Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 18:4

He removed the high places, and broke the images, and cut down the groves, and broke in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

4. brake the images [R.V. pillars ] and cut down the groves ] R.V. the Asherah. On the ‘pillars’ see note on 2Ki 3:2, and on the ‘Asherah’, which was probably the wooden image of a goddess so called, see on 2Ki 18:6.

the brasen serpent ] There can be no doubt that, after the cures wrought (Num 21:9) by looking at the serpent which Moses made, this object, the sacrament of so great a blessing, would be reverently kept, and though we have no mention of its preservation and bestowal, nor any notice of it till this passage, there is no reason to suppose that it would be allowed to become lost or to be broken in pieces. Some have thought that the object here spoken of was a serpent made after the fashion of that early one set up in the wilderness. But when the statement in the text is so plain, and the material in question so little perishable there can be no reason to suppose from the mere silence of Holy Writ about it, that the original serpent had disappeared.

for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it ] The record does not tell us when this worship of the brasen serpent began. But in midst of the many objects set up to be adored in the degenerate days of some of the kings, the adoration of the brasen serpent would be counted among the most reputable. Having once commenced there was no chance of its cessation in times like those of the last king, Ahaz.

and he called it Nehushtan ] It is perhaps better to take an indefinite word as nominative to the verb ‘called’: ‘ one called it’, i.e. ‘it was called’ as is given in the margin of R.V. The word Nehushtan meaning ‘a piece of brass’ or ‘something made of brass’ may either be taken as a term of contempt, in which case the people who used the name were those who with Hezekiah caused it to be destroyed; or it may be the name which had in process of time come to be applied by everybody to this brasen figure. The words for ‘serpent’ and for ‘brass’ are in Hebrew very much alike, and a word like ‘Nehushtan’ might very well come in that language to convey in the popular speech the whole idea of ‘brasen serpent’, and win its way to general acceptance.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

He removed the high places – This religious reformation was effected in a violent and tumultuous manner (marginal reference). The high places, though forbidden in the Law (Deu 12:2-4, Deu 12:11-14; compare Lev 26:30), had practically received the sanction of Samuel 1Sa 7:10; 1Sa 9:12-14, David 2Sa 15:32, Solomon 1Ki 3:4, and others, and had long been the favorite resorts of the mass of the people (see 1Ki 3:2 note). They were the rural centers for the worship of Yahweh, standing in the place of the later synagogue;, and had hitherto been winked at, or rather regarded as legitimate, even by the best kings. Hezekiahs desecration of these time-honored sanctuaries must have been a rude shock to the feelings of numbers; and indications of the popular discontent may be traced in the appeal of Rab-shakeh 2Ki 18:22, and in the strength of the reaction under Manasseh 2Ki 21:2-9; 2Ch 33:3-17.

The brasen serpent – See the marginal reference. Its history from the time when it was set up to the date of Hezekiahs reformation is a blank. The present passage favors the supposition that it had been brought by Solomon from Gibeon and placed in the temple, for it implies a long continued worship of the serpent by the Israelites generally, and not a mere recent worship of it by the Jews.

And he called it Nehushtan – Rather, And it was called Nehushtan. The people called it, not the serpent nachash, but the brass, or the brass thing n^echushtan. Probably they did not like to call it the serpent, on account of the dark associations which were attached to that reptile (Gen 3:1-15; Isa 27:1; Psa 91:13; etc.).

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

2Ki 18:4

He removed the high places, and brake the images.

Iconoclast

The First Commandment instructs us that there is but one God, who alone is to be worshipped; and the Second Commandment teaches that no attempt is to be made to represent the Lord, neither are we to bow down before any form of sacred similitude. The two commandments thus make a full sweep of idolatry.

I. We have much idol-breaking for Christians to do. There is much to be done in the Church of God, there is much more to be done in our own hearts.

1. There is much idol-breaking to be done in the Church of God. When God gives a man to the Church, fitted for her enlargement, for her establishment, and her confirmation, he gives to her one of the richest blessings of the covenant of grace; but the danger is lest we place the man in the wrong position, and look to him not only with the respect which is due to him as Gods ambassador, but with some degree of–I must call it so–superstitious reliance upon his authority and ability. In the Christian Church there is, I am afraid, at this moment too much exaltation of talent and dependence upon education, I mean especially in reference to ministers. Just the same also may be said of human eloquence. Continuing still our remarks with regard to the Christian Church, I will further remark that much superstition may require to be broken down amongst us in reference to a rigid adhesion to certain modes of Christian service. We have tried to propagate the truth in a certain way, and the Lord has blessed us in it, and therefore we venerate the mode and the plan, and forget that the Holy Spirit is a free Spirit. There are persons in our churches who object very seriously to any attempt to do good in a way which they have not seen tried before.

2. Now let us turn to the temple of our own hearts, and we shall find much work to be done there.

II. Those who are seekers of Jesus. There is some idol-breaking to be done for them. I pray God the Holy Spirit to do it. The way of salvation lies in coming to Christ, in trusting in Jesus Christ alone. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Religious reform

Hezekiah will now go to work and prove himself to be an energetic reformer, He must have been a strong man. He had no colleague, no ally; no one to say to him, Be brave, be true. He went straight against the hardest wall that ever war built by the stubbornness and perversity Of man. It is not easy to begin life by a destructive process of reformation. Who would not rather plant a tree than throw down a wall? Who would not rather plant flowers, and enjoy their beauty and fragrance, than give himself the severe toil, the incessant trouble, of destroying corrupt and evil institutions? Whoever attempts this kind of destructive work, or even a constructive work which involves preliminary destructiveness, will have a hard time of it: criticism will be very sharp, selfishness will be developed in an extraordinary degree. If a man be more than politician–if he be a real born statesman, looking at whole empires at once and not at mere parishes, and if in his thought and purpose he should base his whole policy upon fundamental right, he will not have an easy life of it even in a Christian country. In proportion as he bases his whole policy on righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, he will be pelted with hard names and struck at with unfriendly hands. This holds good in all departments of life, in all great reformations, in all assaults made upon ignorance, selfishness, tyranny, and wrong of every name. (J. Parker, D. D.)

.

A Jewish Iconoclast

Hezekiah was a very Iconoclast–a breaker of images. And in this respect he develops three rare qualities that lift him a great distance above his time and nation. He was clear-sighted–outspoken–prompt in action. He saw it was nothing but a piece of brass, he said it was brass, and he brake it in pieces.

I. Then Hezekiah had the seeing eye. Let us mark that as a primary quality, essential both to Hezekiah and all else who seek to free the people from slavish or debasing customs. He saw clearly that what they accounted a god, and worshipped as such, was only a lifeless, senseless piece of brass–that, and nothing more. This quality lifted the king an immeasurable distance above the people. They did more than treasure it as a precious relic, a memento of Divine compassion in a case of pressing need, or hand it down from sire to son as an heirloom of priceless worth because of its associations and teaching–they burned incense to it. So to-day, if a man would be a reformer, and stand out as a hero for the truth, he must have this essential quality–broad and sweeping vision. He must be able to see things in their true nature and tendency, to see correctly and beneath the surface of things. Men look at things in different ways, and many from peculiar standpoints. Some, for instance, never bring the object of vision near, but contemplate it as through an inverted telescope, while others look at things through tinted mediums, and all appear of uniform colour; some, again, never see only through anothers eye, and are incapable of independent vision; a few are cross-eyed, and all things appear to them in an oblique form; many are purblind, and men appear as trees walling; whilst a few will persist in looking at all things through some distorted medium, which always gives the wrong size, and a false shade of colouring; and others are stone blind to the weightiest things in life, and can see nothing that needs touching, helping, renewing, or reforming. Such men can never be heroes, and do noble work in the peoples cause. Others again, from motives of personal interest, love of ease, prejudice, ambition, or blind adherence to party, will wilfully close their eyes; they will not see. And some, though they see clearly enough, yet are so politic, or quiescent, or have become such slaves to popular opinion and usage, that they will not, or, what is worse, dare not, declare the vision. See the next rare quality Hezekiah displayed in this transaction.

II. He was outspoken. Nehushtan–a piece of brass. What a hard name to give to a god! and what a frank and fearless honesty is here displayed! Might he not have toned it down a little, and led them to the truth by degrees? Nehushtan tells it all, fully, clearly, so at that it must stand. There were some very polite people in that day who felt themselves shocked, and their feelings outraged by hearing their darling god called a name so base. To-day, in some of the high places of the land, when men venture upon what has come to be regarded as an unfashionable and undesirable thing–calling things by their right names–what pious horror! And what bitter invectives and scathing denunciations are hurled against the poor delinquent who dares to use such speech! And yet, for all this, we might not have far to seek to-day, and in the Church even, for things quite as senseless as this serpent of brass–nay, worse, because devoid of its precious memories and suggestive teachings, and yet held with as firm a faith and regarded with as profound a reverence. Two or three thoughts are suggested by this plain speaking of Hezekiah we shall do well to observe.

1. Here is honest candour. You will remember some passages in the life of Luther not unlike the one under consideration. Take that historic circumstance of the hawking through Germany of the famous certificate of indulgence by Tetzel. Very wide and expressive that indulgence, promising to remit the pains and penalties of purgatory, and grant to the purchaser an easy access to paradise; an indulgence, too, that not only atoned for the past, but provided for the future, by shifting from the culprit all the penal consequences of sin, and granting a paradise to the most depraved–if only money enough should be handed over for the sacred paper. All this the Pope guaranteed in the parchment, in virtue of the power given to him as Gods vicegerent on earth. How Luther met this infamous pretence all the world knows. As Hezekiah looked upon the serpent-god, and found for it a name, so Luther at once saw through the whole trick of this monstrous paper, and, holding it up before the world, brands it as the Popes emparchmented lie.

2. That this announcement of Hezekiahs assailed an established article of Jewish faith, and overturned an ancient rite. That serpent-god was blended with their religious life. Their fathers had worshipped it down through the ages, and for seven centuries it had held a conspicuous place in their services. Was it not now late in the day to call its divinity in question? To a less bold and energetic man, these considerations would have had weight and influence, but not so here. Now it is just here where the work of a reformer becomes most stubborn, and where his valour will be tested most severely. It is not nearly so difficult to set up a new god as to throw down an old one. People are tenacious of old customs. The established order of things is difficult to move, and in time comes to be regarded as existing by Divine right. There is nothing that men are more sensitive about than of matters touching religious usages.

3. This would provoke murmurs and secret opposition, if not open dissent, and render him for the time unpopular among many. His Nehushtan would ring in their ears as a most unpleasant sound; the word was very unpalatable, and altogether too degrading. What a thing to say of so good a god! Only a piece of brass! Why, we and our fathers have burned incense to it all these years, and we have had wise and good men among us who never disputed its claims as a god! Brass only! it cannot be, it is a god notwithstanding his statement! But Hezekiah is unmoved, nothing daunts or turns him aside from his purpose, it is Nehushtan still, just that, and nothing more. Let them murmur, oppose, reproach; let his popularity be jeopardised by throwing him into conflict with priest and leader, all is nothing to him compared with the truth; and here is truth touching the peoples highest interests; it will help to lift them to freer, purer regions, and the people must have it at any cost.

III. Prompt and energetic action. He brake it in pieces. What a thoroughness there is in this determined encounter with popular error. Many can see, and do not hesitate to give things their right names, but stop short of this third and grander step–they raise no smiting hand to break in pieces anal destroy.

1. An act of determined prowess. He brake it. How short the history of the transaction, but how eloquent of meaning! What a wide field of human interest it covers, and how complete is the act! Like a true and trusty knight of lordly chivalry, he smites with unerring aim, and the well-struck blow shivers to atoms the brasen god. He brake it in pieces. Let us mark that. He did not bury it, nor have it removed to some secluded spot, nor content himself by passing a law forbidding the people under pains and penalties to worship it.

2. This was an act of prompt decision. No waiting, or parleying with the enemy; no deferring of the matter to a more opportune time, when the deed might be done with less risk, or with greater ease.

3. Hezekiah had strong faith. Faith in what? Faith in God, faith in the revelation, and faith in the truth. Doubt would have paralysed; faith made him heroic. May the God of Hezekiah anoint our eyes that we may see clearly, and inspire us with a holy courage to speak the vision, and to strike boldly for truth and freedom. One question of supreme importance presses upon us.

1. To what are we burning incense?

2. The subject suggests an admonition. The blessings of the Divine Father should be used, and not abused by us. (J. T. Higgins.)

Destroying idols by royal command

The last of the persecuting monarchs of madagascar, Queen Ranavalona I., died on 16th July 1861, to the very last breathing out threatenings and slaughter in her bitter hatred of the Christians. She was succeeded by a king and a queen, both of whom, during their short reigns, allowed their subjects perfect liberty of conscience in religious matters. After the death of these monarchs, Queen Ranavalona II. ascended the throne, the public recognition of her sovereignty taking place on 3rd September 1868. As she took her seat on that memorable occasion, there were two tables placed before her–on the one was the crown of Madagascar, and on the other the Bible which had been sent to her predecessor by the British and Foreign Bible Society. She had resolved to wear the crown in accordance with the teaching of the Bible. In the following year the queen resolved that all the remaining idols should be destroyed. Accordingly, she despatched officers on horseback to the sacred village where was the great national idol, Kelimalaza. Great though he was he was nothing more than a wooden insect wrapped about with red cloth. As the officers rode up to the temple where the idol was, the priests became greatly concerned, and their consternation was unbounded when these officers demanded to see the idol. They demurred. Is it yours or the queens? asked the officers. To this the only true answer was that it was the queens. Very well, said the officers, the queen has determined to make a bonfire of it. The priests insisted that it would not burn, but the officers showed a determination to try the experiment. The priests then said they possessed charms which would render the idol invisible, so that it could not be found. Kelimalaza carried a scarlet umbrella in token of his rank, which alone would have betrayed him. The officers, proof against the priests professed charms, went in, seized the god, with all its silver chains and trappings, and submitted him to the fiery ordeal, which he never survived. Immediately orders were issued that all idols in every temple throughout the island should be destroyed. In every village and town idols were burned. Superstition received a shock, for none of the feared disasters overtook the people, who after a while rejoiced in being freed from baseless fears, such as they and their forefathers for centuries back had been subject to.

And he called it Nehushtan.—

Nehushtan

Nehushtan–a mere piece of brass; thus Hezekiah named the brasen serpent. What! this sacred relic of bygone times, the very sight of which once saved so many from death; this image made by Moses at the bidding of Jehovah Himself; this to be broken in pieces! this to be called a mere thing of brass! Did it not rather become a pious king to preserve such an heirloom amongst the treasures of the nation, as an abiding remembrancer of Gods care for Israel in the olden time? Not so thought King Hezekiah. He was bent on the work of national reformation. He saw that incense was being burnt to this brasen serpent: that was enough for him. Whatever it may have been in the past, it was clearly a curse to the people now.

I. That a blind veneration for the past is always an obstacle in the path of progress. An intelligent regard for the past is, of course, a help and not a hindrance in the direction of all true advance. But a clinging to customs, institutions, modes of thought and worship, and a refusal to surrender them for no other reason than that they have existed for centuries–this is an unintelligent attachment to the past, and has often obstructed progress. Right across the path of Hezekiah, in his endeavours to purify the religious life of Ins people, stood this blind veneration for the brasen serpent. They could have given no intelligent account of their burning incense to this image; only, it had long ago been a medium of healing influence; and as, doubtless, their fathers had burnt incense to it, why should not they? But Hezekiah rose above the superstition which blinded his countrymen. A similar attitude was taken up by Oliver Cromwell against the blind veneration which existed in his day for the institution of monarchy. The doctrine of the divine right of kings was then imperilling the liberties of England. We may not, perhaps, justify the execution of Charles; and yet we may feel that the time had come when it was necessary to strike a decisive blow at the root of this superstitious doctrine. Sacred associations might surround the person of the Lords anointed; it might be reckoned sacrilege to touch a hair of his head; but Cromwells resolve was taken, that the liberties of the country should not be sacrificed on the attar of this king-worship; he was sure that (all sacred associations notwithstanding) the king was, after all, just a man like other men. Cromwell had the courage to say Nehushtan.

II. Even that which has been ordained by God Himself for a blessing, may be so misused as to become a curse. This brasen serpent was not merely a relic of antiquity. It had originally been made by Divine appointment. By Divine appointment also it had once been the means of saving many lives. And yet this very thing which had been so great a blessing when used as Jehovah had directed, became a curse when it was misused. It is thus that even a God-ordained help may be perverted into a hindrance. Many similar illustrations might be given of this misuse of things Divinely ordained. Art and science, for example, are intended by God to be handmaids of true progress; but the worship of science tends only to materialism, and the worship of beauty tends ultimately to sensuality. The weekly day of rest: that, too, is a gift of God, and fitted to be a source of blessing, But it may be so misused as to become a hindrance rather than a help. It may be spent in an idleness or debauchery, which turns it into a source of weariness or exhaustion. But it may also be misused by being idolised. See how the Pharisees burnt incense to the Sabbath I And this is only a typical instance of the manner in which the Pharisees misused the whole law. That law was appointed by God as a blessing; but by their worship of the mere letter they changed it into, a hindrance. The Bible, again;–what a blessed boon it is–containing, as it does, a revelation of the character and will of God. But the Bible will not bring us all the good which it is fitted to impart, if we begin to worship itself instead of Him whom it reveals. The Bible is to be used–not worshipped.

III. Every symbol loses its significance and value, in proportion as it is converted into an idol. The significance of a symbol lies in its pointing to something more precious than itself, which it expresses or enshrines. And the practical value of any symbol depends, not only on the importance of that which it symbolises, but also on the extent to which its significance is apprehended and realised. Now, the brasen serpent, when it was lifted up in the wilderness, was not only the means of bodily healing, but also a symbol of spiritual facts. It was a material token of the pitying mercy of God.

1. Every creed is a symbol. It is an attempt to express the truth of God in the words of man. Such words are valuable, only as pointing to that which is more precious than themselves. And a creed or confession of faith–thus regarded and thus used–may prove most helpful to the student of theology, It may put him on his guard against many an error; it may often serve as a finger post, directing him in the way of truth. But the moment a creed begins to be worshipped, that moment its value is diminished.

2. The sacraments are also symbols. Our simple Christian feast of the Supper is a most expressive emblem of the nourishment and enjoyment which are to be found in our communion with Christ, and with one another in Christ. And the sacrament of Baptism–symbolical of the cleansing power of the Gospel–is a most fitting initiatory rite of the new covenant. Using these simply as symbols–and looking through them to those spiritual facts to which they point–our faith is strengthened and our spiritual life deepened, But, whenever the sacraments begin to be in any way idolised, they lose much of their significance and value.

3. Finally: the cross is the grandest symbol in all history. Jesus Christ suffering and dying on Calvary: here is an actual event of the past which, by an exercise of the imagination, we can bring before the minds eye. But it is not intended that we should rest in the outward circumstances of the Crucifixion. It is Gods purpose that we should use the cross as a symbol, not worship it as an idol. (T. C. Finlayson.)

The fiery serpents and the serpent of brass

I. First of all, consider this serpent of brass as made by Moses.

II. Consider this serpent of brass as worshipped by the Jews. We have no mention of it, after the circumstances at which we have briefly glanced, for nearly eight hundred years. We then come upon this passage, in the record of the life of King Hezekiah: He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. Though no mention is made of the fact, yet it is evident that the Israelites treasured up this brasen serpent as a sacred memorial or relic, kept it, perhaps, as a monument of Gods goodness, to awaken their gratitude, and help them in future troubles to remember His Name. They carried it with them during their subsequent journeyings in the wilderness; and in after times, when they became a settled and great nation, it appears to have been preserved with other memorials of historical and national interest in Jerusalem. The fact that this serpent of brass became an object of worship to the Jews is instructive in two or three ways. It suggests to us the danger attendant on going beyond the Divine command in religious duty. God ordered the serpent to be made, and to be used for the purpose and in the way He named; but, so far as we have any record, He gave no command for its preservation. As it was, the temptation was ever present; and in due time it brought forth sin. Other memorials were preserved–the golden pot that had manna, and Aarons rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant–but these were preserved by Divine command. In all religious observances and duties it is wise and safe to keep close to the Word of God. This serpent-worship of the Jews shows us how forms may be abused. In its proper place, and for its proper use, the place and use assigned it by God, this symbol was useful. But when the invention of man stepped in, and began to employ it for another purpose, it became hurtful. In all ages of the Christian Church we see illustrations of the use and misuse, the helpfulness and mischief of forms. The conduct of the Jews in relation to this brasen serpent is also an illustration of the growth and development of evil. Possibly the persons who first began to worship the relic reasoned thus: Here we have an object made by Divine command. Our fathers were delivered by it from a sore trouble. It represents to us the power and the goodness of our God. Surely we may offer incense to it as the representative of the unseen power and goodness. This, perhaps, was the modified form which their idolatry took in the first instance, before at a later stage it became more gross and positive. This worship of the brasen serpent teaches us yet another lesson we shall do well to remember; that is, the corrupting influence of sinful associations and example. He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; but a companion of fools shall be destroyed. Evil communications corrupt good manners. In the conduct of the Jews we see the influence of their neighbouring nations, the Egyptians and Phoenicians. They were continually imitating the heathen around them, and importing into their midst the various forms of surrounding idolatry.

III. Let us now mark the destruction of this serpent of brass by Hezekiah. No sooner was this monarch established on the throne of Judah than he began a great work of national reformation. Idolatry covered the land. Ahaz, his father, was one of the worst kings that had sat upon the throne, and, under his influence, the nation had become utterly corrupt. Hezekiah knew the history of this serpent–how it was made at first by Divine command, and for a most beneficent purpose; and he, no doubt, could appreciate all proper feelings of veneration for so sacred a relic. But he saw the evil use to which the idolatrous tendencies of the nation had put it; and, therefore, without any hesitation, he determined on its destruction. The monarchs conduct furnishes us with an example worthy of imitation. Its principles should be our law in relation to the evils of social and national life. We are surrounded by crying iniquities–iniquities that affect not only individuals, but the life and interests of the nation at large. Instead of sitting down in a spirit of indifference as to the existence and tendencies of prevailing vices, we should resolve, in the strength of God, to seek their destruction.

IV. We come, in the last place, to consider the brasen serpent as employed in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nearly fifteen hundred years after it was made by Moses, and seven hundred after it was destroyed by Hezekiah, Christ used it as a theme of instruction. Our Lord here recognises the sinful and lost state of mankind. It was the poisonous bite of the fiery serpent that made the brasen serpent necessary; so it was the ruined character and condition of men that constrained God to appoint Jesus Christ as their Saviour. (W. Walters.)

Nehushtan; or the idols of the Church

Seven centuries and a quarter–as long an interval, save a hundred years, as that between our time and the time of the Norman Conquest–have passed since the serpent was made and used for the healing of the people; and now incense is burned to it, and has been for a long time; bow long we cannot tell. Who first put that piece of brass away as a curiosity or an object of reverence we do not know; Eleazar, I should think, or one of his family. It was quite a natural and inoffensive thing to do. And so, we may suppose, it passed into the possession of the High Priests family, and was retained among their vestments and sacred vessels. In their keeping it performed all the wilderness journey; crossed the Jordan; located itself at Shiloh; was kept safe through the troubled times of the Judges; escaped capture when the ark went down into Philistia; remained untouched during the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon; was secure when the kingdom was rent in twain in the time of Rehoboam, and right on through corn fusions and wars until Hezekiah determined to break it in pieces. How long the piece of rubbish lasted! How safe oftentimes is the thing that a man and a nation could best part with! Perhaps when Eleazar stowed it away in his chest, if he did it, he thought very feelingly of the much people who had turned eagerly to it for relief from pain and deliverance from death, and thought that it was a pity to break it up. He had done better if he had remembered the golden calf and the mischief which it had wrought among the people. When the brazen serpent was put away, it was probably preserved with an idea that it might prove useful on some future occasion; for tile journey was long, and there might be fresh plagues of a kind similar to the present one. A wonderful power is there to some persons in the economical aspect of life. They heap up old things until they have a very museum about them; but there is no life in it all, no fitness for present times and circumstances. These people can see what has been done, and are great on old methods and ways, but have no perception of present needs, nor of how Gods wisdom, power, and love can as easily meet them as they met the needs of earlier times. But whoever put away the brazen serpent, and preserved it, and for whatever reason, it had grown to be a snare; the children of Israel did burn incense to it. A curious interest, a kindly affection, a forecasting care had become perverted, corrupted into a superstitious reverence and an unholy trust. Reasoning and threatening and promising would do nothing; the short sharp remedy was to destroy a thing which had once and for ever done its work, and since then had been a too strong temptation. To call and to treat things as they deserve is the safest way to set all judgments right about them. To have called the serpent a piece of brass, just like any other piece of brass, would have done no good had Hezekiah allowed it to remain; for then it would have appeared as if he retained some lurking respect for it, or feared to stand by his judgment in the teeth of the prevailing feeling. Nor would it have been a complete rebuke had he broken the serpent and added no reason for doing so. The true epithet applied to things will often complete our labours. A folly or a superstition can often be destroyed with a word when all our serious efforts against it have failed. And yet the word would be only our own reproach, if we did not link it with corresponding action. Tis a piece of brass, said the king, as he broke the serpent in pieces; and when it could not resent the sacrilege, if sacrilege it was, the people could not but allow that he was right. Among things that are outgrown by men, or that, having served one or two generations well, fail to be of any further use, nothing is more curious and instructive than the popularity and the decline of books. To one age they are like the brasen serpent–channels of life; to another they become almost sacred, and to succeeding ages they are no more than a piece of common brass. In the history of the religious life it is instructive to notice how institutions, missions, and agencies of one kind and another spring up, do their work, die, and pass away. Institutions are created to meet a contemporary need, and as long as the need lasts they should last, but when it is gone they too should go. It is enough either for a man or a thing to serve its own generation; to do that is to do well. But you sometimes see an unwise and unhealthy attempt to prolong the existence and operations of an agency which, having done its work, only serves now to cumber the ground. The important matter is that we should intelligently understand that the Church is a living body; that its forms should suit its life at every stage of development; and that its agencies should be adapted by it to the work it has to do. It is the life that must be held sacred, and not the forms through which it expresses itself and the agencies by which it operates upon the world around. (J. P. Gledstone.)

Nehushtan

I. Look at things in their right light. Thus the king acted. He regarded the brasen serpent from the true standpoint. Others beheld in it a god; he recognised nothing but brass. To them it was supernatural; to him idolatrous. How true it is that what we are we behold. The scene is in the seer. To no small extent the spectacle is in the spectator. Nothing can be more accurate than the lines of the Poet Laureate–

But any man that walks the mead,

In bud, or blade, or bloom may find,

According as his humours lead,

A meaning suited to his mind.

Cowper puts the same thought in another aspect–

And as the mind is pitchd, the ear is pleased

With melting airs or martial, brisk or grave;

Some chord in unison with what we hear

Is touched within us.

A blacksmith hammers a piece of iron on his anvil with measured beat and slow. Ordinary people hear in it only an ordinary sound. Not so the great Handel. He listens, and it inspires him with one of the sweetest tunes in existence. The sun is setting, and as it sinks the whole western horizon is irradiated. Let three different men be called to witness it, and what diversified effects it will have on them! The meteorologist sees in those clouds before him signs of the weather, and confirmations of his theories touching certain natural laws. The agriculturist sees in them the premise of a good harvest or warning of a poor one. But the artist sees in them gorgeous tints and graceful forms, which he seeks to impress on his memory that he may reproduce them on the glowing convas.

II. Call things by their right names. Hezekiah did so. He called it Nehushtan, which means brass. Brass it was, and brass he called it. He spoke of it as he found it. A rare virtue! Thorough honesty of speech is not by any means too common Dr. South preached four fine discourses on The. Fatal Imposture and Force of Words. The title is a sermon in itself. There is, indeed, a fatal imposture in some words. They are used to disguise sin and conceal the truth. No wonder that the inspired seer should exclaim, Woe unto them that call darkness light, and light darkness; that put good for evil, and evil for good. The practice is still a popular one. A prodigal is spoken of as gay or fast. A drunkard is the worse for liquor. A dishonest tradesman is unable to meet his engagements. The bad-tempered have nervous irritability. Notorious gambling is financiering. An army that lays hold of all that it can pilfer is said to requisition. An aggressive war is termed the rectification of frontier. A rude and inquisitive intrusion on the privacy of a distinguished man is interviewing him. A silly and wicked duel is an affair of honour. Slavery is alluded to as a domestic institution. We repeat it, therefore–call things by their right names. The common, colloquial caution is one which we may well lay to heart. Mind what you say. It is wise to ask, Let the words of my mouth be acceptable in Thy sight.

III. Give things their right treatment. When John Knox was remonstrated with for sanctioning the abolition of the monasteries he said, While the rookeries stand the rooks will return. Hezekiah was evidently of the same opinion. He was not content with condemning the brazen serpent. He first denounced, then destroyed it. He brake in pieces. While the idol remained there was danger of a relapse into idolatry. Its preservation could not be beneficial, and might be extremely injurious, therefore he demolished it. His conduct is the more justifiable when we recollect a certain fact. Serpent-worship has, from early times, been a favourite practice in the East. Both Africa and Asia bear witness to it. Whence this singular custom arose it is not altogether easy to say, It is contrary to what might have been antecedently expected. Possibly it grew out of the well-known tendency in human nature to propitiate and coax a power which is felt to be dangerous. Men often fawn on what they fear. Whatever the correct explanation may be, however, there is the indisputable fact of serpent-worship. The writer has himself seen Buddhists present their offerings of money before a hideous image of a cobra di capello, the most poisonous snake in India and Ceylon. The application of Hezekiahs conduct to ourselves is clear enough. We also must be iconoclasts. No idol is to be tolerated by us. What is your idol? To which of the many false gods are you tempted to do homage? Break it in pieces, as the king did the serpent. Let not any person, pursuit, or pleasure come between you and your Maker. Whether your brasen serpent be Mammon or friendship, or influence whatsoever it be, banish it from the temple of the soul, and the King of Glory, shall come in. (T. R. Stevenson.)

Nehushtan, or means and ends in our spiritual life

The temple at Jerusalem was the national museum of the Jews. It was fitting that it should be so, for the treasures of that God-governed nation were all of a sacred kind. Among the most prized of all the objects contained in that great sanctuary, there was the brazen serpent, that image which belonged to the pilgrim-passage of their history, and which was connected with a very striking incident in the experience of their fathers. The fact that it was so long preserved, proves of itself that no slight feeling was entertained about it. One generation handed it down to another through several centuries. It might well have served the people of God as a kindly beacon, warning them against rebellious murmurings, and also as a friendly token, attesting the readiness and power of Jehovah to redeem them in the time of their calamity and distress. But between what might have been and what was, how wide and deep the gulf! That image of brass, instead of rendering an important spiritual service, became the occasion of idolatrous homage. Instead of leading the thoughts of mens minds to God, it drew them from Him; and instead of reverencing Him, they worshipped it. So the brave and wise king brake it up before the eyes of the people, and, in the act of destruction, called it Nehushtan, i.e. a bit of brass. The principle which lies at the root of this somewhat dating and very decisive act, is this–that no good thing, however good it be, must be allowed to come between our souls and God, to rob Him of His service; that, if anything does so come, a strong hand must be used–if need be, a destructive one–to take it away: or, to put the truth in a more positive form, that whatever means we use for worship or instruction, must not be turned into an end, but must be resolutely and determinedly employed as a means to bring the mind into the presence of Gods truth and the heart into communion with Himself. Let us apply our principle to–

I. Our treatment of the Bible. Wherein resides its virtue? There is nothing in the words which are employed more sacred than in those which are found in any book of devotion. There is no virtue or charm in the mere sound of the sentences which it contains. If we suppose that we are any better for having a Bible on our shelves, or on our tables, or in our hands, apart from the use we make of it; or if we think that we are any better before God because we go regularly and perhaps slavishly through an allotted portion of it, casting our eyes over it, or uttering in regular sequence the sounds for which the letters stand, whether or not we take its truth into our minds, then are we making the same kind of mistake which the children of Israel made in burning incense to the brasen serpent: we are making an end of that which is only valuable as a means. We are putting our trust in an outward observance, we are having confidence in the flesh, we are assuring our hearts vainly, mistakenly, dangerously. This principle will apply to–

II. The employment of approved evangelical phraseology. Much might be said of–

III. Our attitude toward the ministry of the Gospel. Open to a like abuse is–

IV. Our profession of personal piety. Only too often is this regarded as the attainment of an end, rather than the employment of a means of good. Men are apt, having reached that stage, to settle down into a slumberous state of spiritual complacency, instead of feeling that, by taking this step, they have entered into a wider realm of privilege and opportunity, where their noblest powers may engage in fullest exercise. It becomes a haven of indolent and treacherous security, instead of a sanctuary for intelligent devotion, a field for active Christian work, and thus it is perverted from a blessing to a bane. (W. Clarkson, B. A.)

Nehushtan

We shall look at this instance of Hezekiahs strict regard to principle as one of those fine lessons which are continually found in the exhaustless word of God; and shall remark–

I. That the reverence and affections of the Jewish people towards the old brasen serpent is very easily accounted for. In those days the people had few instructors, and fewer books. As a nation the Jews were in a state of childhood, scarcely capable of furnishing any materials for history. In such states of society there is a natural and strong clinging to the past. So there was this serpent of brass, which had been preserved from the days of Moses.

II. That the burning incense to this serpent of brass was an indication of the peoples forgetfulness of Gods purpose in its preservation.

III. That this destruction of the brasen serpent derives much of its significance from the fact that it was done by Hezekiah in his youth. Hezekiah came to the throne at the age of twenty-five; and this appears to have been one of the first acts of his reign. Lessons herein for young men.

1. None but young men know how hard it is to be religious. The other sex are mercifully spared many of mans perils, difficulties, and temptations.

2. On many things young men when they become religious will have to write Nehushtan: on bad books; bad company; frivolous pursuits; and old associations of evil.

3. Only a high order of principle will enable young men thus to act independently of the worlds suffrage.

4. Only the resources of Almighty love and power will carry a religious young man through the perils and temptations of his career. God will always tell young men what Nehushtan to break in pieces, and He will give them strength to do it. (W. G. Barrett.)

Truths old clothes

I. Truth itself never wears out; but its dress does. Carlyle, in his never-to-be-forgotten Sartor Resartus, has shown us how all truth takes to itself some form, or dress, or skin. Life craves manifestation. Truth without a body is powerless. Facts need words to describe them, and make them live and act. It is through the words, or the expression, or the dress or body, that we come to get our ideas of the truth or life these contain. The world itself is but Gods thought put into form; the movements of the stars are the expressions of Gods delight in the orderly; the flowers, His thoughts of beauty; the waves, the expression of His might and gentleness; music, one of loves voices, the expression of the affections and emotions, as words express reasoning and intellectual processes. Christ Himself is the completest expression in form of the invisible and otherwise unknowable. Truth, thought, spirit, deity we cannot know apart from form. All must clothe themselves before we can recognise them and make them our friends and helpers. The Incarnation of Christ is only the highest expression of a universal series of similar experiences. This being so, it is easy to see how important form, clothing, may be. Mr. Ruskin, in the Ethics, boldly says: You can always stand by form against force. The philosophers say there is as much heat, motion, or energy in a tea-kettle as in a sier-eagle. Very good; it is so. It requires just as much heat as will boil the kettle to take the eagle up to his nest. The kettle has a spout, the eagle a beak. The kettle a lid, and the eagle wings. But the kettle cannot but choose sit on the hob, whilst the eagle can choose to recline on the air, sail over the highest cliffs, and stare with undimmed eye at the full glory of the sun. The eagles glory is her form; the steam kettles force. Here we see the beauty and use of form. The truth to be remembered about form is–that it dies, that it is often defective at the best, and that as it grows old it loses its force. The body of the old eagle is not equal to the flights of its youth. Words which are truths body are at best often a poor body, an inadequate garment; and words grow old and lose their force.

II. At times we need give truth a new dress. The very beauty of some forms is their danger. We love them so much we keep on using them, until familiarity robs them of their full force, and we treat them as we should not–that is, with much less respect and attention than we treat stranger sounds and forms. Splendid words, like grace, glory, blessing, mercy, faith, pardon, come to be tripped so lightly with the tongues and so often, that hundreds never get to know their real meaning at all. Hence it is that dear old tunes and texts may become idols. When we use words in song or in prayer, and only use them because they have been so often used, and are the correct thing, or were the correct thing, to say, then our worship is a farce and a delusion, and the time for a change has come. It is impossible not to know that we all often ask for blessing and grace with no clear definite thought or purpose of what blessing and grace mean or involve; and when we do so, then the words grace and blessing are become as the serpent of brass–a delusion and danger, a mere Nehushtan. God Himself has had regard to this very need in man; and for mans sake He has condescended to use variety in giving and expressing truth.

III. This need of realness leads me to observe that we are prone to set an endue value on the old, and we must guard against that danger. What history is the history of the conflict which has raged ever when change has had to be made! If Galileo said the world was not a fiat surface; if Walton said the Hebrew vowel points were not inspired; if geology said the world was not made in six times twenty-four hours; if ever a new view of the method of inspiration were suggested–nay, if the Church itself undertook to revise the Bible translation–what a Babel of contention and conflict arises; what gloomy prophecies of ruin and disaster are indulged in!

IV. This brings me to notice our duty–that it may be wise and right sometimes to sacrifice the clothing for the truths sake. The Bible, specially the New Testament, is a wonderful example of this duty. It is said that there is only one spot in all Palestine of which we can say, with absolute confidence, It was on this very spot Christ must have been (so carefully have the New Testament writers guarded against the worship of localities); except in the solitary case of Jacobs well.

V. Our last point is this–in Christ alone (the truth) the clothing never wears out. That is a marvellous statement about Christ–that He is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. He never needs revise His truth; He never has more experience or wisdom. We should not think it a compliment to a man to say be thought at sixty just what he did at thirty. We expect riper experience, larger views, and sounder judgments. But Christ never needs thus grow; He is for ever perfect in form and spirit. The Gospels are a wonderful illustration–in fact, the whole Bible is a wonderful illustration–of this truth. The Book never grows old; it is always young and in the front of lifes race and battle. (R. H. Lovell.)

Obsolete ceremonies

Ceremonies stand long after the thought which they express has fled, as s dead king may sit on his throne stiff and stark in his golden mantle, and no one come near enough to see that the light is gone out of his eyes, and the will departed from the hand that still clutches the sceptre. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 4. Brake in pieces the brazen serpent.] The history of this may be seen in Nu 21:8; Nu 21:9; see the notes there.

We find that this brazen serpent had become an object of idolatry, and no doubt was supposed to possess, as a telesm or amulet, extraordinary virtues, and that incense was burnt before it which should have been burnt before the true God.

And he called it Nehushtan.] . Not one of the versions has attempted to translate this word. Jarchi says, “He called it Nechustan, through contempt, which is as much as to say, a brazen serpent.” Some have supposed that the word is compounded of nachash, to divine, and tan, a serpent, so it signifies the divining serpent; and the Targum states that it was the people, not Hezekiah, that gave it this name. nachash signifies to view, eye attentively, observe, to search, inquire accurately, c. and hence is used to express divination, augury. As a noun it signifies brass or copper, filth, verdigris, and some sea animal, Am 9:3; see also Job 26:13, and Isa 26:1. It is also frequently used for a serpent; and most probably for an animal of the genus Simia, in Ge 3:1, where see the notes. This has been contested by some, ridiculed by a few, and believed by many. The objectors, because it signifies a serpent sometimes, suppose it must have the same signification always! And one to express his contempt and show his sense, has said, “Did Moses hang up an ape on a pole?” I answer, No, no more than he hanged up you, who ask the contemptible question. But this is of a piece with the conduct of the people of Milan, who show you to this day the brazen serpent which Moses hung up in the wilderness, and which Hezekiah broke in pieces two thousand five hundred years ago!

Of serpents there is a great variety. Allowing that nachash signifies a serpent, I may ask in my turn, What kind of a serpent was it that tempted Eve? Of what species was that which Moses hung up on the pole, and which Hezekiah broke to pieces? Who of the wise men can answer these questions? Till this is done I assert, that the word, Ge 3:1, c., does not signify a serpent of any kind and that with a creature of the genus Simia the whole account best agrees.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

He removed the high places, i.e. the most of them, or such as the people most frequented; for all were not taken away, 2Ki 23:13,14. And this he attempted to do, notwithstanding the peoples great and constant affection to them; partly because he had more zeal and courage than his predecessors; and partly because thee dreadful judgments of God upon the kingdom of Israel for their superstition and idolatry had made the people of Judah more pliable to the commands of God, and of their good king.

The brazen serpent that Moses had made, by Gods command, to be an ordinance or mean for the conveyance of Gods blessing to the people; which therefore had been hitherto kept as a memorial of Gods mercy; but being now commonly abused to superstition, was destroyed.

The children of Israel did burn incense to it; not doubtless as to a god, but only as to an instrument and token of Gods mercy, by and through which their adoration was directed to God, and given to that only for Gods sake.

He called it Nehushtan, i.e. he said, This serpent, howsoever formerly honoured, and used by God as a sign of his grace, yet now it is nothing but a piece of brass, which can do you neither good nor hurt; and therefore is no fit object for your worship.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

4. He removed the high places andbrake the images, c.The methods adopted by this good king forextirpating idolatry, and accomplishing a thorough reformation inreligion, are fully detailed (2Ch 20:32Ch 31:19). But they areindicated very briefly, and in a sort of passing allusion.

brake in pieces the brazenserpentThe preservation of this remarkable relic of antiquity(Nu 21:5-10) might, likethe pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, have remained an interesting andinstructive monument of the divine goodness and mercy to theIsraelites in the wilderness: and it must have required the exerciseof no small courage and resolution to destroy it. But in the progressof degeneracy it had become an object of idolatrous worship and asthe interests of true religion rendered its demolition necessary,Hezekiah, by taking this bold step, consulted both the glory of Godand the good of his country.

unto those days the childrenof Israel did burn incense to itIt is not to be supposed thatthis superstitious reverence had been paid to it ever since the timeof Moses, for such idolatry would not have been tolerated either byDavid or by Solomon in the early part of his reign, by Asa orJehoshaphat had they been aware of such a folly. But the probabilityis, that the introduction of this superstition does not date earlierthan the time when the family of Ahab, by their alliance with thethrone of Judah, exercised a pernicious influence in paving the wayfor all kinds of idolatry. It is possible, however, as some think,that its origin may have arisen out of a misapprehension of Moses’language (Nu 21:8).Serpent-worship, how revolting soever it may appear, was anextensively diffused form of idolatry; and it would obtain an easierreception in Israel because many of the neighboring nations, such asthe Egyptians and Phoelignicians, adored idol gods in the form ofserpents as the emblems of health and immortality.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

He removed the high places,…. Which the best of the kings of Judah never attempted, and which is observed of them to their discredit:

and broke the images, and cut down the groves; the idols his father set up and served, 2Ki 16:4, groves and idols in them, were early instances of idolatry; [See comments on Jud 3:7], and their use for temples are still continued, not only among some Indian nations l, but among some Christians in the northern parts of Europe m;

and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; which he made in the wilderness, and which was brought by the children of Israel with them into the land of Canaan, and was kept as a memorial of the miracle wrought by looking to it, being laid up in some proper place where it had been preserved to this day:

for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it not from the time it was brought into Canaan, nor even in later times, in the days of Asa and Jehoshaphat, who would never have suffered it; very probably this piece of idolatry began in the times of Ahaz, who encouraged everything of that kind: for this serpent they had a great veneration, being made by Moses, and a means in his time of healing the Israelites; and they imagined it might be of some service to them, in a way of mediation to God; and worthy of worship, having some degree of divinity, as Kimchi and Ben Gersom; but Laniado n excuses them from all show of idolatry, and supposes what they did was for the honour of God only; hence sprung the heresy of the Ophites, according to Theodoret:

and he called it Nehushtan; perceiving they were ensnared by it, and drawn into idolatry to it, by way of contempt he called it by this name, which signifies “brass”; suggesting that it was only a mere piece of brass, had no divinity in it, and could be of no service to them in divine things; and, that it might no longer be a snare to them, he broke it into pieces; and, as the Jews o say, ground it to powder, and scattered it to every wind, that there might be no remains of it.

l See Dampier’s Voyage, vol. 1. p. 411. m Vid. Fabritii Bibliograph. Antiqu. c. 9. sect. 11. n Cli Yaker, fol. 538. 2. o T. Bab. Avodah Zarah, fol. 44. 1.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

(4) He removed.He it was who removed. According to this statement, Hezekiah made the Temple of Jerusalem the only place where Jehovah might be publicly worshipped. (Comp. 2Ki. 18:22, and the fuller account in 2Ch. 29:3-36.)

Brake the images.Shattered the pillars (1Ki. 14:23; Hos. 3:4; 2Ch. 14:2).

The groves.Heb., the Asherah. It should probably be plural, the Asherim, as in 2Ch. 31:1, and all the versions here. (See Note on 2Ki. 17:16.)

Brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made.The attempt of Bhr and others to evade the obvious force of this simple statement is quite futile. It is clear that the compiler of Kings believed that the brasen serpent which Hezekiah destroyed was a relic of the Mosaic times. (See the narrative in Num. 21:4-9, and the allusion to the fiery serpents in Deu. 8:15.) His authority may have been oral tradition or a written document. In ancient Egypt the serpent symbolised the healing power of Deity; a symbolism which is repeated in the Grco-Roman myth of sculapius. When Moses set up the Brasen Serpent, he taught the people by means suited to their then capacity that the power of healing lay in the God whose prophet he wasnamely, Jehovah; and that they must look to Him, rather than to any of the gods of Egypt, for help and healing. (Kuenen does not believe in the great antiquity of this relic. Yet the Egyptian and Babylonian remains which have come down to our time have lasted many centuries more than the interval between Moses and Hezekiah; and some of them were already ancient in the Mosaic age. Our own Doomsday Book is at least as old as the brasen serpent was when it was destroyed. There is really no tangible historical ground for this extreme unwillingness to admit the authenticity of anything attributed by tradition to the authorship and handiwork of Moses.)

And he called it.Rather, and it was called. Literally, and one called it. The impersonal construction, like the German man nannte.

Nehushtan.The popular name of the serpent-idol. It is vocalised as a derivative from nhsheth, brass, or copper; but it may really be formed from nhsh, serpent, and denote great serpent rather than brass-god. (Comp. the term Leviathan, Job. 3:8.) Further, although the word is certainly not a compound of nhsheth, copper, and tn (i.e., tannn), serpent, this may have been the popular etymology of the word. (Comp. the proper name, Nehushta, 2Ki. 24:8.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Summary of Hezekiah’s reign ( 2Ki 18:4-8 ).

The activities and accomplishments of Hezekiah are now summarised, and his continuing faithfulness to YHWH and consequent success come out in this summary. He removed all causes of idolatry from Judah, and trusted wholly in YHWH more than any other king apart from Josiah (and, of course, David). This was especially revealed in his obedience to the Law of Moses of which there must clearly have been some record. It was also revealed above all in that he broke with the king of Assyria and did not serve him. This was necessary if true Temple worship was to be restored (contrast 2Ki 16:10-18). He also retaliated against the previous activities of the Philistines against Judah, either in the days of his father Ahaz, or when they received some of his lands as a result of Sennacherib’s humiliating treaty, and retook all lost land, and smote the Philistines as far as Gaza. YHWH thus gave him triumph on every hand.

Although we do not know when it first took place, for it would require a great deal of military preparation, his initial breaking with the king of Assyria was in alliance with others, and was preceded by a period when, biding his time, he maintained a relationship of submission to the king of Assyria (see note below). We learn a great deal about that period from the Assyrian records, but it was a period passed over in silence by the author. For the prophetic author was not interested in such details. He was not interested in the politics, but in the final confrontation which resulted in the humiliation of Assyria, and the establishing of the glory of YHWH. His aim was to glorify God.

Analysis.

a He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah, and he broke in pieces the bronze serpent which Moses had made, for up to those days the children of Israel burned incense to it. And he called it Nechushtan (2Ki 18:4).

b He trusted in YHWH, the God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him (2Ki 18:5).

c For he clove to YHWH. He did not depart from following him, but kept his commandments, which YHWH commanded Moses (2Ki 18:6).

b And YHWH was with him. Wherever he went forth he prospered, and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and did not serve him (2Ki 18:7).

a He smote the Philistines to Gaza and its borders, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city (2Ki 18:8).

Note that in ‘a’ he smote all that was offensive to YHWH, and in the parallel the consequence was that he was able to smite the Philistines. In ‘b’ he trusted in YHWH with all his heart, and in the parallel as a result YHWH was with him. centrally in ‘c’ he was fully obedient to the Law of YHWH.

2Ki 18:4

‘He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah, and he broke in pieces the bronze serpent which Moses had made, for up to those days the children of Israel burned incense to it. And he called it (or ‘it was called’) Nechushtan.’

Internally Hezekiah was determined to bring Judah back to the true worship of YHWH. He removed the syncretistic high places, broke the pillars which represented Baal, and cut down the Asherah images (or wooden poles) which represented the mother goddess of the Canaanites. (Traces of the wooden bases of the Asherah have been found, but we do not know whether they were just poles, or carved images). There was to be no more sacrificing and burning of incense in the unofficial high places (the altar at Beersheba was dismantled around this time., evidencing the fact that the reforms happened). However, the popularity of this form of worship, and the way in which it had taken possession of the people’s hearts, comes out in how quickly such worship was restored once the restrictions were removed. It was after all very pleasing to the flesh, and it made no excessive moral demands, unlike the true worship of YHWH. (While, for example, the high places in the mountains could be cleared of all that was objectionable, it was not possible to remove their sites from people’s long memories, nor from their reverence for what was ancient and ‘mysterious’. The pillars and poles could quickly be replaced).

Hezekiah also broke in pieces the bronze serpent which Moses had made (Num 21:8-9), which had been kept in the Tabernacle and then the Temple, because people had begun to offer incense to it and see it as a graven image. Whilst it was a revered memorial of the past, it had become a stumblingblock to the people of Judah, and thus it had to go. Hezekiah’s reform was deep-seated and determined.

Nechushtan probably relates to Hebrew nachash (snake, serpent) and to nechosheth (piece of bronze). It may have been the name used by its worshippers (translating as ‘one called it –). Snake emblems are known to have been venerated at this time as witnessed on a standard found at Hazor, and a bronze serpent found at Gezer, and Moses’ serpent may well have become associated in people’s minds with Canaanite myths about serpent deities.

2Ki 18:5

‘He trusted in YHWH, the God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him.’

Indeed unlike his father Ahaz, he trusted fully in YHWH, and nothing revealed this more than his response to the Assyrians which will shortly be described. This was, of course, almost certainly due to the teaching and guidance he received from Isaiah. Indeed it was when he failed to consult Isaiah that he finally went astray. But he was also no doubt helped in this attitude by the continual resentment of the people against Assyrian domination, which would finally force him to act. But in the end the choice was his when the crunch moment came, and it was he who took on his own shoulders the responsibility of following the advice he received from Isaiah in the face of all the odds because he trusted YHWH, even though he knew that if he were wrong it could result in his own certain execution.

Thus Hezekiah excelled even over Josiah in faith. The verdict, “after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah,” refers to his trust in God, in which he had no equal, whereas in the case of Josiah it was his conscientious adherence to the Mosaic law that was extolled in the same words (2Ki 23:25). Consequently there is no contradiction between the two verses.

2Ki 18:6

‘For he clove to YHWH. He did not depart from following him, but kept his commandments, which YHWH commanded Moses.’

His trust in YHWH was revealed by the way in which he clove to YHWH and His ways, seeking to re-establish social justice (something evidenced by vessels containing his seal which were probably examples of an effort to enforce just measurements) and to live and rule in a way that was pleasing to Him in accordance with the law of Moses as required by Deu 17:18-20.

2Ki 18:7

‘And YHWH was continually with him. Wherever he went forth he was continually successful, and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and did not serve him.’

That YHWH was continually with him was revealed in that he prospered in all his activities, and this even resulted in him eventually breaking with the king of Assyria and ceasing to be his vassal. This was, of course, necessary if the Temple was to be freed from the hated Assyrian symbols which had been set up within it. But it did not happen immediately, and in fact while Sargon II was alive it proved impossible, although an attempt at doing it was almost certainly considered. Fortunately for Judah Hezekiah withdrew from the attempt in time to avoid major repercussions (see note below). But in the end he made a further attempt, and although it resulted in Judah being considerably battered and bruised, it ended in a glorious victory, because YHWH was with Him.

2Ki 18:8

‘He smote the Philistines to Gaza and its borders, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city.’

Furthermore he recovered all the lands and cities which Judah had lost to the Philistines during the time of Ahaz, and dealt the Philistines a blow which began at their watchtowers on the border, and ended at the gates of Gaza.

Alternately this may be referring to the recovery of the land and cities which Sennacherib had given to Gaza when he sought to punish Hezekiah’s initial rebellion, or even to Hezekiah’s attempt to force some of the cities of the Philistines, including Gaza, to join in the rebellion (which would explain why the king of Ekron became his prisoner). But the point is to demonstrate that Hezekiah succeeded because YHWH was with him.

Note On The Early Years Of Hezekiah’s Reign Which Were Basically Ignored By The Author Of Kings.

The prophetic author of Kings was not interested in glorifying Hezekiah’s rule, but in glorifying YHWH and His greatness in contrast with the great king of Assyria, and in demonstrating Hezekiah’s faith and belief in YHWH, and the resulting success that was its consequence. Thus we are told nothing of his early reign.

Initially Hezekiah ascended the throne as a teen-ager, no doubt being suitably advised, and being co-regent to his father Ahaz. Thus he was at his side, without making the major decisions, when his father called on Assyria for help and became the king of Assyria’s vassal (2Ki 16:7). He also watched while Israel was devastated and Samaria was destroyed, the latter in c 722 BC (about six years before he became sole king). But there was little he could do about either, and he bided his time. He was, however, aware of the reaction of the people of Judah to both, and the flood of refugees that no doubt poured into Judah from Israel as a result of Israel’s demise, and he would later seek to draw Israelites to worship at Jerusalem. Once he was king it would appear that he gave ear to the teaching of Isaiah the prophet, in his call for the purifying of Yahwism, a call which would have been supported by many of the priests, and good numbers of important people throughout Judah, at a time of strong nationalistic feeling.

But once he had defeated Samaria Sargon’s attention was taken up elsewhere, for in association with the Elamites mighty Babylon rebelled against him, under the rule of Merodach Baladan, a rebellion which resulted in Sargon suffering a rare defeat (in c.721 BC). It would in fact be eleven years before Sargom could recover from this reversal. Meanwhile he was facing problems elsewhere in Phrygia and Carchemish, the latter resulting finally in the rape and depopulation of Carchemish. He was also involved in the final reduction of Urartu on his northern borders. Even he could not fight on all fronts at once, and thus the pressure on the area around Palestine had been reduced, and it began to look to the local kings as though the time was coming when they could again break free from the Assyrian yoke, especially as Egypt was now stronger and encouraging them to rebel (Isaiah 20). The Ethiopian Piankhi, a vigorous king, had taken control in Egypt, and his desire was to build up a buffer against Assyria. We can hardly doubt that in such circumstances Hezekiah was under pressure from Judah’s patriots to consider joining in with the conspiracy and withholding tribute. By 713 BC, stirred by Egypt, Ashdod (one of the powerful Philistine states) had rebelled (Isa 20:1), and it was soon joined by other Philistine states. And it would appear from Assyrian records that Judah, Edom and Moab were also invited to participate (this in Hezekiah’s third of fourth year as sole king). Isaiah also tells us that the Ethiopian king urgently sought Judah’s cooperation (Isaiah 18). But Isaiah was bitterly opposed to this and strongly advised against it. He saw no benefit in trusting in Egypt. Hezekiah appears to have listened to him in time to withdraw from open participation in the rebellion, for when Sargon did sweep down and destroy Ashdod (Isa 20:1), making it an Assyrian province, he did not then proceed against Judah. This could only have been because Judah had not actually finally taken part in the rebellion. (So trustworthy did the Egyptians prove to be that when the rebel leader fled to Egypt for refuge the Ethiopian king handed him back to the Assyrians). Meanwhile Hezekiah was still biding his time.

But when in around 705 BC Sargon was killed fighting in a distant country, and Sennacherib became king, the time did appear ripe for action. Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon, together with his Elamite allies, had once again rebelled against Assyria, and it may well have been at this time that he sent envoys to Hezekiah as described in 2Ki 21:12. The rebellion spread, and with the king of Tyre acting as the leader of the southern coalition, once again supported by Egypt, and by Ekron and Ashkelon, Hezekiah joined in, sending envoys to Egypt (Isa 30:1-7; Isa 31:1-3). Indeed he appears to have played a prominent part in the rebellion, for when Padi, the king of Ekron, sought to remain loyal to Assyria, it was to Hezekiah that the Ekronites handed him over for the privilege of imprisoning him in Jerusalem. Sennacherib could have been in no doubt about his intentions. And in readiness for his retaliation Hezekiah ensured the availability of the Jerusalem water supply (2Ki 20:20).

Having pacified Babylon, at least for the time being, Sennacherib turned his attention to the revolt. His first target was Tyre, and he dealt with Tyre so severely that it never recovered (although he failed to capture the island fortress). Then he moved down against Ashkelon, Ekron and their cities, defeating an Egyptian army that was sent against him, and reducing the Philistine cities one by one. Meanwhile other nations who had been involved, like Edom and Moab, hurriedly decided to pay tribute. Then he finally turned his attention towards Judah. Forty six cities with their surrounding towns were besieged and taken with their populations being transported elsewhere, Lachish, Judah’s second largest city was put under siege (2Ki 18:14), and the next stages were to be Libnah and then Jerusalem. It was probably at this time that Hezekiah recognised that he had no hope and surrendered, suing for peace terms (2Ki 18:14-16). That such terms were offered was probably because of the possible threat of an Egyptian army, but they were severe. Among other things the king of Ekron was to be handed over, portions of Judah’s territory were to be divided up between Ekron, Ashdod and Gaza, some of Hezekiah’s daughters were to be handed over to be taken to Nineveh as concubines, and a heavy penalty was to be levied on Hezekiah, which he had to strip the Temple to meet. Hezekiah had little choice but to agree, although he refused a humiliating surrender (he sent messengers rather than going himself).

But something then happened that changed the situation and made Sennacherib decide to rescind the treaty and advance on Jerusalem, seemingly by this breaking his word (2Ki 18:17). This may have been the result of news that an Egyptian army was fast approaching containing Jewish contingents, which may have suggested to him that Hezekiah was double-dealing (although it may simply have been as a result of his own unreliability, for Sennacherib did have a reputation for breaking treaties).

That then resulted in the situation that we will now be dealing with when Lachish was taken, Libnah was besieged and Jerusalem was invested. The last was probably by a large token force, until the remainder of the Assyrian army could be freed up, but importantly Jerusalem was never taken. The account is given in full detail, emphasising the greatness of the king of Assyria, because the point of it was to demonstrate that great though the king of Assyria might undoubtedly have proved himself to be, YHWH was greater. It resulted in a great victory for YHWH.

The Assyrian account of much of this, given on the Taylor prism, read as follows;

“In my third campaign, I went against the Hatti-land. Lule, king of Sidon, the terrifying splendour of my lordship overcame him, and far off into the midst of the sea he fled. There he died. Great Sidon, Little Sidon, Bit-Zitti, Zaribtu, Mahalliba, Ushu, Akzib, Akko, his strong, walled cities, where there were food and drink for his garrisons, the terrors of the weapons of Assur, my lord, overpowered them and they bowed in submission at my feet. I seated Tuba’lu on the royal throne over them, and tribute, gifts for my majesty, I imposed upon him for all time, without ceasing.

From Menachem, the Shamsimurunite, Tuba’lu the Sidonite, 5bdi-liti the Arvadite, Uru-milki the Gublite, Mitinti the Ashdodite, Budu-ilu the Beth Ammonite, Kammusu-nadbi the Moabite, Malik-rammu the Edomite, kings of Amurru, all of them, numerous presents as their heavy tribute, they brought before me for the fourth time, and kissed my feet.

But Sidka, the king of Ashkelon, who had not submitted to my yoke, the gods of his father’s house, himself, his wife, his sons, his daughters, his brothers, the seed of his paternal house, I tore away and brought to Assyria. Sharru-lu-dari, son of Rukibti, their former king, I set over the people of Ashkelon, and I imposed upon him the payment of tribute: presents to my majesty. He accepted my yoke.

In the course of my campaign, Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Banaibarka, Asuru, cities of Sidka, who had not speedily bowed in submission at my feet, I besieged, I conquered, I carried off their spoil.

The officials, nobles, and people of Ekron, who had thrown Padi their king, bound by oath and curse of Assyria, into fetters of iron, had given him over to Hezekiah, the Judahite. He kept him in confinement like an enemy. Their heart became afraid, and they called upon the Egyptian kings, the bowmen, chariots and horses of the king of Meluhha [Ethiopia], a countless host, and these came to their aid. In the neighbourhood of Eltekeh, their ranks being drawn up before me, they offered battle. With the aid of Assur, my lord, I fought with them and brought about their defeat. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the Ethiopian king’s charioteers, my hands captured alive in the midst of the battle. Eltekeh and Timnah I besieged, I captured, and I took away their spoil. I approached Ekron and slew the governors and nobles who had rebelled, and hung their bodies on stakes around the city. The inhabitants who rebelled and treated (Assyria) lightly I counted as spoil. The rest of them, who were not guilty of rebellion and contempt, for whom there was no punishment, I declared their pardon. Padi, their king, I brought out of Jerusalem, set him on the royal throne over them, and imposed upon him my royal tribute.

As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, I besieged and took them, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up siege-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I set up watch-posts against him The one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I laid upon him the surrender of their land and imposts, gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendour of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, I exacted gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, and his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers.”

(It will be noted that Sennacherib did not claim to have captured Jerusalem, and that he acknowledged that Hezekiah sent messengers and did not personally submit. Both these facts tie in with the Biblical account which indicates that Jerusalem was never taken and that Hezekiah never personally submitted. And yet in his description Sennacherib gives the impression of great success. This was typical of ancient records where defeats and misfortunes tended to be ignored or turned into glorious victories. Thus Sennacherib was clearly making the best of a bad job (we must remember that the inscriptions were basically propaganda intended to exalt the king of Assyria) and yet at the same time unconsciously supporting the Biblical account (mainly by what he does not claim). The fact that Jerusalem was never taken was also confirmed by the fact that the feat that was underlined with regard to the invasion of Judah and placarded in Nineveh was the capture of Lachish, which confirms the fact that Jerusalem never surrendered. On the basis of the Assyrian record an independent source would have said that ‘Jerusalem was never captured, and Hezekiah was never made personally to submit to Sennacherib, indicating that this was one of Sennacherib’s more doubtful achievements at the time’).

End of note.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Ki 18:4. He removed the high places, &c. It was a great demonstration of Hezekiah’s sincere piety and zeal towards God, that he began so soon to reform the corruption of religion, and did not stay till he had established himself in his throne. He might, however, think that the surest way so to establish himself, was, to establish the true worship of God; though he could not but foresee that he ran a great hazard in attempting the abolition of idolatry, which had been confirmed by so many years prescription. See 2 Chronicles 29 : &c. The reason why Hezekiah destroyed the brazen serpent, we are told, was because the children of Israel burned incense to it: not that we are to suppose, that all along, from the days of Moses, this brazen serpent was made an object of religious worship. This is what neither David, nor Solomon in the beginning of his reign, would have allowed of; nor can we think but that Asa or Jehoshaphat, when they rooted out idolatry, would have made an end of this, had they perceived that the people at that time either paid worship or burned incense to it. The commencement of this superstition, therefore, must be of later date; probably from the time that Ahab’s family, by being allied to the crown of Judah by marriage, introduced all kinds of idolatry. One false inducement to the worship of this image, might be a mistake of the words of Moses, Num 21:8. Whosoever looketh upon it shall live, whence they might think, by its mediation to obtain a blessing. However, we may imagine, that their burning incense, or any other perfumes before it, was designed only in honour of the true God, by whose direction Moses made it: but then, in process of their superstition, they either worshipped the God of Israel under that image, or, what is worse, substituted a heathen god in his room, and worshipped the brazen serpent as his image; which they might the more easily be induced to do, because the practice of some neighbouring nations was, to worship their gods under the form of a serpent. Upon this account Hezekiah wisely chose, rather to lose this memorial of God’s wonderful mercy, than to suffer it any longer to be abused to idolatry; and therefore he brake it in pieces, that is, as the Talmudists express it, “He ground it to powder, and then scattered it in the air, that there might not be the least remains of it.” And yet, notwithstanding all the care which he took to destroy it, Sigonius, in his history of Italy, tells us, that in the church of St. Ambrose in Milan, they shew a brazen serpent intire, which they pretend to be the very same with that erected by Moses in the wilderness; though it must be owned, that among their learned men there are some who acknowledge the cheat, and disclaim it. See Le Clerc, and Prid. Connect. A. 726. Parkhurst observes, that the name Nehushtan, , seems a compound of nichesh, to divine, and ten, a serpent, and so denotes the divining spirit; and therefore, he thinks the passage should be rendered: Hezekiah brake the serpent of brass which Moses made, because even to those days the children of Israel were burning incense to it, and called it Nehushtan. So the Targum renders the latter part of the verse, and they were calling it Nehushtan. This implies, that the children of Israel had so far perverted the use of this eminent type of Christ, as to apply to it for magical purposes, as the heathens did to their sacred serpents, or serpentine images; and that therefore Hezekiah brake it. Houbigant translates in the same manner.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

DISCOURSE: 376
HEZEKIAH DESTROYS THE BRASEN SERPENT

2Ki 18:4. He brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

WE too often see the children of godly parents turning aside from the principles in which they have been educated, and deserting the paths which parental piety has marked out for them. Here we behold a youth, whose father was branded with a special mark of infamy on account of his numerous and aggravated [Note: 2 Chronicles 28 :.] impieties, shining with a brighter lustre than any other of the kings of Judah [Note: ver. 5, 6.]. No sooner did he come to the throne of his father than he set himself to counteract all the evil which his father had done. At the early age of twenty-five he commenced a reformation, which, for the time at least, was attended with the happiest effects. He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made. It seems that the veneration in which that memorial of Gods mercy had been held, had degenerated into the grossest superstition. Where the brasen serpent had been preserved for so long a period, we are not informed. Had it been placed within the sanctuary, with the pot of manna, and Aarons rod that budded, being concealed from the view both of the people and the priests, it would not have become an object of idolatrous regard. But it is not to be wondered at, that, when idols of every kind were multiplied in the land, this, which as a memorial of Gods mercy was really entitled to most affectionate respect, should have divine honours paid to it. The use which was made of it by the Jewish people naturally leads me to shew, How prone men are to superstition: whilst the zeal of Hezekiah in destroying it, will properly afford me an occasion yet further to shew, How earnestly we ought, all of us according to our ability, to counteract the superstition that is around us.

Observe then,

I.

How prone men are to superstition

Superstition, I am aware, may exist, without being carried to the extent in which it prevailed amongst the Jews at this time. But the same ingredients are found in it, whatever be the degree in which it prevails. In the instance before us its component parts are manifest. The Jews carried their veneration of the brasen serpent to a very culpable excess: they assigned to it a sanctity, which it did not possessthey ascribed to it a glory, which it did not meritthey expected from it a benefit, which it could not confer. Now, whether our superstition have respect to a visible creature, or only to a figment of the brain, its essential qualities are the same; and man in his fallen state is prone to it.
It obtained, and still obtains, universally amongst the heathen
[What were, or are, the Deities of the heathen, but men, who on account of some exploits in former days have been canonized, or mere creatures of the imagination invested with divine attributes? The philosophers of Greece and Rome knew of no other gods than these; and in that respect were scarcely more rational than any other of the heathen, whether in ancient or modern times.]
Amongst the Jews also it ever did, and still does, prevail to an awful extent
[Scarcely had they been brought out of Egypt before they made a golden calf, and worshipped it as their god [Note: Act 7:41.]. Through their whole abode in the wilderness they bowed down to Moloch and Remphan, the gods of the heathen that were around them [Note: Act 7:42-43.]. After their settlement in Canaan they evinced the same propensity continually. The greatest mercies which God vouchsafed to them were abused to this end. Was the law given them from Mount Sinai? they rested in it for justification, instead of using it as a ministration of condemnation, and a rule of life. Was the temple of God among them? in that they trusted as a security against their enemies, saying, as Micah did when he had secured a Levite for his priest, Now know I that the Lord will do me good, seeing I have a Levite to my priest [Note: Jdg 17:13; Jer 7:4.]. Had they the badge of circumcision? they thought that would suffice, though they knew nothing of the true circumcision of the heart. To this present hour the dispersed of Israel have no juster views of God and of religion than those had in former days; of whom it is said, that, trusting in their own righteousness, they would not submit to the righteousness of God. Even the doctrines of mans invention had, and still have, a greater authority over them than the commands of God ]

And what is Popery but a mass of superstition altogether?
[What is the worship of the Virgin Mary, and of saints, and relics? What are all the masses, the pilgrimages, and the penances that are prescribed among them as means of expiating their sins? What is their auricular confession, their priestly absolution, their adoring of the consecrated wafer, and their administration of extreme unction? Some, I trust, there are, who are enabled to look simply to Christ through all the mists that are cast around him: but those who regard the dogmas of popery as the only ground of their hopes, are as far from God and truth as either Jews or heathens.]
Would to God that the Protestant world were blameless in relation to this matter!
[The light which we enjoy ought long since to have dispelled the clouds of popish superstition: but amongst the generality there still remains a most astonishing blindness respecting the Gospel of Christ. How many are there who imagine that repentance has in itself a power to wash away their sins! How many regard the Lords supper, not as a mere commemorative ordinance in and through which divine blessings are dispensed, but as a sacrificial act, that expiates their guilt, and insures their forgiveness! Baptism, in like manner, is supposed by many to take away our sins, yea, and to renew our natures also, not as it is received, but simply as administered: and they who deny this, are represented as denying the sacramental character of the ordinance. Thus do many amongst ourselves run into the very same absurdity as the Jews did in relation to the brasen serpent. God once conveyed bodily health by a sight of the brasen serpent; and he now conveys spiritual health in and through the ordinance of baptism. But the serpent did not heal all, but those only who looked to it by faith: nor did it heal them by any power of its own, but only as appointed of God to be a medium of communication from him to them. When the Jews ascribed the honour to the brasen serpent, and looked to it for future benefits, they erred: and precisely in the same manner do they err, who ascribe power to baptism as an act, instead of looking simply to God for his blessing on the use of it as an instituted ordinance, and a medium of communication with him. As reasonably might any person ascribe the refreshing water which he drinks to the pipe which conveys it to him, as imagine that the mere act of baptism can justify and sanctify his soul. There is a fountain to which the stream must be traced: and, if we suffer our views to terminate on any thing short of that, we are guilty of the grossest superstition.

In a word, there is in every man by nature a tendency to this fatal evil, and a readiness to rob God of his glory, by giving to the creature that honour which is due to him alone.] Such is the proneness of man to superstition: and, from Hezekiahs conduct, we learn,

II.

How earnestly we should all endeavour to counteract it

We should counteract it,

1.

In ourselves

[There is a great deal of this evil remaining in the heart, even after we are truly converted unto God. To view God in every thing; to ascribe every thing, evil as well as good, to God [Note: Amo 3:6.]; to give him the glory of every thing; and to depend wholly and entirely upon him for every thing, is an attainment to which we are not soon brought: we gain it for the most part by a long and painful discipline. There is a measure of creature-confidence and creature-dependence cleaving to us to the end: or though we be purged from it, yet is there a tendency to return to it, and a necessity to be constantly on our guard against it. Whence is that confidence which some derive from dreams, or visions, or other conceits of their own 2 Whence is that stress which they lay on the word of God coming to their minds in this or that particular way? It all arises from a propensity inherent in fallen man to rest in something besides God. The word of God is our only legitimate ground of either hope or fear. The manner of its being applied to the mind does not alter one jot or tittle of it. The promises are not a whit more sure because they are presented with force to our minds, nor the threatenings less sure because we are strongly impressed with the idea that they shall never be fulfilled in us. And the only effect of attending to our own feelings in relation to these things is, to generate a presumptuous confidence in some, and groundless apprehensions in others. They all draw the mind from God; and must be guarded against as superstitious vanities: and all who trust in such vanities, shall have vanity for their recompence.]

2.

In others

[Were superstition a harmless delusion, we might leave men to themselves: but when we consider how great an evil it is, and how strenuously the pious Hezekiah opposed it, we should all use our utmost efforts to counteract it in the world. Whether we view the dishonour which it does to God, or the evil which it entails on man, we cannot but see, that we should tread in Hezekiahs steps respecting it That it robs God of his glory, is obvious; because it ascribes to the creature what is due to Him alone. And it is most injurious to man, because whilst it disappoints his hopes, it actually robs him of all the blessings which the Gospel itself provides. What did St. Paul say to those who relied on circumcision as securing or confirming to them the benefits of the Gospel? Did he say, If ye be circumcised, your circumcision shall profit you nothing? No: but, If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing [Note: Gal 5:2.]. And so must we say in reference to superstition of every kind: it not only fails to procure the benefits it aspires to, but actually deprives us of the benefits we might otherwise obtain: and it would be well if those, who superstitiously regard divine ordinances, whether baptism, or the Lords Supper, or any other ordinance, as possessing any inherent virtue in themselves, and as imparting virtue by any power of their own, would contemplate their guilt and danger whilst under the influence of such delusions: for to those who against better light adhere to them, as necessarily conveying justification and sanctification and salvation, Christ himself will become of no effect: they are fallen from grace; and, as far as respects them, Christ is dead in vain [Note: Gal 5:4 with Gal 2:21.].

Well I know that to some these sentiments will appear harsh: but fidelity to God and man requires, that, if even an angel from heaven should countenance such an error, he should be opposed [Note: Gal 1:8-9.]. And if in opposing such errors any one think that we manifest too much zeal, what would such an one have said to Hezekiah? What! know you not that that serpent was appointed as an ordinance by God himself? Know you not how many thousands were healed by it? And do you dare to break it in pieces, and to degrade it with such an appellation as Nehushtan as though it were no better than a mere piece of brass? I am shocked at your impiety. But what would Hezekiah have said? It is not as an ordinance of God that I degrade it, but as idolatrously substituted in Gods place, as a ground of hope, and as a source of good. So say I of baptism and of the Lords supper: In their proper and appointed use they cannot be too highly valued: but, if abused to purposes for which they were not given, and looked to as containing in themselves, and conveying of themselves, salvation to man, they are desecrated, and may justly be called Nehushtan. So Paul said in relation to circumcision, which corresponds with the Christian ordinance of baptism. When some abused it as a ground of hope, he would not acknowledge them as the people of God. He indignantly denominates them the concision, declaring that they only were the circumcision who sought their salvation in God alone. And if any be offended with this doctrine, we refer them to Hezekiah; we refer them to St Paul. It is too weighty a matter to be trifled with, seeing that it is of vital importance to every soul of man.]

Let us learn, then, from hence,
1.

How to use Gods ordinances

[We should be thankful for them: we should honour them: we should look to God in them, and expect from God through them the communications of his grace and peace. They are to be reverenced, but not idolized; to be used as means, but not rested in as an end. No one is to imagine himself the better, merely because he has attended on any ordinances: for he may eat his own condemnation at the supper of the Lord, and have the word which is ministered unto him a savour only of death. We must look, not to ordinances, but to God in them: and just so much as we obtain from God in them are we benefited by them. This present ordinance for instance; What are you the better for it, if you have not held communion with God himself in your devotions? And what benefit will you receive from the word now delivered, if it come not to you in demonstration of the Spirit and of power? Bear this in mind, both before you come up to the house of God, and when you depart from it; and then you will find the ordinances to be blessings indeed. But, if you sacrifice to your own net, and burn incense to your own drag [Note: Hab 1:16.], your coming hither will be in vain, and our labour also will be in vain.]

2.

How to regard the Lord Jesus Christ himself

[Methinks these Jews, though so blind and sinful, may well rise up in judgment against the generality of the Christian world. The serpent which they worshipped had never done any thing for them; the persons whom it had healed, had lived eight hundred years before; and it prevailed only to prolong for a season their corporeal life: and no benefit had accrued from it to any child of man since the day that it was erected in the camp. Yet they honoured it, and offered incense to it. But the Lord Jesus Christ has been healing immortal souls; and that from the foundation of the world to this present hour; and so healed them, that they should live for ever. This too he has done, not by being unconsciously and without volition suspended on the cross; but by voluntarily leaving his Fathers bosom, and assuming our nature, and dying on the cross under the load of all our sins, and drinking to the very dregs that cup of bitterness which must otherwise have been put into our hands to drink for ever. Yet how many days and months and years have been spent by most of us without ever offering to him the incense of our prayers and praise! Yea, notwithstanding he is erected for the healing of us, and is at this moment empowered to bestow on us all the blessings that we can need for body or for soul, for time or for eternity, how little is he adored and magnified by us! May we not well be ashamed when we reflect on this? May we not be confounded when we compare our treatment of him with the conduct of the Jews towards the senseless shadowy representation of him? Yes indeed; we have reason to blush and be confounded before him. Let us then repent of all our ingratitude towards him. Let us remember that there is no fear of honouring him too much, since He is God, as well as man; and not the medium of communication only, but the true and proper source of all blessings to our souls. Then shall our communion with him be sweet: and the golden oil shall flow through the golden pipes [Note: Zec 4:11-14.] of his ordinances, from Him the fountain of it, to the enriching of our souls with all spiritual blessings, and to the everlasting glory of his great and glorious name.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

2Ki 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Ver. 4. He removed the high places. ] He neglected no time, but in the very first month of the first year of his reign he did great matters; 2Ch 29:3 yea, the same day that he began to reign he spake to his Levites to purge the temple, which also they did. a

The brazen serpent that Moses had made. ] Not for an object of worship, but for a means of cure, though some write that it is deadly for them that are stung with a serpent to look upon brass. God worketh oft by contraries, to show his power. This brazen serpent good Hezekiah brake in pieces when abused to idolatry, multis Iudaeorum frementibus et reclamantibus, to the great discontent of those idolaters, no doubt, and not without some danger to those that did it. We read in the life of our king Edward VI, b that as one Mr Body, a commissioner was pulling down images in Cornwall, he was suddenly stabbed into the body by a priest with a knife. Theodosius, the emperor, was so offended with the Antiochians, only for throwing down the brazen portraiture of his beloved wife Placilla, that he disprivileged the city, and intended to have burnt it. How hugely displeased, we may welt think, were the superstitious Jews, when they saw their gods thus dealt with!

The children of Israel did burn incense unto it. ] Such was the venom of the Israelitish idolatry, that the brazen serpent stung worse than the fiery.

And he called it Nehushtan. ] Aenulum, so Pagnine rendereth it; aeniculum, so Marinus – a poor paltry piece of brass, Haec dictio non minorein contemptum prae se fert quam Nescio quid, aut pulvisculum saith another learned man; a name of scorn and contempt, to shame such as had so doted upon it. c Anastasius Nicaenus out of Eusebius addeth further, that Hezekiah abolished certain books written by Solomon concerning the nature of plants, and all kinds of creatures, and concerning the cure of all kinds of diseases, because thought these the people sought medicines for their various maladies, and not of God. But of this there is nothing recorded in Scripture, neither is it very likely: Abusus non tolleret usum.

a Jerome, De Trad. Hebr.

b Sir John Heywood.

c Thesaurus lingua sancta per diminutionem aut contemptum.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

groves = ‘Asherah, singular. See note on Exo 34:13, and App-42.

brasen serpent. Compare Num 21:9. Now 835 years old. (From 1452 to 617 = 835).

children = sons.

Nehushtan = a brass thing.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

groves

(See Scofield “Deu 16:21”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

removed: 2Ki 12:3, 2Ki 14:4, 2Ki 15:4, 2Ki 15:35, Lev 26:30, 1Ki 3:2, 1Ki 3:3, 1Ki 15:14, 1Ki 22:43, Psa 78:58, Eze 20:28, Eze 20:29

brake: 2Ki 23:4, Deu 7:5, Deu 12:2, Deu 12:3, Jdg 6:25, Jdg 6:28, 1Ki 15:12, 1Ki 15:13, 2Ch 19:3, 2Ch 31:1, 2Ch 33:3

images: Heb. statues

the brazen serpent: Num 21:8, Num 21:9, Joh 3:14, Joh 3:15

unto those days: 2Ki 16:15

Nehushtan: That is, a piece of brass.

Reciprocal: Exo 34:13 – ye shall Lev 14:45 – break down 2Ki 10:27 – brake down the image 2Ki 11:18 – went 2Ki 13:6 – and there remained 2Ki 18:22 – whose high places 2Ki 21:3 – the high places 2Ch 14:3 – cut down 2Ch 23:17 – the house of Baal 2Ch 32:12 – Hath not 2Ch 34:3 – General Isa 36:7 – is it not Hos 11:12 – Judah

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

NEHUSHTAN

He brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

2Ki 18:4

King Hezekiah was bent on the work of national reformation. He saw that incense was being burnt to this brazen serpent; that was enough for him. Whatever it may have been in the past, it was clearly a curse to the people now. It had better, therefore, be destroyed at once. Observe then:

I. A blind veneration for the past is always an obstacle in the path of progress.An intelligent regard for the past is, of course, a help and not a hindrance in the direction of all true advance. But there are always multitudes who cling with unintelligent grasp to institutions and customs, simply because these have come down to them from their fathers. If there be a tendency to worship the brazen serpent instead of the living God, then, whilst it may be lawful enough to preserve the image as a memorial, yet, inasmuch as, after all, the thing is only a piece of brass, it may be, on the whole, the truest wisdom to grind it to powder.

II. Even that which has been ordained by God Himself for a blessing may be so misused as to become a curse.

(1) Art and science, for example, are intended by God to be handmaids of true progress; but the worship of science tends only to materialism, and the worship of beauty tends ultimately to sensuality.

(2) The weekly day of rest; that, too, is a gift of God, and fitted to be a source of blessing. But it may be so misused as to become a hindrance. May be spent in idleness or debauchery. May be misused by being idolised.

(3) The Bible, again, what a blessed boon it is, containing, as it does, a revelation of the character and will of God! But the Bible will not bring us all the good which it is fitted to impart if we begin to worship itself instead of Him Whom it reveals.

(4) Our sanctuaries, too, with their ordinances of common worship, are of Divine appointment. But the ordinances of the sanctuary can do us good only as in and through them we draw near in spirit to Him Who dwelleth not in temples made with hands.

III. Every symbol loses its significance and value in proportion as it is converted into an idol.The significance of a symbol lies in its pointing to something more precious than itself, which it expresses or enshrines.

Illustration

The serpent of brass, reared up by Moses, when the tribes were on their weary march from Mount Hor to Oboth, was not in itself miraculous, though it wrought cures of that nature upon the wounded Israelites. To the bitten and unbitten alike, as a teaching object, its lesson was, that faith should be both simple and prompt; whoever the sufferer might be, no preparation was required; by a straightforward look at the serpent he lived. Hearers ought to be cautioned against the common error of calling the brazen serpent a type of Christ. As, from the Fall to the closing apocalyptic visions, the serpent symbolises the great spiritual foe of man, such a representation appears to be objectionable, and unsanctioned by Scripture. All that is implied in St. Joh 3:14 is that Moses serpent, and Christ upon the cross, resembled each other in this particular, that they were both elevated to draw and fix the attention of men. Could Moses have anticipated the mischief that was afterwards to arise from his brazen serpent, he would doubtless have destroyed it when its special work was done. Kept reverently at first as a mere relic, at length it became the object of blind superstition, until Hezekiah, some seven hundred years later, broke it up, giving it the contemptuous name of Nehushtan, a bit of brass.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

2Ki 18:4. He removed the high places Which none of his predecessors had had the courage to attempt. But, it is likely, the dreadful judgments of God, executed upon the ten tribes, and the carrying them away captive for their superstition and idolatry, had been the means of mightily awakening both him and all the people, for the present, (while these calamities were fresh before their eyes,) to observe the law of God very strictly. It was a great demonstration, says Dr. Dodd, of Hezekiahs sincere piety and zeal toward God, that he began so soon to reform the corruption of religion, and did not stay till he had established himself in his throne. He might think, however, and certainly very justly, that the surest way to establish himself, was to establish the true worship of God; though he could not but foresee that he ran a great hazard in attempting the abolition of idolatry, which had been confirmed by so many years prescription, 2Ch 29:3-11. And brake in pieces the brazen serpent, which Moses had made Though this serpent was made by Moses at Gods command, and was of singular use to the Israelites, and a special type of Christ; yet, the primary use of it having long since ceased, and being now abused to the purposes of superstition and idolatry, it was deservedly broken to pieces. And from this example we may infer, that all things which are made the occasions of superstition and idolatry, ought to be taken away. For unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it This cannot be intended to signify, that all along, from the days of Moses, this brazen serpent was used as an object of religious worship. For certainly neither David, nor Solomon in the former part of his reign, would have suffered any such thing; nor can we suppose but that Asa and Jehoshaphat, when they rooted out idolatry, would also have extirpated this, if they had perceived any species of it in their days. The commencement of this superstition, therefore, must have been of later date, and probably since the time that Ahabs family, being allied to the royal family in Judah by marriage, introduced all kinds of idolatry. As this brazen serpent had been kept from the days of Moses, merely in memory of a miracle wrought by Jehovah, just as the pot of manna and Aarons rod that budded also were, it is likely that their burning incense or perfumes before it was at first designed in honour of the true God; but then, in the process of their superstition, they probably either worshipped the God of Israel, or, what is worse, some heathen god, under that image; imitating therein the practice of some of the neighbouring nations, as the Babylonians, Phenicians: Egyptians, who all worshipped one or more of their gods under the form of a serpent. Upon this account Hezekiah wisely chose rather to lose this memorial of Gods wonderful mercy to the Israelites, than to suffer it any longer to be abused to idolatry, and therefore destroyed it. It deserves to be remarked here, that notwithstanding it is so expressly recorded that Hezekiah brake it in pieces, yet the Roman Catholics pretend to show it entire in the church of St. Ambrose in Milan. And he called it Nehushtan Or rather, Nechushtan, as it is in the Hebrew, that is, brass; as if he had said, How much soever this serpent might be formerly regarded and used by God, as a sign of his mercy and power, yet now it is nothing but a piece of mere brass, which can do you neither good nor hurt, and therefore is no fit object of your worship.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it {b} Nehushtan.

(b) That is “a piece of brass”: thus he calls the serpent by contempt, which even though it was set up by the word of God, and miracles were wrought by it, when it was used for idolatry this good king destroyed it, not thinking it worthy to be called a serpent, but a piece of brass.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes