deities of already conquered cities. The prayer, therefore, pleads that God would take care of His own honour, and by delivering Jerusalem, show His sole sovereignty. It is a high and wonderful level for faith to reach, when it regards personal deliverance mainly in its aspect as vindicating God and warranting faith. We may too easily conclude that God’s honour is involved in our deliverance, and it is well to be on our guard against that.
But it is possible to die to self so fully as to feel that our cause is His, because His is so entirely ours; and then we may come to that heroic faith which seeks even personal good more for God’s sake than for our own. It was noble that this man should have no word to say about self but ‘Save us, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou art God alone.’ Like him, we may each feel that our defence is more God’s affair than ours, in proportion as we feel we are His rather than our own. That siege of Jerusalem was indeed as a duel between faith and unbelief on the one hand, and between Jehovah and the gods who were ‘no gods’ on the other. Sennacherib’s letter was a defiant challenge to Jehovah to do His best for this people, and when faith repeated in prayer the insolence of unbelief only one result was possible. It came.
IV. Note the deliverance of faith. Isaiah’s grand prophecy tempts us to linger over its many beauties and magnificent roll of triumphant scorn, but it falls outside our purpose. As for the catastrophe, it should be noted that its place and time are not definitely stated, and that probably the notion that the Assyrian army was annihilated before Jerusalem is a mistake. Sennacherib and his troops were at Libnah, on their way to meet the Egyptian forces. If there were any of them before Jerusalem, they would at most be a small detachment, sufficient to invest it. Probably the course of events was that, at some time not specified, soon after the dismissal of the messengers who brought the letter, the awful destruction fell, and that, when the news of the disaster reached the detachment at Jerusalem, as the psalm which throbs with the echoes of the triumph says, ‘They were troubled, and hasted away.’
How complete was the crushing blow the lame record of this campaign in the inscriptions shows, in which the failure of the attempt to capture the city is covered up by vapouring about tribute and the like. If it had not failed, however, the success would certainly have been told, as all similar cases are told, with abundant boasting. The other fact is also to be remembered, that Sennacherib tried no more conclusions with Jerusalem and Jehovah, and though he lived for some twenty years afterwards, never again ventured on to the soil where that mighty God fought for His people.
The appended notice of Sennacherib’s death has been added by some narrator, since it probably occurred after Isaiah’s martyrdom. ‘All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’ Such a career as his could not but give taste for violence and bloodshed, and dimmish regard for human life. Retribution comes slowly, for twenty years intervened between the catastrophe to the army and the murder of the king. Its penalties increase as its fall delays; for first came the blotting out of the army, and then, when that had no effect, at last the sword in his own heart. ‘He that being often reproved hardeneth his neck shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.’
But the great lesson of that death is the same as that of the other king’s deliverance. Hezekiah ‘went unto the house of the Lord,’ and found Him a very present help in trouble. Sennacherib was slain in the house of his god. The two pictures of the worshippers and their fates are symbolic of the meaning of the whole story. Sennacherib had dared Jehovah to try His strength against him and his deities. The challenge was accepted, and that bloody corpse before the idol that could not help preaches a ghastly sermon on the text, ‘They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them. O Israel, trust thou in the Lord: He is their help and their shield.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35 sent a message
sent a message
This means that he sent a messenger to give a message to the king. AT: "sent someone to give a message" (See: Metonymy)
Read full note →
is the word that Yahweh has spoken
"is what Yahweh has said"
laughs you to scorn
"laughs at you" or "makes fun of you"
shakes her head
This is a gesture of scorn. (See: Symbolic Action)
The virgin daughter of Zion ... the daughter of Jerusalem
These are idioms. Both of these phrases have the same meaning. The "daughter" of a city means the people who live in the city. See how you translated a similar phrase in Isaiah 1:8. AT: "The people of Zion ... the people of Jerusalem" (See: Idiom)
Whom have you defied and insulted? ... Against the Holy One of Israel.
Yahweh uses these rhetorical questions to ridicule the king of Assyria. These can be written as statements. AT: "You have defied and insulted Yahweh, you have shouted at and acted pridefully against the Holy One of Israel!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
have you exalted your voice
This refers to speaking loudly as if the person's voice were an object that they lifted high. AT: "have you shouted" (See: Metaphor)
lifted up your eyes in pride
This is an idiom that means to look at something pridefully, considering yourself more important that you should. AT: "looked at pridefully" or "acted pridefully" (See: Idiom)
translationWords
Isaiah
Amoz
Hezekiah
Israel
pray
king
Assyria
word
virgin
Zion
Jerusalem
exalt
voice
proud
Holy One
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 vv21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35 37:21 Because you prayed: Prayer is powerful; it moved…
37:21 Because you prayed: Prayer is powerful; it moved God’s heart and was part of the reason why the Lord answered with this message of hope.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.