Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 18:1
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, [that] Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
Chap. 2Ki 18:1-8. Hezekiah king of Judah. He reigns well and destroys the brasen serpent. Some of his successes in war (2Ch 29:1-2)
1. in the third year of Hoshea ] In 2Ki 16:2 we are told that Ahaz reigned sixteen years: in 2Ki 17:1 that Hoshea began to reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz, and here that Hezekiah succeeded his father Ahaz in Hoshea’s third year. We can see from this that the sixteen years of Ahaz must have been made up of fourteen complete years, and a broken year at the commencement, and another at the close of his reign. This makes Hezekiah to have been born when his father was extremely young. He ascended the throne at twenty-five. Ahaz had done so at twenty (2Ki 16:2). Add to this a little more than fourteen years (say fifteen) for his reign. Thus his whole life must have been but thirty-five years; so that his son, according to this chronology, must have been born when Ahaz was ten years of age.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the third year – If Hoshea ascended the throne toward the close of the 12th year of Ahaz 2Ki 17:1, and if Ahaz reigned not much more than 15 years 2Ki 16:2, the first of Hezekiah might synchronise in part with Hosheas third year.
Hezekiah – The name given by our translators follows the Greek form, Ezekias, rather than the Hebrew, which is Hizkiah. Its meaning is strength of Yahweh.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 18:1-37
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea.
A striking reformation, a ruthless despotism, and an unprincipled diplomacy
I. A striking reformation (2Ki 18:3-8).
1. The perverting tendency of sin. The brazen serpent was a beneficent ordinance of God to heal those in the wilderness who had been bitten by the fiery serpent. But this Divine ordinance, designed for a good purpose, and which had accomplished good, was now, through the forces of human depravity, become a great evil. See how this perverting power acts in relation to such Divine blessings, as
(1) health;
(2) riches;
(3) genius;
(4) knowledge;
(5) governments; and
(6) religious institutions.
2. The true attributes of a reformer. Here we observe
(1) Spiritual insight. Hezekiah saw in this serpent which appeared like a God to the people, nothing but a piece of brass–Nehushtan.
(2) Invincible honesty. He not only saw that it was brass, but said so,–thundered it into the ears of the people.
(3) Practical courage. He brake in pieces the brasen serpent.
3. The true soul of a reformer. What is that which gave him the true insight and attributes of a reformer, which in truth was the soul of the whole?
(1) Entire consecration to the right.
(2) Invincible antagonism to the wrong.
II. A ruthless despotism. There are two despots mentioned in this chapter–Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both kings of Assyria.
1. He had already invaded a country in which he had no right.
2. He had received from the king most humble submission and large contributions to leave his country alone. Mark his humiliating appeal.
III. An unprincipled diplomacy,
1. He represents his master, the King of Assyria, to be far greater than he is.
2. He seeks to terrify them with a sense of their utter inability to resist the invading army. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Hezekiahs good reign
The history of Gods ancient people is full of surprises. The whole course of their national life was marked by wonderful Divine interpositions. An public records, when carefully studied, disclose the fact that God, through His providence, is acting as master of affairs, and though statesmen and political economists refer the shifting events of national career to natural causes, it is evident to the clear thinker that God is an uncalculated factor, the explanation is meagre and faulty. But in the history of the elect people, the Divine element was unmistakably prominent. In these particulars the history of the Jews was unique, and sublime above that of any other nation. And yet the behaviour of the people was quite as surprising. With only the thinnest of veils separating them from God–their daily experience august with the manifestations of His presence–the penalties of sin and the rewards of righteousness, things tangible and perceptible, they went on in a mad career of impiety and wickedness as recklessly as though they had never heard of Jehovah. But there are lights as well as shadows to the picture. Now and then a man in authority rose to the level of his responsibility and ruled in the fear of God, and the nation, as nations commonly do, catching inspiration from their leader, entered upon an era of prosperity. Notable among these faithful few was Hezekiah, King of Judah.
1. Hezekiah did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. His theory of government was a simple one; to make it as far as possible a transcript of the Divine government. Statesmanship, in his conception of it, was no familiarity with human precedents, a mastery of the wiles and contrivances by which men in power manage to make all events subserve their purpose, a skilful sword-play in which some trick of fence is more highly esteemed than truth and righteousness. With that one purpose sovereign and constant, all details of administration grouped themselves about it, and in harmony with it, as the atoms of the gem aggregate themselves about the centre of crystallization, the value and lustre of the jewel, due to its unity. No government of contradictions this, whose worth was to be ascertained by averaging its failings and its merits, but an honest attempt on the part of the king to make his rule an answer to the prayer, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. It is the fatal defect in most forms of government that this overrule of God is ignored. Men are dull scholars, slow to learn that to do right is to do well, in public affairs as well as in private conduct. To do that which is fight in the sight of the Lord is the fundamental and unalterable principle in all policies of government that vindicate themselves in history. Treasuries and armies and the intrigues of cabinets may win temporary successes; but they are short-lived.
2. Hezekiah trusted in the Lord God of Israel. That gave him confidence and made him uncompromising in all his measures. He was no cautious strategist, trying experiments, uncertain of their issue, advancing so slowly that there would be opportunity to retrace his steps if the event seemed likely to disappoint his expectation a He did not trust in his own shrewdness and far-sightedness. He was not anxious about the signs of the times, a calculator of popular weather probabilities. No one more well aware than he of the unreliability of the tone and temper of public moods. He trusted in God, the eternal and the unchanging, a personal God, the Lord God of Israel, doing His pleasure in the armies of heaven and among the children of men. So he had no responsibility except for duty; consequences were in higher and wiser hands than his. Like a soldier under command, he had only to obey orders. And withal he had a serene and satisfying assurance that he should be contented with last results. The Divine wishes could not be thwarted, and whatever pleased God would please him. When the first Napoleon came to the throne, and saw how unbelief was destroying both the faith and the conscience of the French nation, he said to his advisers, If there is no God, we must create one. No man can prosperously direct the affairs of a great people without personal faith in God. There are crises in affairs when he loses heart and hope unless he endures as seeing Him who is invisible. There are hours when the policy of strict righteousness threatens immediate disaster, and the temptation to slight concessions for large apparent good is strong, and how can king or president resist it unless they are able to look up through the obscurity and confidently say, Clouds and darkness are round about Him, but judgment and justice are the habitation of His throne? Religion is too often depreciated as the superstition of the cloister and the Church, but all history shows that it has been the most practical and powerful force in the administration of government.
3. Hezekiah clave to the Lord and departed not from following Him. This religious faith was something more than an intellectual assent to certain general truths, more even than the recognition that Divine Providence is the operative factor in human history. His convictions had a personal force, and caused him to see that he ought to be, and led him to endeavour to be, himself a good man. Behind all the righteous measures he proposed, there was the weight and push of a righteous character. It was not enough that the service due to God had mention in public documents and on state occasions; he himself must render that service in his private capacity. The people must see, in his individual behaviour, the recognition of the sovereignty of those principles that were embedded in the statutes, and gave shape and colour to the national policy. Other things being equal, the better the character of king and governor and legislator, the stronger the presumption that their administration of affairs will be judicious, sound, and strong. The man who governs himself rightly has taken the first step towards knowing how to govern others for their good.
4. And the Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went. This is the brief but significant summing up of the history of Hezekiahs reign. The account is notable for its omissions. There is no record of new territory added to the kingdom, of armies organised, of treasuries filled, of advance in industrial enterprise and business prosperity, the specifications that figure so largely in the common description of national growth. In the thought of the inspired writer, the enumeration of items like these was of small importance in comparison with the great overshadowing fact that the Divine presence was visible, and the Divine favour evident, in the whole course of the peoples history. That of itself was sufficient to ensure success and renown. Since God was for them, who or what could be against them? (Monday Club Sermons.)
Hezekiahs good reign
Heredity is fickle, or wicked Ahaz would not have had a son like Hezekiah. The piety of the father does not necessarily involve the godliness of the son, nor does the iniquity of the parent make virtue impossible in his posterity. Judah had no worse king than Ahaz, and no better than Hezekiah. There are surprises of goodness in bad families, and of wickedness in families which bear an honoured name. There is also a sweet word of hope for the offspring of bad people. Hezekiah and Josiah were sons of such evil monsters as Ahaz and Amon. The surroundings and character of Hezekiah supply useful lessons.
I. An evil environment. Hezekiahs life boldly challenged and denied the supremacy of circumstances, and emphasised the truth that real manhood rules circumstances, and is not ruled by them.
1. Evil in the home. Ahaz contributed in the fullest measure possible, both by precept and example, to the moral ruin of his family. Every form of heathenism he found in the land he strenuously supported, and introduced new varieties of sin from other lands. There is not a single virtuous thing recorded of him during his whole life. The kindest thing he ever did was to die, and even that service was performed involuntarily.
2. A corrupt nation. Evil was popular. The flowing tide of public sentiment was with Ahaz, idolatry, and vice. The nation had lost its conscience. The last restraints of decency and custom had been removed. There was not an institution in all the land for the protection of youth,, and the young prince, and any other virtuous youth, might say with literal truth, No man careth for my soul.
II. A splendid character. Untoward circumstances develop brave men. Battles and storms make heroes possible.
1. Unwavering decision. In the first month of the first year of his reign, he set about the work of reform (2Ch 29:3). He was only twenty-five years of age. But his youth had been wisely spent, and when opportunity of great usefulness came, he was ready.
2. Religious enthusiasm. He restored the purity and dignity of Divine worship (verses 4-6). He went back to first principles; he dug down to the only sure foundation of national strength. No nation can be strong whose temple doors are closed.
3. Widespread success. His achievements were so great and complete, that he eclipsed all the kings who preceded and succeeded him (verse 5). His trust was in the Lord (verse 5), and his faith was honoured of God (verses 7, 8). Truly character is above circumstances, and the history of this Jewish prince is a lesson of hope for the young people of to-day. (R. W. Keighley.)
A just ruler a type of God
John Ruskin, in Stones of Venice, calls attention to the pleasing fact that in the year 813 the Doge of Venice devoted himself to putting up two great buildings–St. Marks, for the worship of God, and a palace for the administration of justice to man. Have you ever realised how much God has honoured law in the fact that all up and down the Bible He makes the Judge a type of Himself, and employs the scene of a court-room to set forth the grandeurs of the great judgment day? Book of Genesis: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Book of Deuteronomy: The Lord shall judge His people. Book of Psalms: God is Judge Himself. Book of the Acts: Judge of quick and dead. Book of Timothy: The Lord the righteous Judge. Never will it be understood how God honours judges and court-rooms until the thunderbolt of the last day shall sound the opening of the great assize–the day of trial, the day of clearance, the day of doom, the day of judgment. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
The spiritual scores successes
Remember that flesh dies and spirit lives: in the long run, it is the spiritual that is mighty. Think of that insignificant-looking little black-eyed Jew clanking his chains in Rome, and writing to the saints that are in Ephesus. Think of Athanasius calmly facing the Arian rabble. Think of Leo the Great consolidating a spiritual empire when the old Roman civilisation was shattered and failing in ruins. Think of Augustine writing the City of God in 410 when the world was thrilled with dismay because Rome had been stormed by Alaric the Goth. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. To be spiritual is to be already victorious.
The religious-the greatest of reforms
In his History of the Eighteenth Century, Mr. Lecky said: Although the career of the elder Pitt and the splendid victories by land and sea that were won during his ministry formed unquestionably the most dazzling episodes in the reign of George II., they must yield in real importance to that religious revolution which shortly before had begun in England by the preaching of the Wesleys and Whitefield. Methodism was the least result of Wesleys efforts, for, as Green the historian had said, the noblest result of the religious revival was the steady attempt which had never ceased from that day to this to remedy the guilt, the ignorance, the physical suffering, and the social degradations of the profligate and the poor. Wesley preached and taught in his class-meetings and in his journals the true application of the great saying of burke, that whatever is morally wrong can never be politically right.–
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XVIII
Hezekiah begins to reign; he removes the high places, breaks to
pieces the brazen serpent, and walks uprightly before God, 1-6.
He endeavours to shake off the Assyrian yoke, and defeats the
Philistines, 7, 8.
Shalmaneser comes up against Samaria, takes it, and carries the
people away into captivity, 9-12.
And then comes against Judah, and takes all the fenced cities,
13.
Hezekiah sends a message to him at Lachish to desist, with the
promise that he will pay him any tribute he chooses to impose;
in consequence of which Shalmaneser exacts three hundred
talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold; to pay which
Hezekiah is obliged to take all his own treasures, and those
belonging to the temple, 14-16.
The king of Assyria sends, notwithstanding, a great host against
Jerusalem; and his general, Rab-shakeh, delivers an insulting
and blasphemous message to Hezekiah, 17-35.
Hezekiah and his people are greatly afflicted at the words of
Rab-shakeh, 36, 37.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVIII
Verse 1. Now – in the third year of Hoshea] See the note on 2Kg 16:1, where this chronology is considered.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the third year; in the third of those nine years mentioned 2Ki 17:1, of which see there. See 2Ki 18:10.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1, 2. Hezekiah . . . began to reign.Twenty and five years oldAccording to this statement (compare2Ki 16:2), he must have beenborn when his father Ahaz was no more than eleven years old.Paternity at an age so early is not unprecedented in the warmclimates of the south, where the human frame is matured sooner thanin our northern regions. But the case admits of solution in adifferent way. It was customary for the later kings of Israel toassume their son and heir into partnership in the government duringtheir lives; and as Hezekiah began to reign in the third year ofHoshea (2Ki 18:1), and Hosheain the twelfth year of Ahaz (2Ki17:1), it is evident that Hezekiah began to reign in thefourteenth year of Ahaz his father, and so reigned two or three yearsbefore his father’s death. So that, at the beginning of his reign inconjunction with his father, he might be only twenty-two ortwenty-three, and Ahaz a few years older than the common calculationmakes him. Or the case may be solved thus: As the ancient writers, inthe computation of time, take notice of the year they mention,whether finished or newly begun, so Ahaz might be near twenty-oneyears old at the beginning of his reign, and near seventeen yearsolder at his death; while, on the other hand, Hezekiah, when he beganto reign, might be just entering into his twenty-fifth year, and soAhaz would be near fourteen years old when his son Hezekiah wasbornno uncommon age for a young man to become a father in southernlatitudes [PATRICK].
2Ki18:4-37. HE DESTROYSIDOLATRY.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel,…. That is, in the third year of his rebelling against the king of Assyria, when he shook off his yoke, and refused to be tributary to him any longer, see 2Ki 17:1,
[that] Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign; having finished the account of the kingdom of Israel, and the captivity of the people, the historian returns to the kingdom of Judah, and the things of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2Ki 18:1-2 Length and character of Hezekiah’s reign.
(Note: On comparing the account of Hezekiah ‘ s reign given in our books (2 Kings 18-20) with that in 2 Chron 29-32, the different plans of these two historical works are at once apparent. The prophetic author of our books first of all describes quite briefly the character of the king ‘ s reign (2Ki 18:1-8), and then gives an elaborate description of the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib and of his attempt to get Jerusalem into his power, together with the destruction of the proud Assyrian force and Sennacherib ‘ s hasty return to Nineveh and death (2Ki 18:13-19, 2Ki 18:37); and finally, he also gives a circumstantial account of Hezekiah ‘ s illness and recovery, and also of the arrival of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem, and of Hezekiah ‘ s conduct on that occasion (2 Kings 20). The chronicler, on the other hand, has fixed his chief attention upon the religious reformation carried out by Hezekiah, and therefore first of all describes most elaborately the purification of the temple from all idolatrous abominations, the restoration of the Jehovah-cultus and the feast of passover, to which Hezekiah invited all the people, not only the subjects of his own kingdom, but the remnant of the ten tribes also (2 Chron 29-31); and then simply gives in 2 Kings 32 the most summary account of the attack made by Sennacherib upon Jerusalem and the destruction of his army, of the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah, and of his great riches, the Babylonian embassy being touched upon in only the most casual manner. The historical character of the elaborate accounts given in the Chronicles of Hezekiah ‘ s reform of worship and his celebration of the passover, which Thenius follows De Wette and Gramberg in throwing doubt upon, has been most successfully defended by Bertheau as well as others. – On the disputed question, in what year of Hezekiah ‘ s reign the solemn passover instituted by him fell, see the thorough discussion of it by C. P. Caspari ( Beitrr. z. Einleit. in d. B. Jesaia, pp. 109ff.), and our Commentary on the Chronicles, which has yet to appear.)
2Ki 18:1, 2Ki 18:2. In the third year of Hoshea of Israel, Hezekiah became king over Judah, when he was twenty-five years old. According to 2Ki 18:9, 2Ki 18:10, the fourth and sixth years of Hezekiah corresponded to the seventh and ninth of Hoshea; consequently his first year apparently ran parallel to the fourth of Hoshea, so that Josephus ( Ant. ix. 13, 1) represents him as having ascended the throne in the fourth year of Hoshea’s reign. But there is no necessity for this alteration. If we assume that the commencement of his reign took place towards the close of the third year of Hoshea, the fourth and sixth years of his reign coincided for the most part with the sixth and ninth years of Hoshea’s reign. The name or (2Ki 18:9, 2Ki 18:13, etc.) is given in its complete form , “whom Jehovah strengthens,” in 2 Chr. 29ff. and Isa 1:1; and in Hos 1:1 and Mic 1:1. On his age when he ascended the throne, see the Comm. on 2Ki 16:2. The name of his mother, , is a strongly contracted form of (2Ch 29:1).
2Ki 18:3-4 As ruler Hezekiah walked in the footsteps of his ancestor David. He removed the high places and the other objects of idolatrous worship, trusted in Jehovah, and adhered firmly to Him without wavering; therefore the Lord made all his undertakings prosper. , , and (see at 1Ki 14:23) embrace all the objects of idolatrous worship, which had been introduced into Jerusalem and Judah in the reigns of the former kings, and more especially in that of Ahaz. The singular is used in a collective sense = (2Ch 31:1). The only other idol that is specially mentioned is the brazen serpent which Moses made in the wilderness (Num 21:8-9), and which the people with their leaning to idolatry had turned in the course of time into an object of idolatrous worship. The words, “to this day were the children of Israel burning incense to it,” do not mean that this took place without interruption from the time of Moses down to that of Hezekiah, but simply, that it occurred at intervals, and that the idolatry carried on with this idol lasted till the time of Hezekiah, namely, till this king broke in pieces the brazen serpent, because of the idolatry that was associated with it. For further remarks on the meaning of this symbol, see the Comm. on Num 21:8-9. The people called ( , one called) this serpent , i.e., a brazen thing. This epithet does not involve anything contemptuous, as the earlier commentators supposed, nor the idea of “Brass-god” (Ewald).
2Ki 18:5 The verdict, “after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah,” refers to Hezekiah’s confidence in God ( ), in which he had no equal, whereas in the case of Josiah his conscientious adherence to the Mosaic law is extolled in the same words (2Ki 23:25); so that there is no ground for saying that there is a contradiction between our verse and 2Ki 23:25 (Thenius).
2Ki 18:6
: he adhered faithfully to Jehovah ( as in 1Ki 11:2), and departed not from Him, i.e., he never gave himself up to idolatry.
2Ki 18:8 Hezekiah smote the Philistines to Gaza, and their territory from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city, i.e., all the towns from the least to the greatest (see at 2Ki 17:9). He thus chastised these enemies for their invasion of Judah in the time of Ahaz, wrested from them the cities which they had taken at that time (2Ch 28:18), and laid waste all their country to Gaza, i.e., Ghuzzeh, the most southerly of the chief cities of Philistia (see at Jos 13:3). This probably took place after the defeat of Sennacherib (cf. 2Ch 32:22-23).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Hezekiah’s Good Reign. | B. C. 726. |
1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that David his father did. 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. 5 He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6 For he clave to the LORD, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses. 7 And the LORD was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth: and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not. 8 He smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
We have here a general account of the reign of Hezekiah. It appears, by comparing his age with his father’s, that he was born when his father was about eleven or twelve years old, divine Providence so ordering that he might be of full age, and fit for business, when the measure of his father’s iniquity should be full. Here is,
I. His great piety, which was the more wonderful because his father was very wicked and vile, one of the worst of the kings, yet he was one of the best, which may intimate to us that what good there is in any is not of nature, but of grace, free grace, sovereign grace, which, contrary to nature, grafts into the good olive that which was wild by nature (Rom. xi. 24), and also that grace gets over the greatest difficulties and disadvantages: Ahaz, it is likely, gave his son a bad education as well as a bad example; Urijah his priest perhaps had the tuition of him; his attendants and companions, we may suppose, were such as were addicted to idolatry; and yet Hezekiah became eminently good. When God’s grace will work what can hinder it?
1. He was a genuine son of David, who had a great many degenerate ones (v. 3): He did that which was right, according to all that David his father did, with whom the covenant was made, and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of it. We have read of some of them who did that which was right, but not like David, ch. xiv. 3. They did not love God’s ordinances, nor cleave to them, as he did; but Hezekiah was a second David, had such a love for God’s word, and God’s house, as he had. Let us not be frightened with an apprehension of the continual decay of virtue, as if, when times and men are bad, they must needs, of course, grow worse and worse; that does not follow, for, after many bad kings, God raised up one that was like David himself.
2. He was a zealous reformer of his kingdom, and as we find (2 Chron. xxix. 3) he began betimes to be so, fell to work as soon as ever he came to the crown, and lost no time. He found his kingdom very corrupt, the people in all things too superstitious. They had always been so, but in the last reign worse than ever. By the influence of his wicked father, a deluge of idolatry had overspread the land; his spirit was stirred against this idolatry, we may suppose (as Paul’s at Athens), while his father lived, and therefore, as soon as ever he had power in his hands, he set himself to abolish it (v. 4), though, considering how the people were wedded to it, he might think it could not be done without opposition. (1.) The images and the groves were downright idolatrous and of heathenish original. These he broke and destroyed. Though his own father had set them up, and shown an affection for them, yet he would not protect them. We must never dishonour God in honour to our earthly parents. (2.) The high places, though they had sometimes been used by the prophets upon special occasions and had been hitherto connived at by the good kings, were nevertheless an affront to the temple and a breach of the law which required them to worship there only, and, being from under the inspection of the priests, gave opportunity for the introducing of idolatrous usages. Hezekiah therefore, who made God’s word his rule, not the example of his predecessors, removed them, made a law for the removal of them, the demolishing of the chapels, tabernacles, and altars there erected, and the suppressing of the use of them, which law was put in execution with vigour; and, it is probable, the terrible judgments which the kingdom of Israel was now under for their idolatry made Hezekiah the more zealous and the people the more willing to comply with him. It is well when our neighbours’ harms are our warnings. (3.) The brazen serpent was originally of divine institution, and yet, because it had been abused to idolatry, he broke it to pieces. The children of Israel had brought that with them to Canaan; where they set it up we are not told, but, it seems, it had been carefully preserved, as a memorial of God’s goodness to their fathers in the wilderness and a traditional evidence of the truth of that story, Num. xxi. 9, for the encouragement of the sick to apply to God for a cure and of penitent sinners to apply to him for mercy. But in process of time, when they began to worship the creature more than the Creator, those that would not worship images borrowed from the heathen, as some of their neighbours did, were drawn in by the tempter to burn incense to the brazen serpent, because that was made by order from God himself and had been an instrument of good to them. But Hezekiah, in his pious zeal for God’s honour, not only forbade the people to worship it, but, that it might never be so abused any more, he showed the people that it was Nehushtan, nothing else but a piece of brass, and that therefore it was an idle wicked thing to burn incense to it; he then broke it to pieces, that is, as bishop Patrick expounds it, ground it to powder, which he scattered in the air, that no fragment of it might remain. If any think that the just honour of the brazen serpent was hereby diminished they will find it abundantly made up again, John iii. 14, where our Saviour makes it a type of himself. Good things, when idolized, are better parted with than kept.
3. Herein he was a nonesuch, v. 5. None of all the kings of Judah were like him, either before or after him. Two things he was eminent for in his reformation:– (1.) Courage and confidence in God. In abolishing idolatry, there was danger of disobliging his subjects, and provoking them to rebel; but he trusted in the Lord God of Israel to bear him out in what he did and save him from harm. A firm belief of God’s all-sufficiency to protect and reward us will conduce much to make us sincere, bold, and vigorous, in the way of our duty, like Hezekiah. When he came to the crown he found his kingdom compassed with enemies, but he did not seek for succour to foreign aids, as his father did, but trusted in the God of Israel to be the keeper of Israel. (2.) Constancy and perseverance in his duty. For this there was none like him, that he clave to the Lord with a fixed resolution and never departed from following him, v. 6. Some of his predecessors that began well fell off: but he, like Caleb, followed the Lord fully. He not only abolished all idolatrous usages, but kept God’s commandments, and in every thing made conscience of his duty.
II. His great prosperity, 2Ki 18:7; 2Ki 18:8. He was with God, and then God was with him, and, having the special presence of God with him, he prospered whithersoever he went, had wonderful success in all his enterprises, in his wars, his buildings, and especially his reformation, for that good work was carried on with less difficulty than he could have expected. Those that do God’s work with an eye to his glory, and with confidence in his strength, may expect to prosper in it. Great is the truth and will prevail. Finding himself successful, 1. He threw off the yoke of the king of Assyria, which his father had basely submitted to. This is called rebelling against him, because so the king of Assyria called it; but it was really an asserting of the just rights of his crown, which it was not in the power of Ahaz to alienate. If it was imprudent to make this bold struggle so soon, yet I see not that it was, as some think, unjust; when he had thrown out the idolatry of the nations he might well throw off the yoke of their oppression. The surest way to liberty is to serve God. 2. He made a vigorous attack upon the Philistines, and smote them even unto Gaza, both the country villages and the fortified town, the tower of the watchmen and the fenced cities, reducing those places which they had made themselves masters of in his father’s time, 2 Chron. xxviii. 18. When he had purged out the corruptions his father had brought in he might expect to recover the possessions his father had lost. Of his victories over the Philistines Isaiah prophesied, Isa. xiv. 28, &c.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 18 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 29
Hezekiah Reigns in Judah Commentary on 2Ki 18:1-8 AND 2Ch 29:1-2
Hezekiah is a refreshing spring in a hot desert of wickedness, after a succession of dry wadis. Evil men in rapid order brought the history of the northern kingdom to its end, and Hezekiah himself was the son of the most wicked man ever to sit on Judah’s throne to that time. One might be warranted in some speculation as to why Judah wound up with a God-fearing king after the evil Ahaz. It has already been seen that God evidently removed Ahaz from the scene at a young age. This brought to the throne a young man, Hezekiah, who had received godly training from someone. His mother seems to be a likely source. She is called the daughter of Zechariah, which might mean she was a descendant of that man. This leads to the speculation that her foreparent was the godly counsellor of Hezekiah’s great grandfather, Uzziah (2Ch 26:5).
A most commendable thing is said of Hezekiah, that he did right in the Lord’s sight, as had his great forefather, David. He trusted in the Lord, so that there was no king of Judah like him before or after his time. David and Solomon were, of course, kings. of the united tribes and are not included. There had been godly kings of Judah, as Asa, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, and Jotham, but Hezekiah excelled. When in later years Josiah reigns over Judah a very similar thing will be said of him, and this statement will need to be evaluated further then (2Ki 23:25).
Hezekiah eradicted the land of its long-standing high places, broke the idol images, cleared the prostitutes’ groves. He even destroyed the old brazen serpent’ which had been kept through the centuries. He called it Nehushtan, a mere “piece of brass,” for the people had enshrined it and were burning incense before it. This reminds one of the multiplicity of shrines to men and women today, and of sites where some spectacular event occurred. It is possible to allow such things to get far out of hand, when people give reverence to them.
Hezekiah clung to the Lord, did not forsake His commandments. The Lord blessed him and made Hezekiah aware of His presence and strength with him. In this divine assurance Hezekiah broke the shameful alliance which Ahaz his father had formulated with the wicked kings of Assyria and refused to pay the tribute any longer. To strengthen himself and Judah further Hezekiah fought against the Philistines and got them aligned again. All the Philistine coastland from the watchtower all the way to Gaza were subjugated.
2Ch 29:3-11
Hezekiah Issues a Challenge – 2Ch 29:3-11
A prime mark of the godliness of the new king Hezekiah, is the fact that he opened up the doors of the temple, which had been closed by his father, Ahaz (2Ch 28:24), in the very first year, the first month, of his reign. These he had repaired and convened the priests and Levites in the street east of the temple, or in front of it. The closed temple had left these people without a task to perform, and to appearances they were not greatly concerned about it. In addressing them the king called on them to sanctify themselves to return to the service, then proceed to the sanctification of the temple itself, cleansing it of the filthiness which it had accumulated under the misrule of Ahaz.
From this Hezekiah continued to a confession of the sins of the fathers. They had trespassed against the Lord and done evil in His eyes. They had forsaken him and turned from the temple and its worship. Their utter lack of concern was demonstrated in their allowing the closing of the doors of the temple. The lights on the lampstand had gone out, the incense had been discontinued on the altar of incense in the holy place, and the burnt offerings were no longer carried out in accordance with the Levitical statutes.
For these things, the wrath of God had fallen on Judah and Jerusalem. They had suffered calamities by their enemies; those who once had seen the mighty power of the Lord on Israel’s behalf were astonished at the change in their affairs. They had become a hissing, or an object of mockery and ridicule, which Israel could see with their own eyes. Still worse the people had suffered. Their men had fallen to the sword from the time of their fathers, as witness the loss of the 120,000 in the war with Syria and Israel. At the same time the women, their sons and their daughters had, many of them, been carried away into captivity. It was not hard to see that God’s hand was upon them in judgment.
The priests and the Levites had to assume a great deal of the blame, for they had been negligent in their example and teaching of the people and seemingly content to have the house of the Lord closed. That had been a negative example to the people (Isa 24:2). So Hezekiah proposes to renew the covenant of Israel with the Lord. He says it is in his heart, meaning that it is a sincere desire, doubtless inspired by his devotion to the Lord. He calls on these spiritual leaders to get out of their lethargy and negligence and to fulfill their responsibility as given them by the Lord Himself, to renew their ministry in the temple and burn the incense daily again, as it once was.
2Ch 29:12-19
Temple Cleansed – 2Ch 29:12-19
The Levites responded to the king’s challenge at once and set about to cleanse themselves. None of those named are otherwise notable in the Scriptures, but each of the major Levitical families are named, implying unanimous approval of the covenant renewal. These were the three chief families of the tribe of Levi; Kohath, Merari, and Gershon. Also represented in the effort were the families of the musicians and singers, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun. These sanctified themselves and presented themselves at the temple to assist the priests in disposal of the filth and trash from the sanctuary.
The priests went into the sacrosanct areas of the temple where they alone were permitted to go and began the clean-up there. This they brought out to the court where the Levites could take it and dump it into the brook Kidron. This cleansing of the inner sanctuary of the temple was begun by the priests on the first day of the month and was completed from the holy of holies out to the porch in a period of a week, that task being completed on the eighth day. By the sixteenth day of the month the job of cleansing the Lord’s house was done. They reported to Hezekiah the cleansing of the house, the altar and its vessels, and the shewbred table and its vessels. All the vessels which wicked King Ahaz had discarded in his pagan worship were restored and sanctified and put in their place before the altar.
The Lord cannot be worshipped acceptably when there is fifth in His house, and a cleansed house necessitates the cleansing of the heart and life. The New Testament contains many admonitions to believers to cleanse their temples (1Co 3:16). Only thus can they be acceptable in His service (see Jas 4:8).
2Ch 29:20-36
Temple Re-consecrated – 2Ch 29:20-36
That Hezekiah rose early means that he began promptly and without delay the task of calling the pepple of Judah to renewal of the covenant of the Lord. He gathered the rulers of Jerusalem to the temple. These brought seven each of all clean animals, bullocks, rams, lambs, and he-goats, for sin offering for the kingdom (king’s house), sanctuary (temple), and Judah (people). The priests were commanded to officiate in the offering of these animals, and they proceeded to kill them. They began with the bullocks which they killed, and sprinkled the blood on the altar. The same was done with the rams and the lambs. Then the goats were brought finally, and in the presence of the congregation the priests killed them, after the king and the people laid their hands on them, this signifying their offering of the animals as the substitute for their sins. Burnt offerings and sin offerings were made for all Israel.
The Levites bearing the musical instruments and singing sounded their instruments just as the ceremony had been established centuries before under the guidance of David the king, Gad his seer, and Nathan the prophet, and just as God’s prophets had preached they should be doing during their apostasy under Ahaz. As the burnt offering was being made and the music was playing the people worshipped. The singers sang the psalms of David and Asaph and the trumpeters sounded on their instruments. It was a very beautiful and joyous sound and the beginning of a great spiritual revival in Judah. The people were glad to sing and humbly bowed themselves in worship of the Lord whose temple had been neglected for so long.
Now that the people had also consecrated themselves, King Hezekiah invited them to come and bring their own sacrifices of burnt offerings and offerings of thanksgiving. Thus many of them did so, all of a free, willing, and glad heart. Seventy bullocks, a hundred rams, and two hundred lambs were brought for burnt offerings for the congregation. Also six hundred oxen and three thousand sheep were consecrated for sacrifice during the time. Some of the priests had been slow in sanctifying themselves so that there were too few of them prepared to skin all these many animals. Therefore the Levites who had been more diligent pitched in and helped with the preparation of the carcases until all the priests were sanctified. There were many burnt offerings to make and much fat of the peace offerings to burn, with the drink offerings that accompanied them. But the service of the Lord’s house was once more set in order. The king and the people rejoiced together, for God’s hand was recognized in so preparing the people. It was “done suddenly,” or spontaneously, by the people, without coercion. God’s people honor Him most by offering themselves out of willing hearts (2Co 8:1-5).
Some lessons: 1) Bad men’s sons do not have to be bad, too, for they may be very good; 2) reverence for heroes and events may rob God of His rightful worship; 3) to get right with God one must begin by confessing his sins and admitting his just chastisement; 4) when re-consecration is determined on one should be diligent to accomplish it; 5) great Christian joy comes with rededication of one’s life and service to Christ.
2Ch 30:1-12
Second Chronicles – Chapter 30
(Note: The things being studied now are found only in Chronicles, but they come chronologically here [in the Hardbound Commentary 1st Edition, under 2Kings comments] in the context of the Kings record. -Author)
Passover Preparations – Verses 1-12
With the renewal of the covenant came the reinstitution of the feasts which were required by the law of Moses. The very first feast of the year was the Passover (see Lev 23:4-8; Exo 12:1-11; Exo 23:14-17). But the cleansing of priests, Levites, and the temple had only begun in the first month, and the date of the Passover had passed. Hezekiah then consulted with the princes of Judah, his counselors, and with the people, and they agreed it should be kept at the same date in the second month.
They cited two reasons why it could not be observed at the usual time; 1) the sanctification had not been completed; 2) the people had not been gathered to Jerusalem for it.
There was a provision for observance of the Passover in the second month instead of the first (Num 9:10-11). So it was decreed, and a proclamation was published to be sent throughout all the land of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, thus including the northern tribes who had suffered so terribly from the depredations of the Assyrians. Hoshea, the last king of Israel, yet occupied the throne of the northern kingdom. .
It was about two years before the siege of Samaria by Tiglathpileser began and some five years before the city’s fall. This call to the Passover in Jerusalem may have been the Lord’s last call to them to turn again in his worship. (Isa 55:6-7).
It had been a long time since the nation had observed the Passover. The king’s letters of invitation were sent out by post throughout the tribes north and south. Its message called on the people to turn back to the God of tile patriarchs that He might restore His blessings on the remnant who had escaped from the enemy’s sword and from famine.
They were to forsake the stiffnecked way of their fathers which brought down the wrath of God and yield themselves to Him. They who had long served the gods of the high places and groves were implored to come back to the Lord’s sanctuary which represented His everlasting presence.
If the people of the northern tribes would return to the Lord He might be compassionate on them and save them out of the hand of the Assyrians. Their children might be allowed to escape the captivity and even be allowed to return to their homeland. If they did not respond favorably His face would be turned away from them and they would not receive His grace and mercy, which He reserved for those who called on Him.
So the king’s posts traversed the land, from north to south through the cities, inviting the people to attend the Passover in Jerusalem in the second month. They went into the northern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh and on into Zebulun. Most of the people ridiculed them, laughing and mocking. But some of them had second thoughts and prepared themselves to go to Jerusalem and join the celebration. They came out of the tribes of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun. The people of Judah also responded with one heart to do what the king had commanded by the word of the Lord (cf. Mat 21:28-31).
2Ch 30:13-27
Passover kept – Verses 13-27
The Scriptures say “much people” gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of unleavened bread, which followed immediately after Passover. Though the priests and Levites had, most of them, sanctified themselves, and the sanctuary had been cleansed, there were still vestiges of idolatry throughout the city. These people went through Jerusalem and tore down the altars of incense erected in every street (2Ch 28:24), and cast them into the brook Kidron.
Thus they prepared to observe the Passover, which was killed on the evening of the fourteenth day of the second month, just a month from the time it was ordinarily observed.
So diligent were the people to sanctify themselves and keep the Passover the priests and Levites were made ashamed of their own delay and indifference to prepare themselves for the feast. So they sanctified themselves and stood in their places to offer the burnt offerings and to sprinkle the blood of their lambs. The Levites took the blood and brought it to the priests, who applied it as the law stipulated in the keeping the Passover.
Some of those who attended at the last had come without sanctifying themselves, but they were allowed to eat the Passover anyway.
The Levites prepared their lambs for them. They seem to be some of the people who earlier had laughed and mocked at the king’s postmen, but in the end had changes of heart and came to the feast at Jerusalem, though not sanctified. they were out of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun. Hezekiah, himself prayed for them, “The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary.” The Lord heard the king’s prayer, and healed the uncleanness of the people. This indicates the real motive of true worship, for God looks for clean hearts rather than clean bodies (Act 10:35; 1Sa 16:7).
The feast proceeded for its full seven days, the people demonstrating great gladness. At the end they wanted to continue, so the king consulted with the princes and the assembly and proclaimed an additional seven days.
It continued with unabated gladness and joy. Hezekiah spoke comforting words to the hard-working Levites, and they taught the people the word of God, as they were intended to do in their office. The people feasted and made their peace offerings, and confessed their sins and the sins of their fathers. The Lord’s praises were sung and taught throughout the time.
The well-to-do contributed to the feast Hezekiah himself contributed a thousand bullocks and seven thousand sheep. The princes also contributed a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep. Many of the priests were sanctified, dedicated again to the Lord’s service.
People of Judah, people of Israel, and strangers out of both kingdoms joined gladly in the feast. It was the most spectacular and successful keeping of the Passover and feast since the days of David and Solomon. The priests and Levites rose up and blessed the people, and their voice and their prayers came up to god’s holy dwelling place, to heaven.
Some lessons: 1) those who have the gospel should urge others to accept it too; 2) though the lost may mock and scoff some will be convicted and accept the Lord after all; 3) zeal on the part of some will cause others to be more concerned for the Lord also; 4) real revival is not a quick flash and soon gone, but it evinces real and lasting joy and gladness in the revived.
2Ch 31:1-10
Second Chronicles – Chapter 31
More Reformation-Verses 1-10
When the Passover and feast of unleavened bread were past the people proved they had been truly re-dedicated to the worship of the Lord, by their deeds which followed. They went throughout the cities of Judah and Benjamin breaking down the idol images the previous generations had erected, clearing the pagan groves, destroying the high places. So zealous were they that their efforts at continued reform spilled over into the northern kingdom, and many cities and sites in the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were rid of their idolatrous shrines. The zealots did not return to their homes until all this was accomplished.
Hezekiah also took further steps to see that the revival continued. He reinstituted the priests and Levites in their courses to make the burnt offerings and peace offerings, and to praise and to give thanks to the Lord in His gates. The king restored the royal portion due the temple, by supplying again the animals for the morning and evening burnt sacrifices. He also contributed for sabbaths, new moons (first days of each month), and set feasts just as the law specified. He further required that the people of Jerusalem give of their substance the portion due to the priests of the Lord, that these ministers of the sanctuary might be encouraged in the work the Lord had given them to do.
The people responded in like manner. They brought the firstfruits of their grain, wine, oil, honey, and everything grown in their fields. It was very great abundance which they brought to the temple. There was not room enough in the storerooms of the house of God for it. Not only did they bring produce, but also such animals as sheep or cattle, for the tithe included them. The produce began to be piled up in the court, a process which continued from the third to the seventh month. The king and his princes were gratified by this willingness of the people. It was much like it was in the days in the wilderness when Israel was building the tabernacle (Exo 36:5-7).
Hezekiah and the princes came to the temple, saw the heaps the people had piled up there, and offered thanks to the Lord for it. They spoke with the priests concerning the matter and found that ever since the people began to respond, from the efforts of the Passover revival, there had been enough for the sustenance of the Levitical servants of the temple. In fact, there was all this plenteousness which remained, an evidence of the Lord’s blessing on the people which enabled them to give so magnanimously. God has always abundantly blessed those who sincerely worship Him (see Mal 3:10; Lu 6:38).
2Ch 31:11
Services and Servants-Verses 11-21
To solve the problem of the heaps of grain and other produce which the people were bringing to the temple Hezekiah commanded the building of storerooms for them. The seventh month corresponded with October of the modern calendar, and was the time when the rainy season approached. To prevent spoilage it was necessary that the tithes and offerings be stored in shelters. In later times, when a surplus was lacking, these rooms furnished an apartment for Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh 13:4-9).
Men of the Levites were appointed to have charge of these things which had been dedicated to the service of the priests and Levites. These were Levites themselves, and the two brothers, Cononiah and Shimei, were the chief overseers. Under them were ten others, all were under the commandment of king Hezekiah and the high priest Azariah. In addition to these, other Levites were appointed from among the porters. These were gatemen and guards whose duty it was to accept the things brought in by the people and deliver them to the men who would distribute to those who would consume them.
Since most of the Levites were not always at the temple it was necessary to have men in the various cities where they dwelled to receive and apportion each man’s lot. This was distributed according to the number of males in each household. All males from three years old upward were considered in the genealogy, but the distribution seems to have been determined to the courses of the Levites who actually served. These were determined from the age of twenty years and took into account wives, sons, and daughters. These included both priests and ordinary Levites, but all were expected to maintain their sanctification to participate in the holy things. (Cf. 1Ti 3:4-5; 1Ti 3:12-13).
Hezekiah’s faithfulness and righteous conduct in things commended him to the Lord, so that it is said, he”wrought that which was good and right before the Lord his God.” In everything he did he sought to do according to the law of God with all his heart “and prospered.”
Note these points of importance: 1) Real revival may have a far reaching effect; 2) a God fearing ruler can be one of the very best things possible in the nation; 3) it is well proven that those who give themselves for the Lord will enjoy increased blessings; 4) God expects His people to be good stewards of those things with which He has blessed them; 5)clean lives are necessary in properly serving the Lord.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH THE GOOD
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 18:1. Hezekiah the son of Ahaz began to reignSee Note on chap. 2Ki. 16:2 as to the age of Ahaz.
2Ki. 18:4. He removed the high places, and brake the imagesHis sweeping reformation, by which the land was purged of idols, and the true religion of Jehovah re-established, is more fully depicted in 2 Chronicles 29. The brazen serpent that Moses had madeFor even that symbol of salvation by faith had become prostituted to idolatrous purposes, just as the symbol of the cross of Christ has become abused in degenerate Christendom. He called it NehushtanA thing of brass, or the so-called brass god (Ewald).
2Ki. 18:7. He rebelled against the king of AssyriaEmancipated Judah from the hateful yoke. At this time Shalmanezer was engaged in war with Tyre; and Hezekiah, acting out his noble faith in Jehovah as his nations Supreme King, threw off heathenish opp ession, and placed himself and people under the Theocracy again. 2Ki. 18:9-12. Record of Israels deportation by ShalmanezerInterposed in the story to mark the date of its occurrence in Hezekiahs reign. So that while this good king was restoring Judah to alliance with Jehovah, and recovering the independency of the kingdom, the debasing kingdom of Israel was falling into ruins.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 18:1-12
A RESOLUTE RELIGIOUS REFORMER
I. Is characterised by the possession of a profound and genuine personal piety (2Ki. 18:5-6). The great movements that have blessed the world sprung from the religious spirit. Hezekiahs piety was the actuating force in his reforming work. He trusted in, he clave to, the Lord: these words reveal the secret of his inspiration and power. We trace the beginning of his religious life to a similar source where many a great and good man received his best and most lasting impressionsthe potent influence of a mothers teaching. It is suggestively stated in the textHis mothers name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah (2Ki. 18:2): on which Wordsworth remarksThe names of the mothers of all the later kings of Judah are mentioned in holy scripture, intimating the importance of a mothers influence, especially in evil days. It needs a brave heart and vigorous hand to attack and reform abuses that have become chronic and popular, and only the man who is sustained by the most intense religious convictions will attempt it.
II. Is fearless and unhesitating in destroying all popular symbols of idolatry (2Ki. 18:4). As soon as the king began his reforming work he found there was plenty to do. His kingdom was studded with heathen shrines and idolatrous images. Among the rest was the brazen serpent of Moses, which would acquire a mysterious sanctity because of its antiquity and associations, and would readily be made an object of worship by a people so habituated to idolatry. To the practical eyes of the reformer this object of reverence was but a piece of brass, and he did not hesitate to snap it in pieces. It might seem sacrilege to break up such a relic, but it was idolatry to preserve it; it must share the same fate as the rest. The earnest reformer has a sharp definition in his own mind of what is essential and non-essential, and he makes a clean sweep of whatever balks the attainment of his loved object. He deals in what to him are stern realities. He cannot tolerate shams: away with them!
III. Secures the prospering blessing of Jehovah (2Ki. 18:7-8). God honours the man who is zealous for His glory. So Hezekiah soon realized. He withheld tribute from Assyria, and asserted the freedom and independence of his kingdom. He crushed the Philistines who, encouraged by the weakness of preceding rulers, had harassed the borders of Judah. He prospered whithersoever he went forth. His kingdom was small; no larger than the triangle in the North of England defined by the towns of Stockton-on-Tees, Whitehaven, and Berwick-on-Tweedrather smaller than Yorkshire; but it had great natural resources for maintaining a considerable population. (For an interesting description of Judah in Hezekiahs day, see Geikies Hours with the Bible). How, so insignificant a territory rose to such importance and affluence under Hezekiah is explained by the recorded factThe Lord was with him.The man that works for God shall not go unblessed; and the most enriching blessing is the Divine Presence. It gives strength to weakness, grandeur to the insignificant, turns defeat into victory, and suffering into joy.
IV. Is stimulated and encouraged in his reforming work by witnessing the disastrous results of apostacy (2Ki. 18:9-12). The destruction of the kingdom of Israel was regarded as an event of such significance that the sacred writer interrupts his narrative once more to refer to it, and to reiterate the truth that disobedience was the cause of its ruin. With the example of the fate of the neighbouring kingdom before his eyes, Hezekiah would be excited to fresh zeal in carrying out his reforming work. He saw unless he rooted out idolatry, it would root him out. It is related of a celebrated British ambassador to the Court of Berlin that at one time he possessed a huge boa constrictor, and interested himself in watching its habits. One day the monster escaped from the box where he supposed it was asleep, quietly wound itself around his body, and began gradually to tighten its folds. His position became extremely perilous; but the consummate coolness and self-possession which had enabled him to win many a diplomatic triumph, befriended him in this emergency. He remembered there was a bone in the throat of the serpent which, if he could find and break, he would save himself. He was aware that either he or the snake must perish. Not a moment must be lost in hesitation. He deliberately seized the head of the serpent, thrust his hand down its throat, and smashed the vital bone. The coils were relaxed, the victim fell at his feet, and he was free! So Hezekiah saw his kingdom enswathed in the deadly coils of idolatry, and that unless he acted with promptitude and vigour, both he and his kingdom would perish as Israel had done. He attacked the vulnerable part of the evil with such resolution that he and, for a time his people, were saved.
LESSONS:
1. No man can be a reformer who has not deep religious convictions.
2. It is an important advantage when reform is championed by royalty.
3. Genuine reform arrests the progress of decay and ruin.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 18:1-3. Israel is gone. Judah is left standing; or rather, some few sprigs of those two tribes. So we have seen, in the shredding of some large timber tree, one or two boughs left at the top to hold up the sap. Who can but lament the poor remainders of that languishing kingdom of David! Yet, even now, out of the gleeds of Judah, doth God raise up a glorious light to His forlorn Church; yea, from the wretched loins of Ahaz doth God fetch a holy Hezekiah. It had been hard to conceive the state of Judah worse than it was; neither was it more miserable than sinful, and, in regard of both, desperate. When beyond hope, God revives this dying stock of David, and, out of very ruins, builds up His own house. Good Hezekiah makes amends for his fathers impiety, and puts a new life into the heartless remnant of Gods people. The wisdom of our good God knows when His aid will be most seasonable, most welcome, which He then loves to give when He finds us left of our hopes. That merciful hand is reserved for a dead lift; then He fails us not.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 18:3. The conversion of Hezekiah was not due to Isaiah, but to a less famous contemporary. It would seem that the corrupt state of morals and religion, against which the prophets of the age of Uzziah complained, continued into Hezekiahs reign. Suddenly, in the midst of an assembly, in which the king himself was present, there appeared the startling apparition, in the simplicity of his savage nakedness, of the prophet Micah. With the sharp, abrupt, piercing cry peculiar to his manner, he commanded each class to hear him. The people listened with awe to the bitter satire with which the nobles were described as preparing their cannibal feast out of the flesh and bones of the poor. They heard him denounce the unholy compact, then first begun, between the mercenary priests and the traitor prophets (Micah 3). There was a pause when he concluded. It would seem as if for a moment an indignant king and people would rise and crush the audacious seer. But Hezekiah was not a mere tool in the hands of nobles, or priests, or prophets. Micah was left unscathed. And even in the prophets own life-timeit may be almost immediately after his warningsucceeded the promise of a prosperity before unknown; when the nation should in peace be like the gentle dew, in war like the lion in forest and fold, or like a fierce bull treading down his enemies on the threshing-floor, with horns of iron and hoofs of brass. The wild dirge of Micah had been aimed against the moral evils of the nation. Of any moral reformation the chronicler tells us nothing. But the outward reformation which he describes was doubtless the expression of an inward change also.Stanley.
Hezekiah and Luthera parallel.
1. Both had a personal realization of the truth.
2. They had a high regard and love for the Divine Word.
3. They were distinguished by strong faith. Trusted in the Lord God of Israel.
4. They were men of prayer. Chap. 2Ki. 19:15-19. Isa. 37:6-20. Luther said he could not get on without spending three hours a day in prayer.
5. They had definite beliefs and convictions.
6. They had the courage of their convictions. Seen in definite and decisive action. Hezekiah attacked the idolatries of his time, and Luther the ecclesiastical corruptions of his day.
7. They enjoyed the guardian providence of God. How marvellously did God interfere in both histories.
8. They witnessed the success of their efforts. The Lord was with them and prospered them. Which of these traits of character do we possess in our sphere as reformers?J. Holmes.
Iconoclast. The first and second commandments make a full sweep of idolatry. We are not to worship any other god; we are not to worship the true God by the use of representative symbols. Our reformers acted well, and after a scriptural model, when they poured contempt upon the idols of Rome, and made a mockery of her saints, relics, images, masses, and priests. There was a deep meaning in their breaking of crosses and the burning of holy roods. Whenever we see superstition in any shape, we must not flatter the folly; but, according to our ability, act the iconoclasts part and denounce it. First, we shall apportion a share of image-breaking work to believers; and secondly, prescribe another form of this same work for seeking souls.
I. We have much idol-breaking work for Christians to do.
1. There is much idol-breaking to be done in the church of God. We are all too apt as Christians to place some degree of reliance upon men whom God, in His infinite mercy, raises up to be leaders in the Christian Church. We must get beyond men, or else we shall be very babes in grace. We are not to exalt the pipes, but the fountain head; not the windows, but the sun must we thank for light; not the basket which holds the food, or the lad who brings the loaves and fishes, must we reverence, but the Divine master who blesses and multiplies the bread, and feeds the multitude. Love the ministers of Christ, but fall not into that form of brazen serpent worship which will degrade you into the servants of men. There is too much exaltation of talent and dependence upon education, especially in reference to ministers. On the slabs of stone which mark the burial places of the early Christians in the catacombs of Rome, the inscriptions are nearly all ill-spelt, grammar is forgotten, and orthography violated; a proof that the early Christians who thus commemorated the martyred dead, were many of them uneducated persons; but, for all that, they crushed the wisdom of the sages, and smote the gods of classic lands. We are not to select our pastors simply because of their talents and acquirements; we must regard their unction, we must look at their call, and see whether the spirit of God is with them. The same may be said of human eloquence. Let the men speak wellthe truth ought to be delivered in the best of sentences; but the noblest language ever uttered by man never convinced a soul of sin, or bound up a wounded conscience, or raised a sinner from his death in sin, for oratory is but a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal if the Holy Ghost be not there.
2. Much superstition requires to be broken down in reference to a rigid adhesion to certain modes of Christian service. There is a class of persons who object to every holy project for evangelisation, however right and judicious, if it happens to be novel; and they will continue to object till the work has been long in action and has placed itself beyond fear of their opposition or need of their assistance. Fetters are none the less burdensome for being antique. Let the brazen serpent be broken if it become a barrier to the onward progress of the cross.
3. Let us turn to the temple of our own hearts, and we shall find much work to be done there. Are you congratulating yourself upon your advanced position? Do you think twenty years experience has changed your corruptions, that your tendencies to sin are not so strong as they were, that you have less need to watch, less need to depend simply on the merit of Christ and the work of His Spirit? I have heard that more horses fall at the bottom of the hill than anywhere else, and I know that more professors make shipwreck towards the close of life than at any other time. The falls recorded in the Old and New Testaments are the falls, not of young men in the heat of passion, but of old or middle-aged men. Lot was no boy when he disgraced himself. David was no young man when he transgressed with Bathsheba. Peter was no child when he denied his Lord. An old Puritan quaintly says, suppose a loving husband were to give to his wife many rings and jewels out of love to her, and she should come to think so highly of the love tokens that she sat and admired them and forgot her husband, would he not be rather inclined to take these things away to turn her love once again to himself? So with our graces and enjoyments; if we think too much of them, the iconoclastic hammer will come in, and these things will vanish because they have provoked the Lord to jealousy.
II. Those who are seekers of Jesus. There is some idol-breaking to be done for them. Many think they ought to be much better than they are; they have faults to be corrected; their minds are in a wrong condition, they must be put right, and they are trying to do this with the intention, when they feel better, to put their trust in Jesus. With some, the Nehushtan which they set up is their sense of sin; either they do not feel the need of Christ as they ought, or else they do feel their need, and therefore think they are in a fair condition. Many are resting in their fear of self-deception. Do you think that your being afraid of presumption is a better thing than believing Gods testimony concerning His Son? Many are resting in sermon hearing, or in reading the Bible regularly; others are making an idol of brass out of their prayers. Seekers of Christ continually start new difficulties. Their doubts, reasonings, and questions are like an endless chain: pull up one link, and it brings up another. Their suspicions are like a chain of dredging buckets that come up all full of mire, and over they go and empty themselves but to come up full again. If one-tenth part of the ingenuity they use in rebelling against the command of God, which bids them believe, were used in simply investigating what they are told to believe, they would come to faith and be saved from their doubts. Sinner, let thy artful doubts and reasonings be nailed to yonder tree: crucify them. God grant you grace to break up these idols of yours, and take your Saviour now.C. H. Spurgeon.
2Ki. 18:4. The preservation of this remarkable relic of antiquity (the brazen serpent) might, like the pot of manna and Aarons rod, have remained an interesting and instructive monument of the Divine goodness and mercy to the Israelites in the wilderness; and it must have required the exercise of no small courage and resolution to destroy it. But in the progress of degeneracy it had become an object of idolatrous worship; and as the interests of true religion rendered its demolition necessary, Hezekiah, by taking this bold step, consulted both the glory of God and the good of his country. Amongst the numerous hypotheses advanced to account for the origin of this singular reverence, not the least likely is, that it arose from vague and distorted rumours of the miraculous healing of the Israelites in the wilderness; and the image of a serpent became the deified symbol of something good and beneficent. The prevalence of ophiolatry in Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Assyria, could scarcely fail to arrest the attention and impress the minds of the Hebrew people, till in times of ignorance and idolatry they adopted the same superstition; and, although the brazen serpent in the wilderness had no symbolic import, but was merely an external sign, selected, probably, for the general ground of removing all ideas of the natural accomplishment of the cure, yet the tradition concerning the animal, the sight of which had restored the wounded Hebrews, and the reverence felt for it by the neighbouring nations, naturally produced similar sentiments in the minds of the Israelites, till admiration for a venerable relic of antiquity, combined with the contagion of contemporary usages, had, in the degenerate times of the monarchy, gradually led to the worship of the brazen serpent.Jamieson.
2Ki. 18:5. The character and life of Hezekiah. I. His public life.
1. The spiritual was in his estimation the foundation of the political.
2. Was indebted for his religious training to a pious mother. II. His great characteristics.
1. Strong faith in God.
2. Generous ideas.
3. Great zeal in carrying out great movements.
4. Penitent submission under affliction.
5. Vanity which proved fatal.H. Kendall.
2Ki. 18:5-8. Religion, the strength of a ruler.
1. When founded in a deep and firm trust in God.
2. Is evidenced by practical obedience.
3. Ensures the mighty help of Jehovah.
4. Enhances the prestige and authority of the throne.
5. Promotes national freedom and prosperity.
2Ki. 18:5-6. True piety.
1. Consists of a faith which is at once trust and confidence (Heb. 11:1).
2. Clinging to the Lord in adversity and in prosperity without departing from him (Psa. 73:25).
3. Keeping the commandments of God (Jas. 2:17; 1Jn. 5:3).Lange.
2Ki. 18:7. Pursuing the policy of a truly theocratic sovereign, he was, through the Divine blessing, which rested on his government, raised to a position of great public and national strength. Besides the revived activity and moral vigour of the people of Judah, connected with the material prosperity of the country, and the religious reforms carried on by Hezekiah, and which, doubtless, was the primary motive that encouraged him to shake off the Assyrian yoke, it is necessary to take into account the secret influence of Egypt upon the councils of the king. Against this, Isaiah all along raised a decided and earnest protest (Isa. 30:1-5; Isa. 31:1; Isa. 31:3). In counselling Hezekiah, he did not advocate either revolt or submission; he proceeded upon a principle entirely different from that of ordinary politicsthat of urging an unwavering faith in the protection of the Divine King and Head of the nation, by an immediate and universal re-establishment of the worship and law of God. This step he recommended to the king as, in the first instance, the most becoming a theocratic ruler, and the most certain of realizing the fulfilment of the promises made to his people. Acting in this way, the prophet assured him he would find that, with the Divine favour, one would chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight: whereas, without help from above, all his military preparations and strategic manuvres would not secure the deliverance of his kingdom.Jamieson.
2Ki. 18:9-12. The fate of nations.
1. Is in the hands of God.
2. The ruin of one nation recorded as a warning to others.
3. The potent cause of national decay and extinction is neglect of God.
Hoshea and Hezekiah. The former came to the throne by conspiracy and murder, and he did not do what was pleasing to the Lord, therefore he perished with his people. The latter trusted in the Lord and clung to Him, and therefore he came out with his people victoriously from the peril.Lange.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH 18:112
TRANSLATION
(1) And it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea the son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. (2) He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. (3) And he did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD according to all which David his father had done. (4) He removed the high places, and broke in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Asherah, and smashed the bronze serpent which Moses had made; for unto those days the children of Israel were burning incense to it; and they called it Nehushtan. (5) In the LORD God of Israel did he trust, and after him there was none like him among all the kings of Israel, nor among those who were before him. (6) For he clung to the LORD; he did not turn aside from after Him, and he kept His com mandments which the LORD commanded Moses. (7) And the LORD was with him; whenever he went forth he prospered; and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and did not serve him. (8) He smote the Philistines unto Gaza, and its borders from the tower of the watchmen unto the fortified city. (9) And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiahit was the seventh year of Hoshea the son of Elah king of IsraelShalmaneser king of Assyria went up against Samaria and besieged it. (10) And they captured it at the end of three years. In the sixth year of Hezekiahthat was the ninth year of Hoshea king of IsraelSamaria was captured. (11) And the king of Assyria carried Israel away captive to Assyria, and made them settle in Halah and in Habor at the river Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes; (12) because they did not hearken to the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed His covenant, all which Moses the servant of the LORD com manded, and would not hear them, nor do them.
COMMENTS
From the narrative of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom the writer turns with evident relief to the accession of good King Hezekiah of Judah. On the synchronism between Hezekiah and Hoshea, see the special study at the end of this chapter. Hezekiah began to reign when he was twenty-five and reigned a total of twenty-nine years in Jerusalem, fourteen years before his severe illness and fifteen afterwards (2Ki. 18:2). He receives unqualified praise from the prophetic author of Kings (2Ki. 18:3). Such praise is assigned only to two other kings of JudahAsa (1Ki. 15:11) and Josiah (2Ki. 22:2). It is curious that all three of these godly men were the sons of wicked fathers. Hezekiahs godliness is due, no doubt, to the influence of the prophet Isaiah.
Twelfth King of Judah
HEZEKIAH BEN AHAZ
720686 B.C.*
(Strength of Yahweh)
2 Kings 18-21; 2 Chronicles 29-32; Isaiah 38, 39
Synchronism
Hezekiah 1 = Hoshea 3
Contemporary Prophets Isaiah; Micah
Mother: Abi
Appraisal: Excellent
The king by judgment establisheth the land: but be that receiveth gifts overtbroweth it. Pro. 29:4
*coregent from 728 B.C.
According to the Chronicler, the reformation of Hezekiah began on the very first day of his reign. He first reopened the Temple which Ahaz had shut up, removing all the filthiness which Ahaz had allowed to accumulate there (2Ch. 29:5). The Temple services were re-established with all due solemnity (2Ch. 29:20-35). In the second month of his reign, a grand Passover celebration was observed to which he invited not only his own subjects, but also the Israelites in the North who had not been carried off into captivity (2Ch. 30:9; 2Ch. 30:11; 2Ch. 30:18). It was only at this juncture that the first act of reformation mentioned in Kings took placethe high places of the land were removed. A multitude of those who had kept the Passover feast went forth with religious zeal into the cities of Judah and even several cities of Israel, and cut down the Asherim and smashed the pagan images (cf. 2Ch. 31:1). Even the bronze serpent which Moses had erected in the wilderness was destroyed by Hezekiah because it had become an object of worship. For over seven hundred years this serpent had been preserved probably among the furniture of the Tabernacle. The people affectionately referred to it as Nehushtan, the little bronze thing (2Ki. 18:4).
Hezekiah put his trust wholly in the Lord. This was exactly what God required as the condition upon which He would give his aid against the Assyrian (cf. Isa. 30:1-7). No other king before or after Hezekiah manifested such complete confidence in the Almighty (2Ki. 18:5). Throughout his life he clung to the Lord and did not at the end of his reign fall into transgression like Asa and Azariah before him (cf. 2Ch. 16:7-12; 2Ch. 26:16-21). He faithfully observed the Law of Moses (2Ki. 18:6), and because of his obedience, the Lord was with him. Of no other king except David is this statement made (cf. 2Sa. 5:10). The Lord caused the reign of Hezekiah to be prosperous, a point on which the Chronicler elaborates at length (2Ch. 32:27-30).
From the very outset of his reign, Hezekiah rebelled against the king of Assyria by withholding the annual tribute from him (2Ki. 18:7). He also attacked certain Philistine cities. These cities had been captured by the Assyrian king S argon and were ruled by Assyrian partisans. Hezekiahs Philistine campaign (2Ki. 18:8) does not seem to have aimed at territorial expansion, but was intended to free the area from Assyrian influence. His efforts in this direction succeeded as far as Gaza, and he was able to liberate the entire area from the smallest and most solitary place (tower of the watchman) to the largest and most populous (fortified city).
It was while godly King Hezekiah was ruling in Jerusalem that God brought the final judgment on Samaria in the person of King Shalmaneser (2Ki. 18:9). The siege lasted parts of three years. At the end of that period, they (not Shalmaneser, but the Assyrian army) took Samaria (2Ki. 18:10). The writer here hints at what generally is held by historians, viz., that it was Sargon rather than Shalmaneser who actually captured Samaria. The king of AssyriaSargoncarried the people of Israel away to the distant eastern provinces of his empire (2Ki. 18:11; cf. 2Ki. 17:6). While he who obeyed the Law of Moses and honored the prophets of God prospered in Jerusalem, those who disobeyed that law, broke the covenant and disregarded the servants of the Lord were punished most severely (2Ki. 18:12).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XVIII.XIX.
THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH IN JUDAH. THE GREAT DELIVERANCE FROM SENNACHERIB.
(1) Hezekiah.See Note on 2Ki. 16:20 and 2Ch. 29:1. The name in this form means, My strength is Jah (Psa. 18:2), and its special appropriateness is exemplified by Hezekiahs history.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
SECTION THIRD.
HISTORY OF JUDAH FROM THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. CHAPS. 18-25.
BEGINNING OF HEZEKIAH’S REIGN, 2Ki 18:1-8.
1. In the third year Near the close of the third year, so that the greater part of Hezekiah’s first year would fall in the fourth year of Hoshea, and the greater part of Hezekiah’s fourth year would fall in the seventh of Hoshea. See 2Ki 18:9-10.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Introduction To The Reign of Hezekiah, King of Judah ( 2Ki 18:1-3 ).
2Ki 18:1
‘Now it came about in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.’
In the twelfth year of Ahaz’s co-regency with Jotham, Hoshea ‘began to reign’ (2Ki 17:1), thus this is describing when Hezekiah’s co-regency with Ahaz began in c.729-8 BC, not the commencement of his sole reign in c 716 BC. It was the practise in Judah for each king to bring his heir into co-regency with him, both in order that he may gain experience in the running of the kingdom and so that he might be well established on the throne with the reins of authority in his hands when his father died.
2Ki 18:2
‘He was twenty five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty nine years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah.’
We now learn that at twenty five years old Hezekiah became sole ruler and reigned as sole ruler for a further twenty nine years (716-687 BC). (He had become co-regent as soon as he had attained to ‘manhood’ when he was around thirteen years of age). The name of the queen mother was Abi (short for Abijah) daughter of Zechariah.
2Ki 18:3
‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, in accordance with all that David his father had done.’
Hezekiah did what was right in the eyes of YHWH in accordance with all that David had done. He was thus pleasing to YHWH. The ones who prior to this were spoken of similarly were Asa (1Ki 15:11), and by inference Jehoshaphat, who walked in the ways of his father Asa (1Ki 22:43). Compare also Josiah (2Ki 22:2). These were the ones whom YHWH especially blessed.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Reign of Hezekiah King of Judah c. 716-687 BC ( 2Ki 18:1 to 2Ki 20:21 ). Co-regency from c 729 BC.
There now begins the reign of one of the two great kings after David of whom it could be said ‘after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him.’ The other will be Josiah (compare 2Ki 23:25). In both cases the words are hyperbole and not intended to be applied literally (otherwise David would have been seen as excelled). But they adequately make clear the excellence of the two kings, Hezekiah because he excelled in faith, and Josiah because he excelled in obedience to the Law. And this was so even though in the end both failed because of their alliances with others.
The story of Hezekiah is portrayed as of one who was victorious on every hand, and who eventually stood up against the great king of Assyria, emerging weakened and battered, but triumphant. In some ways it can be seen as similar to the story of David against Goliath. Both dealt with those who ‘defied the living God’ (2Ki 19:6), and both emphasised the weak facing the strong and overcoming them in the power of YHWH. Indeed that is one of the themes of these chapters, the effective power of YHWH, for great emphasis is laid on the impossibility of anyone successfully defying the king of Assyria, apart, of course, from YHWH. It is made clear that all the great cities of the ancient world and their gods failed to successfully defy him, and that all the gods of those nations were ineffective against him. Who then could stand before him? And the answer given is ‘YHWH’. All the gods of the nations he had swept aside, but in YHWH he was to come across the One who would humiliate him utterly.
Once again we note that the prophetic author is not interested in history for its own sake, but for what it reveals about YHWH. We are told very little about the early years of Hezekiah’s reign, or about his closing years. All the years of waiting for the right moment, and the manoeuvrings and conspiracies involving surrounding nations, are ignored. Having given us a brief summary of his reign the author’s concentration is on the face to face contest between the ‘great king’ of earth and the great King of Heaven, and it is that that is described in detail. It will then be followed by a description of how (1). YHWH was able to extend Hezekiah’s life, and in the process gave him a hugely significant sign of His power, and (2). the way in which Hezekiah finally failed YHWH by entering into negotiations with Babylon, something which spelled doom for the future, both events taking place before the deliverance of Jerusalem. But the Babylonian incident explains why Hezekiah could never really be the awaited ‘chosen King’. For in the end Hezekiah was more interested in impressing men than God. That was why he could never be the Messiah promised by Isa 7:14; Isa 9:5-6; Isa 11:1-4.
Hezekiah’s reign as described by the author can be divided up as follows:
Overall Analysis.
a
b Summary of Hezekiah’s successful reign because he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH (2Ki 18:4-8).
c A reminder of what happened to Hoshea and Samaria which highlights both Jerusalem’s own subsequent escape, and Hezekiah’s successful contrasting reign (2Ki 18:9-12).
d The treaty made and broken, and the invasion of the King of Assyria (2Ki 18:13-17).
e The messengers of the King of Assyria call on the people of Jerusalem to surrender and in the process demean Hezekiah (2Ki 18:18 to 2Ki 19:1).
f The intercession of Hezekiah and the assurance of Isaiah (2Ki 19:2-8).
g The second call to surrender, in view of the approaching Egyptian army, which is much more polite to Hezekiah (2Ki 19:9-14).
f The further intercession of Hezekiah (2Ki 19:15-19).
e The reply of YHWH, the God of Israel, to the great king of Assyria (2Ki 19:20-28).
d YHWH’s Assurance to Judah that the remnant will escape (2Ki 19:29-31).
c The humbling and death of Sennacherib (2Ki 19:32-37).
b The sickness and healing of Hezekiah after a great sign is given, after which Hezekiah foolishly exposes his wealth and armaments to the king of Babylon and is warned of what the consequences will be (2Ki 20:1-19).
a The conclusion to his reign (2Ki 20:20-21).
Note that in ‘a’ we have the introduction to the reign of Hezekiah, and in the parallel the close of his reign. In ‘b’ we have outlined the successes of his reign, and in the parallel the reason why he failed to achieve his potential. In ‘c’ Assyria humble Israel, and in the parallel YHWH humbles Assyria. In ‘d’ a treaty is made and broken and Judah is hemmed in, and in the parallel YHWH’s covenant stands firm and the remnant will be restored. In ‘e’ the King of Assyria calls on Jerusalem to surrender ad informs them of what he will do, and in the parallel YHWH gives His reply to the great king of Assyria. In ‘f’ Hezekiah intercedes before YHWH and in the parallel he does so a second time. Central in ‘g’ is the final call to Hezekiah to yield.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 18:1 to 2Ki 20:21 The Reign of Hezekiah Over Judah (715-686 B.C.) 2Ki 18:1 to 2Ki 20:21 records the account of the reign of Hezekiah over Judah. He was one of Judah’s good kings.
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.
2Ki 18:4
Num 21:8-9, “And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.”
2Ki 18:4 Word Study on “Nehushtan” Strong says the Hebrew word Nehushtan (H5180) literally, “something made of copper.”
2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19 The Prophecies of Isaiah to Hezekiah 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19 tells the story of Hezekiah’s confrontation with Sennacherib, who tried to conquer Jerusalem, and God’s miraculous deliverance. This passage of Scripture is almost the same in content to Isa 36:1 to Isa 39:8. Thus, the same author probably penned both two passages and one served as a copy of the other.
Note the proposed outline:
Sennacherib Besieges Jerusalem 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 19:37
Hezekiah’s Illness 2Ki 20:1-11
The Visit of the Babylonians 2Ki 20:12-21
If we compare the narrative material of Elijah and Elisha (1Ki 17:1 – 2Ki 9:37), there is a similarity in structure in that they both bear witness to the testimony of the prophets of the Lord. This becomes evident by the fact that both passages end with a testimony of the fulfillment of the words of the prophets Elijah and Isaiah. For example, the story of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem ends with the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of 2Ki 19:7 (2Ki 19:37). The story of Hezekiah’s illness ends by reflecting upon the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (2Ki 20:11). The story of the visit of the Babylonians closes by noting the fulfillment of prophecy (2Ki 20:19).
2Ki 18:13 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.
2Ki 18:13
[67] William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., Context of Scripture, vol. 2 (Leiden; Brill, 2000), In Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004, 303.
2Ki 18:17 And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field.
2Ki 18:17
[68] Adam Clarke, 2 Kings, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on 2 Kings 18:17.
[69] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 49.
AmpBible, “And the king of Assyria sent [the high officials] the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem with a great army. They went up to Jerusalem, and when they arrived, they came and stood by the canal of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the fuller’s field.”
BBE, “Then the king of Assyria sent the Tartan and the Rab-saris and the Rab-shakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem, to King Hezekiah, with a strong force. And they went up and came to Jerusalem, and took up their position by the stream of the higher pool, by the highway of the washerman’s field.”
NAB, “The king of Assyria sent the general, the lord chamberlain, and the commander from Lachish with a great army to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They went up, and on their arrival in Jerusalem, stopped at the conduit of the upper pool on the highway of the fuller’s field.”
NIV, “The king of Assyria sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander with a large army, from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They came up to Jerusalem and stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field.”
YLT, “And the king of Asshur sendeth Tartan, and the chief of the eunuchs, and the chief of the butlers , from Lachish, unto king Hezekiah, with a heavy force, to Jerusalem, and they go up and come in to Jerusalem, and they go up, and come in and stand by the conduit of the upper pool that is in the highway of the fuller’s field.”
2Ki 18:26 Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.
2Ki 18:26
[70] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 48-50.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Hezekiah King over Judah
v. 1. Now, It came to pass in the third year of Hoshea, son of Elah, king of Israel, that Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. v. 2. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi v. 3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David, his father, did. v. 4. He removed the high places, v. 5. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. v. 6. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following Him, v. 7. And the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth, v. 8. He smote the Philistines,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
18-25
THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH AFTER THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
2Ki 18:1
THE ACCESSION OF HEZEKIAH. HIS SUCCESSES. HIS WAR WITH SENNACHERIB.
2Ki 18:1-8
THE EARLY YEARS Or HEZEKIAH. From his narrative of the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria, the writer turns, with evident relief, to the accession of the good king Hezekiah in Judah, and to a brief account of
(1) his religious reformation (2Ki 18:3-6);
(2) his revolt from Assyria (2Ki 18:7); and
(3) his war with the Philistines (2Ki 18:8).
The narrative is still exceedingly brief, and has to be filled out from the Second Book of Chronicles, where the religious reformation of Hezekiah is treated with great fullness (2 Kings 29-31.).
2Ki 18:1
Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah King of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz King of Judah began to reign. There can scarcely be any doubt of this synchronism, which is in close accordance with the dates in 2Ki 18:9,2Ki 18:10 of this chapter, and agrees well with the Assyrian inscriptions. Hezekiah’s accession may be placed almost certainly in B.C. 727.
2Ki 18:2
Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign (on the difficulties connected with this statement, and the best mode of meeting them, see the comment upon 2Ki 16:1); and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. So Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.3. 1), and the author of Chronicles (2Ch 29:1). He reigned fourteen years before his severe illness, and fifteen afterwards. His mother’s name also was Abi. Abi, “my father,” is scarcely a possible name. We must, therefore, correct Kings by Chronicles, and regard her true name as Abijah, which menus “Jehovah is my father” (compare “Abiel”). The daughter of Zachariah. Perhaps the Zechariah of Isa 8:2.
2Ki 18:3
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. Such unqualified praise is only assigned to two other kings of JudahAsa (1Ki 15:11) and Josiah (2Ki 22:2). It is curious that all three were the sons of wicked fathers. Hezekiah was probably, at an early age, Brought under the influence of Isaiah, who was on familiar terms with his father Ahaz (Isa 7:3-16), and would be likely to do all that lay in his power to turn Hezekiah from his father’s evil ways, and to foster all the germs of good in his character.
2Ki 18:4
He removed the high places. This was a comparatively late step in Hezekiah’s religious reformation. He began, as we learn from Chronicles (2Ch 29:3, 2Ch 29:17), “in the first year of his reign, the first month, and the first day,” by reopening the temple, which Ahaz had shut up, removing from it all the “filthiness” which Ahaz had allowed to accumulate (2Ch 29:5), gathering together the priests and Levites and exhorting them (2Ch 29:4-11), restoring and renewing the vessels which Ahaz had cut in pieces (2Ch 29:19), and then re-establishing the temple-worship with all due solemnity (2Ch 29:20-35). He next resolved on holding a grand Passover-festival, in the second month, as it had not been possible to keep it in the first (2Ch 30:2, 2Ch 30:3), and invited thereto, not only his own subjects, but the Israelites of the neighboring kingdom who were not yet carried off, but were still under the rule of Hoshea (2Ch 30:10, 2Ch 30:11, 2Ch 30:18). It was not until this festival was over that the removal of the high places was taken in hand. Then, in a fit of zeal, which no doubt the king encouraged, a multitude of those who had kept the feast went forth from Jerusalem, first into the cities of Judah and Benjamin, and then into several of the cities of Israel, and “brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars and utterly destroyed them all” (see 2Ch 31:1). And brake the images, and cut down the groves; literally, the grove, according to the present text; but, as all the versions have the plural, Thenius thinks should be changed into . Keil and Bahr, on the contrary, would retain the singular, but understand it “collectively.” That idolatry was practiced at some of the high places seems clear from this place, as well as from 1Ki 14:23. And brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made (see Num 21:9). Difficulties are raised with respect to this statement. Some argue that the serpent, having served its purpose, would have been left hanging at the place where it was set up in the wilderness; others, that Moses would have destroyed it, lest the Israelites should make it an idol; others, again, that it was not likely to have lasted seven hundred years from the Exodus, even if it was brought into Palestine and taken care of. It is supposed, therefore, that an imitation of the original serpent had been made by the Jews in the reign of Ahaz, had been called “the serpent Of Moses,” and was now destroyed. But there is no sufficient reason for any of these suppositions. Considering what the serpent typified (Joh 3:14), it is not surprising that Moses should have been instructed to preserve it with the furniture of the tabernacle, or that, when once attached to that structure, it should have been preserved as a religious relic for seven hundred years. Many Egyptian figures in bronze now exist which are from three thousand to four thousand years old. The statement of the writer of Kings, that Hezekiah did now destroy “the serpent that Moses had made,” is of more weight than a thousand speculations concerning what is likely, or not likely, to have happened. For unto these days the children of Israel did burn incense to it. Not, certainly, “from Moses’ time to Hezekiah’s,” but from a date left vague and undetermined to the time when Hezekiah took his religious reformation in hand. Hezekiah found the practice continuing; the writer is not concerned to sayperhaps does net knowwhen it began. He implies, however, that it was of long standing. Serpent-worship was widely spread in the East, and there was more excuse for directing religious regard toward this serpent than toward any other. And he called it Nehushtan; rather, and it was called Nehushtan. is a singular with indefinite subject (“one called”), equivalent to “they called,” or “it was called” (comp. Gen 25:26; Gen 38:29, Gen 38:30). Nehushtan is not from “serpent,” but from , “brass,” and means “the little brass thing,” being a diminutive, expression of tenderness.
2Ki 18:5
He trusted in the Lord God of Israel. Unlike Hoshea (see homiletics on 2Ki 17:1-4), unlike Ahaz (2Ki 16:7-10), Hezekiah discarded trust in man, andit may be after some hesitationput his trust wholly in God. This was exactly what God required as the condition on which he would give his aid (Isa 30:1-7), and what no previous king since the Assyrian troubles began could bring himself to do. So that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. It has been concluded from this statement that, “when the merits of the kings were summed up after the fall of the monarchy, Hezekiah was, by a deliberate judgment, put at the very top”; but, as exactly the same words are used of Josiah in 2Ki 23:25, the true conclusion would seem to be rather that Hezekiah and Josiah were selected from the rest, and placed upon a par, above all the others. At first sight there may seem to be contradiction between the two passages, since absolute pre-eminence over all the other kings is ascribed to Hezekiah in one of them, to Josiah in the other; but the context shows that the pre-eminence is not the same in the two cases. To Hezekiah is ascribed pre-eminence in trust; to Josiah, pre-eminence in an exact observance of the Law: one excels in faith, the other in works; Josiah’s whole life is one of activity, Hezekiah’s great merit lies in his being content, in the crisis of his fate, to “stand still, and see the salvation of God.”
2Ki 18:6
For he clave to the Lordrather, and he clave to the Lord; i.e. he persevered through the whole of his life; he did not fall into sins at the last, like Asa and Azariah (see 2Ch 16:7-12; 2Ch 26:1-23.’ 16-21)and departed not from following him. The writer probably considers “the princes of Judah” answerable for the embassy to Egypt mentioned in Isa 30:4, and excuses Hezekiah’s ostentatious display of his treasures to the ambassadors of Merodach-Baladan (2Ki 20:13) as a weakness, not an actual breach of obedience. But kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses.
2Ki 18:7
And the Lord was with him. Of no other King of Judah or Israel is this said, except only of David (2Sa 5:10). It was the promise made to Moses (Exo 3:12), repeated to Joshua (Jos 1:5, Jos 1:7), and by implication given in them to all those who would rule his people faithfully. And he prospered whithersoever he went forth; rather, in all his goingsin cunctis ad quae procedebat (Vulgate). Hezekiah’s prosperity is enlarged upon by the writer of Chronicles, who says (2Ch 32:27-30), “And Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honor: and he made himself treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, add for shields, and for all manner of pleasant jewels; storehouses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and cotes for flocks. Moreover he provided him cities, and possessions of flocks and herds in abundance: for God had given him substance very much . And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.” Many brought presents to him to Jerusalem, and he was magnified in the sight of all the surrounding nations (see 2Ch 32:23). And he rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not. Hezekiah’s “rebellion” probably took place at the very commencement of his reign, B.C. 727, in the year that Shalmaneser ascended the throne. Most likely it consisted simply in his withholding his tribute, and neither going in person nor sending representatives to Nineveh, to congratulate the new monarch on his accession. This would be understood as an assertion of independence. That it was not at once resented must be ascribed to Shalmaneser’s difficulties with Samaria and with Tyre, which were more pressing, as they lay nearer to Assyria. Before these were over, Sargon usurped the crown. There is reason to believe that he made at least one expedition against Hezekiah; but the date of it is uncertain. Rebellion met him on all sides, and had to be crushed near home before he could venture to deal with it on the remote outskirts of his empire. Meanwhile Hezekiah strengthened himself and built up a considerable power.
2Ki 18:8
He smote the Philistines. Hezekiah’s Philistine war seems to have followed on an attempt which Sargon made to bring the whole country under the Assyrian dominion. Sargon attacked Philistia in B.C. 720, made Gaza and the other towns subject, and committed the custody of them to tributary kings, in whom he had confidence. But opposition soon manifested itself. Sargon’s creatures were expelledAkhimiti from Ash-clod, Padi from Ekron. Hezekiah assisted in this war of independence, attacked Sargon’s viceroys, and helped the cities to free themselves. About the year B.C. 711 Sargon speaks of a league against Assyria, to which the parties were Philistia, Judaea, Edom, and Moab. The Philistines, whom Hezekiah “smote,” must be regarded as Assyrian partisans, whom he chastised in the interests of the national party. He did not seek conquests in Philistia for himself. Even unto Gaza. Gaza seems to have remained faithful to Assyria from its capture in B.C. 720. And the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen unto the fenced city. (On this expression, see the comment upon 2Ki 17:9.)
2Ki 18:9-12
THE PUNISHMENT OF SAMARIA FOR DISOBEDIENCE. In contrast with Hezekiah’s piety and consequent prosperity, the author places the disobedience (2Ki 18:12) and consequent extinction of the sister kingdom (2Ki 18:9-11), which Belonged to Hezekiah’s earlier years, and was an event of the greatest importance to him, since it made his dominions conterminous with those of Assyria, and exposed his northern frontier to attack at any moment from the Assyrian forces. According to all probable human calculation, the fall of Samaria should have been followed at once by an attack on Judaea; and but for the change of dynasty, and troubles on all sides which ensued thereupon, this would naturally have taken place. As it was, Judaea was allowed a Breathing-space, during which she strengthened her power in Philistia (see the comment on the preceding verse), and otherwise prepared herself to resist attack (see 2Ch 33:3-6; Isa 22:8-11).
2Ki 18:9
And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah King of Israel. Hezekiah Began to reign before Hoshea had completed his third year (2Ki 18:1). His first year thus ran parallel with part of Hoshea’s third and part of his fourth; his fourth with part of Hoshea’s sixth and part of his seventh; his sixth with part of Hoshea’s eighth and part of his ninth. That Shalmaneser King of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it (see the comment on 2Ki 17:4, 2Ki 17:5).
2Ki 18:10
And at the end of three years they took it. The expression, “at the end of three years,” does not show that the three years were complete. On the contrary, as the siege Began in Hezekiah’s fourth year, probably in the spring, and was over in his sixth, say, by the autumn, the entire duration was not more than two years and a half. The plural verb, , “they took it,” is remarkable, since it would have seemed more natural to write , “he took it”and so the LXX; the Vulgate, and the Syriacbut the writer seems to have known that Shalmaneser did not take it, but died during the siege, the capture falling into the first year of Sargon. Even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea King of Israel (see the comment on 2Ki 18:9), Samaria was taken.
2Ki 18:11
And the King of Assyriai.e. Sargondid carry away Israel unto Assyriathe empire, not the countryand put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Modes (see the comment on 2Ki 17:6).
2Ki 18:12
Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them (compare the expanded version of this statement in 2Ki 17:7-23). The sin of Samaria may be summed up under three heads:
(1) disobedience;
(2) breach of the covenant; and
(3) disregard of Moses, and the other “servants of the Lord.”
2Ki 18:13-16
FIRST EXPEDITION OF SENNACHERIB AGAINST HEZEKIAH. The writer now, as is his manner, omitting as comparatively unimportant all Hezekiah’s dealings with Sargon, which were without positive result, proceeds to give a brief account of Sennacherib’s first expedition against him, and of its unfortunate, if not disgraceful, issue:
(1) the capture of all the important cities except Jerusalem;
(2) the submission of Hezekiah to any terms which Sennacherib chose to impose; and
(3) the purchase of peace by the payment of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold out of the treasures of the temple and of the royal palace. The narrative obtains copious illustration from the inscriptions of Sennacherib.
2Ki 18:13
Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib King of Assyria come up. It is impossible to accept this note of time as genuine without rejecting altogether the authority of the Assyrian inscriptions. Sargon took Samaria in his first year, B.C. 722, and then had a reign of between seventeen and eighteen years, for fifteen of which we have his annals. He certainly did not associate Sennacherib with him on the throne, nor did the latter exercise any authority at all until B.C. 705, when, “on the 12th of Ab, he the throne ascended”. Sennacherib places his first expedition against Hezekiah in his fourth year, B.C. 701. Thus, according to the Assyrian records, which are very ample, and of which we have the actual originals, twenty years intervened between the capture of Samaria and the attack of Sennacherib on Hezekiah; according to the present passage, compared with 2Ki 18:9, 2Ki 18:10, eight years only intervened. No contradiction can be more absolute. It has been proposed to alter the date from “the fourteenth year” to “the twenty-sixth year; ‘ but it seems most probable that the original writer inserted no date, but simply said, “And Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came up,” etc; just as he had said, without a date, “Pul the King of Assyria came up against the land” (2Ki 15:19); and “against him (Hoshea) came up Shalmaneser” (2Ki 17:3); and, with a very vague date, if it may be called a date, “In the days of Pekah King of Israel came Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria” (2Ki 15:29. Comp. also 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:11). Later on, a redactorperhaps the same who inserted the whole series of synchronismsintroduced the words, “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah,” having obtained the number from 2Ki 20:6, which he assumed to belong to the time of Sennacherib’s attack. Against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. Sennacherib himself says, “And of Hezekiah of Judah, who did not submit to my yoke, forty-six strong cities, fortresses, and smaller cities round about them without number, by the march of my troops by the force of battering-rams, mining, and missiles, I besieged, I captured”.
2Ki 18:14
And Hezekiah King of Judah sent to the King of Assyria to Lachish, saying. (On the position of Lachish, see the comment upon 2Ki 14:19.) A bas-relief in the British Museum is thought to represent Sennacherib at the siege of Lachish. He is seated on a highly ornamented throne, and is engaged in receiving prisoners. The city is represented as strongly fortified, and as attacked with sealing-ladders and battering-rams. The surrender is taking place, and the captives of importance are being conducted from one of the tower-gates to the presence of the conqueror. An accompanying inscription is to the following effect: “Sennacherib, the great king, the King of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment before the city of Lakhisha (Lachish). I give permission for its destruction.” It would seem that while Sennacherib was personally engaged in this siege, a portion of his army had invested Jerusalem, and were pressing the siege (see Isa 22:1-7). I have offended; return from me. The tone of the submission is abject. In vain had Isaiah counseled resistance, and promised deliverance if trust were placed in God (Isa 8:9-15; Isa 10:24-26; Isa 14:24, Isa 14:25). When the siege commenced, all was dismay within the wallsit was “a day of trouble, and of treading down, and of perplexity (Isa 22:5). Some of the rulers fled (Isa 22:3); others gave themselves up for lost, and resolved on “a short life and a merry one” (Isa 22:13). Hezekiah found no encouragement to resist in any of his counselors except Isaiah, and was therefore driven to despairacknowledged himself in the wrong for rebelling, and besought Sennacherib to “return from him”i.e. in retire and withdraw his troops. That which thou puttest on me will I bear. Whatever burden Sennacherib chooses to put upon him, Hezekiah says he will bear, be it tribute, be it cession of territory, be it indignity of any sort or kind. He makes no reservation; but of course he assumes that the terms about to be offered him will be such as, according in the usages of war at the time, would be regarded as reasonable. And the King of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah King of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. Sennacherib says that the payment made him by Hezekiah was thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver. He has, perhaps, exaggerated, or he may have counted in all the silver that he carried off from the whole of Judaea; or, possibly, the payment to purchase peace was eight hundred talents, the fixed tribute three hundred. We learn from Sennacherib’s inscription that, besides making this money payment, Hezekiah had to consent to
(1) a cession of territory towards the south-west, which was apportioned between Gaza, Ekron, and Ash-deal;
(2) the surrender of an Assyrian vassal king, detained in Jerusalem; and
(3) the contribution to the harem at Nineveh of two if not more of his daughters.
2Ki 18:15
And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house. Ahaz had exhausted both these stores of wealth about thirty years previously (2Ki 16:8), and there could not have been very much accumulation since. Hence the stripping of the metal-plating from off the temple doors (see the next verse).
2Ki 18:16
At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah King of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the King of Assyria. In the time of his great wealth and prosperity, Hezekiah, while engaged in restoring the temple (2Ch 29:17-19), had adorned the pillars and doors of the sanctuary with a metal covering, which was probably gold, like Solomon’s (1Ki 6:20-22, 1Ki 6:28, 1Ki 6:30, 1Ki 6:32). To make up the “thirty talents of gold” he was now obliged to undo his own work, and strip the doors and pillars bare. Sennacherib tells us that, besides the two large sums of gold and silver, Hezekiah sent him at this time “woven cloth, scarlet,’ embroidered; precious stones of large size; couches of ivory; movable thrones of ivory; skins of buffaloes; horns of buffaloes; and two kinds of woods”. It was customary to accompany the fixed tribute with the more precious products of each country.
2Ki 18:17-37
SECOND EXPEDITION OF SENNACHERIB. This section and 2Ki 19:1-37. form one continuous narrative, which can only have been divided on account of its great length (fifty-eight verses). The subject is one throughout, viz. Sennacherib’s second expedition against Hezekiah. The narrative flows on without a break. It consists of
(1) an account of the embassy of Rabshakeh (2Ki 18:17-37; 2Ki 19:1-8);
(2) an account of an insulting letter written by Sennacherib to Hezekiah, and of Hezekiah’s “spreading it before the Lord” (2Ki 19:9-14);
(3) the prayer of Hezekiah, and God’s answer to it by the mouth of Isaiah (2Ki 19:15-34);
(4) the destruction of Sennacherib’s host, his flight to Nineveh, and his murder by two of his sons. The Assyrian inscriptions are absolutely silent with respect to this expedition and its resultit being a fixed rule with the historiographers of Assyria to pass over without notice all defeats and disasters.
2Ki 18:17
And the King of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. Sennacherib appears, by his great inscription, to have returned to Nineveh, with his Judaean captives (more than two hundred thousand in number) and his rich booty, towards the close of the year B.C. 701. In the following year he was called into Babylonia, where troubles had broken out, and Hezekiah, left to himself, seems to have made up his mind to revolt, and to have called in the assistance of Egypt (Isa 30:4; 2Ki 18:21). Sabatok was probably the nominal sovereign, but Tirhakah, who held his court at Meres, was lord paramount. An alliance was made; and hopes held out that, if Sennacherib again marched into Judaea, Hezekiah would receive effectual aid, especially in chariots and horsemen (2Ki 18:24). Under these circumstances, Sennacherib made his second expedition, probably in B.C. 699. Regarding Egypt as his main enemy, and Judaea as of small account, he led his army by the ordinary route into the Philistian plain, pressing southward, while he detached a moderato force to hold Jerusalem in check, to threaten it, and, if an opportunity offered, to seize it. At the head of this force were three commanders, who seem to have borne, all of them, official titles; viz. the Tartan, or “commander-in-chief;” the Rabsaris, or “chief eunuch;” and the Rabshakeh, or “chief cupbearer.” The Tartan was the highest of all the officials of the empire, and ranked next to the king. Sennacherib detached this force from Lachish, which seems to have revolted, and to have been undergoing a second siege. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool. It was, perhaps, this army which Isaiah saw in vision, advancing on Jerusalem from the pass of Michmash (Isa 10:28-32), and “shaking its hand” at the city from the northern plateau outside the wallsthe traditional “camp of the Assyrians.” At any rate, the “upper pool” and the” fuller’s field” were in this direction (see the comment on Isa 7:3). Which is in the highway of the fuller’s field.
2Ki 18:18
And when they had called to the kingi.e; when they had announced that they had a message to deliver to the kingthere came out to them; by Hezekiah’s order, doubtless. Learning that they were three of Sennacherib’s highest officials, he sent out to them three of the chief officers of his own court. Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household. Recently promoted to that high position, instead of Shebna, according to the prophecy (Isa 22:19-22), and perhaps by the influence of Isaiah. And Shebna the scribe; or, secretarythe official employed to draw up documents, such as treaties, protocols, despatches, and the like. He had been removed to this inferior position, to make room for Eliakim, but had not yet suffered, the banishment with which Isaiah (Isa 22:18) had threatened him. And Joah the son of Asaph the recorder; or, remembrancerthe person whose chief duty it probably was to chronicle events as they occurred, and finally to draw up the memoir of each reign at its close. (For another view, see the comment on 1Ki 4:3.)
2Ki 18:19
And Rabshakeh said unto them. Although the third in order of dignity, Rabshakeh took the word, probably because he was familiar with the Hebrew language, and could speak it fluently (see 2Ki 18:26). His being spokesman made him appear to be the chief ambassador, and made Isaiah, in the parallel passage (36.), pass over in silence the other two. Speak ye now to Hezekiah. It was a rude, almost an insulting commencement, to give Hezekiah no titleneither “the king,” nor “King of Judah,” nor even “your master,” but to call him merely “Hezekiah.” The same rudeness is persisted in throughout (verses 22, 29, 30, 31, 32), and it is emphasized by the employment of some title or other, generally a lofty title, when Sennacherib is spoken of. Sennacherib himself is less rude in his inscriptions. Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyria. The “great king”sarru rabuwas the ordinary title assumed by Assyrian monarchs. It passed from them to the Babylonians and the Persians. Sennacherib calls himself, on Bellino’s cylinder,” the great king, the powerful king, the King of Assyria, the king unrivalled, the pious monarch, the worshipper of the great gods, the protector of the just, the lover of the righteous, the noble warrior, the valiant hero, the first of all kings, the great punisher of unbelievers”. What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? We may assume that Hezekiah had, at the beginning of the year, withheld his tribute. He had certainly not gone out to meet the “great king” as he approached his territories, to do homage, and place the forces of Judah at his disposal. On the contrary, he had taken up an attitude of hostility. He had fortified his capital (2Ch 32:2-5); he had collected arms and soldiers, and had shut himself up in Jerusalem, having made every preparation for a siege. Sennacherib inquires why he has dared to do all thison what strength does he rely? What is the ground of his confidence?
2Ki 18:20
Thou sayest (but they are but vain words); literally, words of lips; i.e. words which the lips speak, without the heart having any conviction of their truth. We must suppose that Sennacherib has either heard from his spies that Hezekiah is speaking to the people as he represents him to be speaking, or conjectures what he is likely to say. According to the writer of Chronicles (2Ch 32:7, 2Ch 32:8), what he did say was very different. He neither boasted of “counsel” nor of material “strength;” but simply said, “There be more with us than with him: with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles.” I have counsel and strength for the war. Sennacherib imagines that Hezekiah’s real trust is in the “fleshly arm” of Egypt, and in the counselors who have advised and brought about the alliance. And perhaps he is not far wrong. Hezekiah, it would seem, “halted between two opinions.” He hoped for aid from Egypt; but, if it failed, then he hoped for the Divine help promised by Isaiah. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
2Ki 18:21
Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt. Sennacherib had good information. Hezekiah’s embassy to Egypt (Isa 30:2-7) was known to him; and he rightly judged that Hezekiah was expecting aid from this quarter. This expectation he ridicules. What is Egypt but a “bruised reed”? The Nile bulrush () has a goodly show; it rears itself aloft, and leeks strong and stately; but use it as a staff, lean upon it, and it snaps at once. Such is Pharaohnay, he is worse; he is a bruised reed, which can give no support at all, even for a moment. The Assyrian monarch was justified in his contempt. Egypt had never yet given any effectual support to the states attacked by Assyria Shebek gave no manner of aid to Hoshea, but allowed Samaria to be conquered in B.C. 722 without making the slightest effort on her behalf. In B.C. 720 he came to the aid of Gaza, but Gaza was captured notwithstanding. In B.C. 711 either he or Sabatok undertook the protection of Ashdod, but with the same lack of success. “Kings of Egypt” assisted the Ascalonites against Sennacherib himself in B.C. 701, and were again completely defeated. Sargon calls the King of Egypt, whoso aid was invited by the Ashdedites, “a monarch who could not save them.” On which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it; i.e. trust in Egypt will not only bring a country no advantage, but it will bring positive injury. The sharp siliceous casing of a reed might run into the hand and give an ugly wound. So is Pharaoh King of Egypt unto all that trust on him. Sargon in one place speaks of a King of Egypt under the title of “Pharaoh.”
2Ki 18:22
But if ye say unto me, We trust in the Lord our God. Sennacherib had also heard of this second ground of trust, which Hezekiah had certainly put forward with great openness (2Ch 32:8). No doubt he thought it purely fantastical and illusory. But he was not unaware that it might inspire a determined resistance. He therefore condescended to argue against reliance on it. Is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away? His counselors have suggested to Sennacherib a specious argumentHow can Hezekiah confidently rely on the protection of the God of the land, Jehovah, when he has been employing himself for years in the destruction of this very God’s high places and altars? Surely the God will not favor one who has been pulling down his places of worship! Putting out of sight the special requirements of the Jewish Law, the argument might well seem unanswerable. At any rate, it was calculated to have a certain effect on the minds of those who were attached to the high-place worship, and desired its continuance. And hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem. A weak argument, if addressed to Jews of Jerusalem only, but likely to have weight with the country Jews, if, as is probable, they had crowded into the city when the invasion began.
2Ki 18:23
Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to my lord the King of Assyria, and I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. “Pledge thyself,” i.e. “to find the men, and I will pledge myself to find the horses.” It is a strong expression of contempt for the military power of the Jews. They have not only no trained cavalry, but, were any one to furnish them with two thousand horses, they could not find the men to ride them. The Jewish army does, in fact, appear to have consisted of infantry and chariots only.
2Ki 18:24
How then wilt thou turn away the face ofi.e. “repulse, “cause to retreat”one captain of the least of my master’s servants; literally, one governorthe word used is that which in modern times takes the form of “pasha,” or “pacha.” It properly applies to the rulers of provinces; but as these were expected to collect and command, upon occasions, the troops of their province, it has a secondary sense of “commander” or “captain.” And put thy trust; rather, and thou puttest thy trustin this extremity of weakness, so far as thine own forces are concerned, thou art so foolish as to put thy trust in Egypt, and to expect that her strength will make up for thine own impotence. Vain hope! (see 2Ki 18:21). On Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? or, chariots and chariot-men.
2Ki 18:25
Am I now come up without the Lord against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it. The Assyrian monarchs constantly state that Asshur, their “great god,” directs them to make war against this or that nation, but not that the god of the country to be attacked does so. It is difficult to account for Sennacherib’s very exceptional boast, “Jehovah said to me. Go up against this laud.” Perhaps he identifies “Jehovah” with “Asshur.” Perhaps he has heard of prophecies, uttered in the name of Jehovah, by Jewish prophets, which threatened the land with desolation at the hand of the Assyrians (e.g. Isa 7:17-24; Isa 10:5-12; Joe 2:1-11, etc.). Or he may have made the statement in mere bravado, as one that might frighten some, and at any rate could not be contradicted.
2Ki 18:26
Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; literally, in the Aramaic language. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Assyrian were three cognate languages, closely allied, and very similar both in their grammatical forms and in their vocabularies, but still sufficiently different to be distinct languages, which were only intelligible to those who had learnt them. Rabshakeh had addressed the Jewish officials in Hebrew, probably as the language which they would best understand, if it were not even the only one that they would understand; not with the express “object of influencing the common people,” as Bahr supposes. But the Jewish officials feared that the words uttered were influencing them. They proposed, therefore, that the further negotiations should be conducted in Aramaic, a tongue which they understood, and one which they supposed that Rabshakeh, as he knew Hebrew, would also know. Aramaic was spoken in most of the tract that lay between Assyria and Palestine, in Syria and Damascus certainly, in Upper Mesopotamia, along the line of the Euphrates, and perhaps as far as the Khabour river. For we understand it. It is not likely that the Jews of this time generally understood Aramaic; but high officials of the court, who might have to deal with embassies and negotiate treaties, found it necessary to understand it, just as such persons in our own country have to know French. And talk not with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall. Besides the sentinels and other soldiers, there would probably be many idlers upon the wall, attracted by the unwonted spectacle of an ambassadorial cortege, and anxious to pick up intelligence. The loud voices of Orientals would be heard to a considerable distance.
2Ki 18:27
But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall? An intolerable speech on the part of an envoy, and one which might have justified an order to send an arrow through his head. Ambassadors are accredited by governments to governments, and the safe conduct granted to them is on the understanding that they will conduct themselves according to established usage. In no state of society can it have been allowable for envoys to intervene between the governors and the governed, and endeavor to stir up discontent among the latter. Yet this is what Rabshakeh did, and boasted of doing. Well might Isaiah say of such an arrogant and lawless aggressor, “He hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man” (see Isa 33:8). That they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? Rabshakeh means to say that the effect of the men “sitting on the wall,” and continuing the defense of the town, will be to bring them to the last extremity of hunger and thirst, when they will be forced even to consume their own excrement.
2Ki 18:28
Then Rabshakeh stood and cried with aloud voice in the Jews’ language, and spake, saying. Rabshakeh had probably been sitting before. He now stood up to attract attention, and raised his voice to be the better heard. Still speaking Hebrew, and not Aramaic, he addressed himself directly to the people on the wall, soldiers and others, doing the very opposite to what he had been requested to do, and outraging all propriety. History scarcely presents any other instance of such coarse and barefaced effrontery, unless the affronts put upon a Danubian principality by the envoy of a “great Power” may be regarded as constituting a parallel. Hear the word of the great king, the King of Assyria. It is scarcely likely that Sennacherib had anticipated his envoy’s action, much less directed it, and told him exactly what he was to say. But Rabshakeh thinks his words will have more effect if he represents them as those of his master.
2Ki 18:29
Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you. Rabshakeh and his master, no doubt, both of them thought Hezekiah’s grounds of confidence would prove fallacious, and that all who should trust in them would find themselves “deceived.” There were but two grounds that Hezekiah could possibly put forward:
(1) deliverance by human meansby his own armed strength and that of his allies;
(2) deliverance by supernatural meansby some great manifestation of miraculous power on the part of Jehovah. Rabshakeh thinks both equally impossible. The first, however, is too absurd for argument, and he therefore takes no further notice of it; but the second he proceeds to combat, in 2Ki 18:33-35. For he shall not be able to deliver you out of his hand. Correct grammar requires “out of my hand;” but Rabshakeh forgets that he is professing to report the words of Sennacherib.
2Ki 18:30
Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord. Rabshakeh seems to be aware that this is the argument which Hezekiah is, in point of fact, mainly urging. If at one time he had trusted in Egypt, that trust was now quite or well-nigh gone. The tone of his exhortations was that recorded in Chronicles (2Ch 32:6-8), “He set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and spake comfortably to them, saying, Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the King of Assyria, nor for all the multi-rude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him [see 2Ki 6:16]; with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah King of Judah.” Saying, The Lord will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria. Hezekiah’s was, in part, a general conviction that God would not forsake his people, who had recently turned to him, if not with absolute sincerity, yet at any rate with public confession of sin, and public acknowledgment of his mercies, and public profession of an intention to serve him; in part, probably, a special reliance on some definite prophecies of Isaiah, that the city should not be taken (see Isa 31:4-6; Isa 34:1-17 :20-22).
2Ki 18:31
Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the King of Assyria. Rabshakeh, before concluding, tries the effect of blandishments. The King of Assyria is no harsh lord, as he has been represented to them. He will be a kinder master than Hezekiah. Hezekiah condemns them to all the hardships of a siege; and then, if they survive it, to a wasted land, ruined homes, broken cisterns. Sennacherib, if they will but yield to him, promises them peace and prosperity, a time of quiet enjoyment in their own land, and then removal to another equally good, where they will “live and not die,” be happy and not miserable. It will be observed that none but material inducements are held out to them. They are expected to barter freedom, independence, religious privileges, country, home, for the sake of creature comfortsfor ease, quiet, and security. Setting aside the question whether they could count on the performance of the promises made them, it will be felt that they did well not to be tempted. Better vigorous national life, with any amount of hardship, struggle, and suffering, than the gilded chains of the most peaceful servitude. Make an agreement with me by a presentrather, make peace with me, or “make terms with me” (Knobel, Thenius, Keil, Bahr); in other words, give in your submissionand come out to me; i.e. quit the town, surrender it (see 1Sa 11:3; Jer 21:9; Jer 38:17), place yourselves at my mercy, “and then” see what great things I will do for you.” The tone, as Bahr says, is one of “wheedling” and cajolement. And then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree. Proverbial expressions for a peaceful, happy time (see 1Ki 4:25; Mic 4:4; Zec 3:10), when there are no inroads, no ravages, no disturbances. Rabshakeh promises, in the name of Sennacherib, that they shall rest in their own land for a terman indefinite termin a blissful state of peace and quietness before any new resolution is taken about them. And drink ye every one the waters of his cistern; rather, of his well (). Every man who had a field or a vineyard was sure to have a well in it. Cisterns for the storage of rain-water were comparatively uncommon.
2Ki 18:32
Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land. Rabshakeh did not dissemble the fact that they must look for a transplantation. Probably he felt that, if he did, he would not be believed. The transplantations had been too numerous and too recent, the examples of Samaria, Damascus, Hamath, Ashdod, etc; were too notorious, for it to be worth his while to pretend that Judaea would have any other fate. He therefore set himself the task of persuading the Jews that transplantation had nothing about it displeasing or even disagreeablethat, in fact, they were to be envied rather than pitied for being about to experience it. The King of Assyria, in the goodness of his paternal breast, would select for them a land as nearly as possible “like their own land”a land teeming with corn and wine and oil, full of rich arable tracts, of vineyards and of olive-grounds, which would yield them those fruits of the earth to which they were accustomed, in abundance. What security they had that these promises would be fulfilled, he did not attempt to show them; much less did he explain to them why, if they were to gain rather than lose, it was worth while transplanting them at all; how that transplanted nations lost all spirit and patriotism, sank into apathy, and gave no trouble to their masters. A land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey (comp. Deu 8:8, Deu 8:9, which has, no doubt, affected the language of the reporter, who gives the general tenor of Rabshakeh’s speech, but could not have taken down or have remembered his exact words) that ye may live, and not dieas you win if you follow Hezekiah’s adviceand [therefore] hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadethi.e; seeketh to persuadeyou, saying, The Lord will deliver us (see the comment on 2Ki 18:30).
2Ki 18:33
Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria? To Rabshakeh, and the Assyrians generally, this seemed a crushing and convincing, absolutely unanswerable, argument. It had all the force of what appeared to them a complete induction. As far back as they could remember, they had always been contending with different tribes and nations, each and all of whom had had gods in whom they trusted, and the result had been uniformthe gods had been unequal to the task of protecting their votaries against Assyria: how could it be imagined that Jehovah would prove an exception? If he was not exactly, as Knobel calls him, “the insignificant god of an insignificant people,” yet how was he better or stronger than the othersthan Chemosh, or Moloch, or Rim-moll, or Baal, or Ashima, or Khaldi, or Bel, or Merodach? What had he done for the Jews hitherto? Nothing remarkable, so far as the Assyrians knew; for their memories did not reach back so far as the time of Asa and the deliverance from Zerah, much less to the conquest of Canaan or the Exodus. He had not ‘saved the trans-Jordanic tribes from Tiglath-pileser, or Samaria from his successors. Was it not madness to suppose that he would save Judaea from Sennacherib? A heathen reasoner could not see, could not be expected to see, the momentous difference; that the gods of the other countries were “no gods” (2Ki 19:18), while Jehovah was “the Lord of the whole earth.”
2Ki 18:34
Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? Hamath and Arpad had been recently conquered by Sargon. Of the latter city but little is known, net even its site. We find it generally connected with Damascus and Hamath, and may conjecture that it lay between them, either in Coele-Syria or in the Anti-Libanus. (On Hamath, see the commentary upon 2Ki 14:25; and for its special god, Ashima, see that on 2Ki 17:30.) Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hens, and Ivah?, see the comment on 2Ki 17:24 and 2Ki 17:31.) “Hena,” mentioned always with Sepharvaim and Ivah (2Ki 19:13; Isa 38:13), is probably Allah on the Euphrates, about seventy miles above Hit (Ivah). Nothing is known of its gods. Probably Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah had rebelled in conjunction, and been re-conquered at no distant date. Sargon mentions in his annals that he besieged and took Sepharvaim (Sippara) in his twelfth year. Have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand? There is probably some compression of the original narrative here. The meaning is, “Have they delivered their several cities, or has the god of Samaria delivered his city out of my hand?” No god had hitherto delivered any city which the Assyrians had attacked.
2Ki 18:35
Who are they among all the gods of the countriesi.e; the countries with which Assyria had been at warthat have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand? Produce an example of deliverance,” Rabshakeh means to say, “before you speak of deliverance as probable, or even possible. If you cannot, relinquish the hope, and submit yourselves.” Rabshakeh cannot conceive the idea that Jehovah is anything but a local god, on a par with all the other gods of the countries.
2Ki 18:36
But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word. All Rabshakeh’s efforts to produce open disaffection failed. Whatever impression his arguments may have made, no indication was given that they had produced any. If, then, he had hoped to bring about a mutiny, or even to create a disturbance, he was disappointed. For the king’s commandment was, saying, Answer him not. Hezekiah had either anticipated Rabshakeh’s tactics, and given an order beforehand that no word should be uttered, or he had promptly met them by sending such an order, on learning Rabshakeh’s proceedings, The latter is more probable, since such an outrageous course as that which Rabshakeh had pursued can scarcely have been expected.
2Ki 18:37
Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent. They had rent their clothes, not so much in grief or in alarm, as in horror at Rabshakeh’s blasphemies. They were blasphemies, no doubt, arising from “invincible ignorance,” and not intended as insults to the one Almighty Being who rules the earth, of whose existence Rabshakeh had probably no conception; but they struck on Jewish ears as insults to Jehovah, and therefore as dreadful and horrible (comp. Gen 37:29; 1Sa 4:12; 2Sa 1:2; Ezr 9:3, etc.). And told him the words of Rabshakeh; reported to him, i.e. as nearly as they could, all that Rabshakeh had said. The three envoys would supplement, and perhaps correct, one another; and Hezekiah would have conveyed to him a full and, on the whole, exact account of the message sent to him through Rabshakeh by the Assyrian king, and of Rabshakeh’s method of enforcing it. The crisis of Hezekiah’s life was reached. As he acted under it would be fixed his own fate, his character in the judgment of all future time, and the fate of his own country.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 18:4
Iconoclasm right or wrong, judicious or injudicious, according to circumstances.
The destruction of the brazen serpent of Moses by Hezekiah has always been a favorite argument with extreme iconoclasts for their extreme views. In the time of Henry VIII; and still more in that of Cromwell, statuary was destroyed or mutilated, precious pictures were burnt, priceless stained-glass windows were shivered to atoms, by those with whom a main justification of their conduct was the example of Hezekiah. Let that example, then, be considered, both in respect of what Hezekiah did, and of what he did not do.
I. WHAT HEZEKIAH DID.
1. He removed the high places, which were distinctly contrary to the Law, since the Law allowed sacrifice in one place onlybefore the ark of the covenant, in the tabernacle, or at Jerusalem.
2. He brake down the “images,” or idolatrous emblems of Baalmere pillars probably, which were the objects of an actual worship.
3. He cut down the groves, or idolatrous emblems of Ashtoreth”sacred trees,” also the objects of worship.
4. He brake in pieces the brazen serpent, to which the Israelites had for some time been in the habit of offering incense.
II. WHAT HEZEKIAH DID NOT DO. Hezekiah did not understand the second commandment in any other sense than Solomon. He allowed the ministry of art to religion. He left untouched the carved figures of cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers upon the walls of the temple (1Ki 6:29). He left untouched the brazen lavers, on the borders of which were lions, oxen, and cherubim (1Ki 7:29). He probably restored to their place, he certainly did not destroy, the twelve oxen (Jer 52:20) which Solomon had made to support his “brazen sea” (1Ki 7:25), and which Ahaz had removed from the temple (2Ki 16:17). He himself added to the gold ornamentation of the doors and pillars (2Ki 18:16). It is evident, therefore, that Hezekiah’s iconoclasm was limited to those objects which were being actually abused to idolatrous uses at the time when he destroyed them. He did not spy around him, scenting peril of idolatry in every image or other representation of natural forms that had come down to him from former ages, even when they were employed in the service of religion. He was on the side of a rich and gorgeous and artistic ceremonial, of a musical service (2Ch 29:25-27), a highly ornamented sanctuary, a “house” as “magnifical” as art could make it (1Ch 22:5). He recognized that the preservation of artistic objects devoted to religion was the rule, destruction of them the rare exception, only justified
(1) where idolatrous abuse had actually crept in; and
(2) where such idolatrous abuse still continued. An observance of these wise limitations would have saved much that is now irrevocably lost in the past, and may be required to save what remains to us of religious art in the future.
2Ki 18:5-7
God’s service not really a hard service.
God’s service is not the hard service that some suppose it to be. No doubt it involves a certain amount of pain and suffering. For, first, there is no true service of God without self-denial; and self-denial is painful. Secondly, it involves chastening at the hand of God; for “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Heb 12:6); and chastening is “not joyous, but grievous’ (Heb 12:11). But there are to be set against these pains so many and so great compensations as leave a vast preponderance of advantage, and even enjoyment, to the godly over the ungodly.
I. THE SATISFACTION OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE. Just as there is nothing so painful, so depressing, so burdensome, as an evil conscience, the continually abiding sense of guiltiness and ill desert, so there is nothing which is a greater comfort to a man, more calculated to sustain him and maintain within him a perpetual quiet cheerfulness, than “the answer of a good conscience towards God” (1Pe 3:21), the knowledge that one has striven and is striving to do God’s will, and that by God’s grace one has been kept from falling away from him. Notwithstanding their self-depreciation and self-distrust, good men have, on the whole, a self-approving conscience (Rom 2:15), which is a source of inward satisfaction and enjoyment.
II. THE ESTEEM AND APPROVAL OF GOOD MEN. There is implanted in man a love of approbation, the gratification of which is the source of a very positive pleasure. Godly men, good men, whatever amount of dislike they may arouse among those whose designs they thwart, or to whom their lives are a continual reproach, elicit from the better sort a much greater amount of very warm and cordial approval. This cannot but be a satisfaction to them. The praise of men is not what they seek; but when it comes to them unsought, as it will almost certainly come at last, it cannot fail to be grateful and acceptable.
III. TEMPORAL PROSPERITY ARISING FROM MAN‘S RESPECT AND ESTEEM. The approval of our fellowmen naturally leads on to temporal advantages. Men place those whom they esteem in situations of trust, which are also, generally or frequently, situations of emolument. They make them presents or leave them legacies. They give them their custom, and recommend their friends to do the same. The worldly maxim, “Honesty is the best policy,” witnesses to the worldly advantage which accrues, by mere natural causation, to the upright, honest man. “All things work together for good to them that love God;” and, generally speaking, even this world’s goods seem to gather round them, and to cling to them, in spite of their slight esteem for earthly dross, and their proneness to scatter their riches on those around them.
IV. TEMPORAL PROSPERITY ARISING FROM THE DIRECT ACTION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE. Of this we have in Hezekiah a notable example. He “clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments and the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.” The Divine blessing rested on all that he did; God “prospered him in all his works.” When he seemed at the point of death, he miraculously recovered from his sickness, and God added to his life fifteen years (2Ki 20:6). When he provoked a judgment by indiscreet ostentation, the boon was granted him that the judgment should not fall in his days (2Ki 20:19). When an overwhelming calamity seemed about to fall upon him, and to crush both him and his nation, the catastrophe was averted by a stupendous miraclethe Assyrian host was destroyed, and the peril escaped (2Ki 19:35). “Riches and honor exceeding much” were given him (2Ch 32:27), and he was “magnified in the sight of all the nations” (2Ch 32:23). It may be said that all this was abnormal, and belonged to “the age of miracles;” but the principles of God’s action do not change, and if we examine human life at the present day dispassionately, we shall find that still, as general rule, if men cleave to the Lord, and keep his commandments, and depart not from following him, he will be with them, and will, more or less, prosper them.
2Ki 18:13-17
The danger of trusting to a purchased peace.
I. IN THE HISTORY OF NATIONS a purchased peace is seldom more enduring or more trustworthy than this peace which Hezekiah bought of Sennacherib. Once successful in extorting money by threats, why should an enemy refrain from repeating the process? Why should he stop till he has squeezed the sponge dry, and there is no more to be got from his victim? Even then, why should he not step in and execute his original threat of destruction and ruin? So Samaria found when she gave her thousand talents to the Assyrians (2Ki 15:19). So Rome found when she bribed Attila and Alaric. So will all nations ever find who seek to prolong their lives a little bit by paying for being let alone. And so also
II. IS THE HISTORY OF INDIVIDUALS. Persons frequently get themselves into some trouble or other, which they do not wish to be known, and their secret is discovered by some unscrupulous individual, who proceeds to trade upon it. What will they give him to remain silent? If they once consent to purchase a peace of their enemy, all peace in life is gone from them. A man’s appetite is only whetted by the first bribe, and still more by the second. “Increase of appetite doth grow by what it feeds on.” Demand follows demand, threat follows threat. The blood-sucker is insatiate. True wisdom consists in not yielding to the first threat, in declining to purchase peace, and defying the enemy. He may as well do his worst at once as at last. It will generally be found that his worst is not so very bad. Even if it is, it is the just penalty which has to be paid for our past transgression, and which must be paid in some way or other, and at some time, here or hereafter. It is best for us that it should be paid soon; for the penalty of sin, if not so paid, is apt to be demanded at last with a heavy accumulation of interest.
2Ki 18:20, 2Ki 18:21
Bruised reeds.
It is astonishing what trust is still placed, by generation after generation of mankind, in “bruised reeds.” Whatever may be the case with individuals, mankind, the human race, learns nothing from experience. Men still trust implicitly in such “bruised reeds” as these
I. BIG BATTALIONS. They think they are safe if they have sufficient “strength for the war.” They go on increasing their military establishments, adding regiment to regiment, and battery to battery, and corps d’armee to corps d’armee. They count the armies of their neighbors; they reckon up man against man, and gun against gun, and ship against ship; and calculate, and plan, and act, as if the “multitude of an host”the number of troops capable of being brought at once into the fieldwas everything. They forget that “it is nothing to the Lord to help, whether with many or with them that have no power” (2Ch 14:11). They forget, or misread, history, and fail to note how often “the race has not been to the swift, nor the battle to the strong” (Ecc 9:11).
II. POWERFUL ALLIES. Weak powers have always some “Egypt” to which they look for succor. Strong Powers count on “triple” or “quadruple” alliances to augment their strength, and render them irresistible. They forget how easily alliances are broken up, how sure they are to arouse discontents and jealousies, how little dependence can be placed on the promises of statesmen, or the persistence of a particular mood in a nation, or the view which a state may take of its interests. They forget that the friend of today may be the enemy of to-morrow, and may fail them at the moment of greatest need.
III. SAGACIOUS STATESMEN AND GENERALS. It is forgotten, or at any rate not borne steadily in mind, how intellect decays, how mental power lessens, as men grow old; how often under a prolonged strain the strongest intellect suddenly snaps and is no longer of any account. Nor is it generally felt and recognized how limited and imperfect even the greatest intellect always ishow incompetent to forecast all possibilities, or to deal with all emergencies. “The weakness of God is stronger than man, and the foolishness of God is wiser than man” (1Co 1:25). Man’s wisdom is at best a poor purblind wisdom, apt to err, apt to fail when most neededa very “bruised reed” to trust in.
IV. GOOD LUCK OR A FORTUNATE STAR. The trust of the first Napoleon in his “star” is well known. It is not so well known, but it is sufficiently attested, that the third Napoleon had nearly as implicit a trust. Thousands of persons deem themselves “lucky,” and trust in their “good luck,” as if it were an actual tangible possession. Otherwise there would be far less gambling than there is. The poor peasants of Italy and Germany would Waste less money in lotteries, and the simpletons of England less in bets upon horses. Persons “luck” is, on the whole, probably about equal, and if a man has been “lucky” hitherto, he should expect to be “unlucky” in the future.
V. SOMETHING TURNING UP. The phrase is a vulgar one, but it would need a long periphrasis to express the idea otherwise, and even then we might not make our meaning clear. Men who do not think themselves particularly lucky are still constantly waiting for “something to turn up,” looking for it, trusting in it. The trust is made an excuse for idleness, for inaction, for waste of the best years of life, even for dissipated coursesfor gambling, drinking, frequenting evil company. This “bruised reed” is more rotten even than most of the others. For the idler, the waster of his time, the haunter of smoking saloons, billiard-rooms, and race-courses, nothing ever does “turn up.” He offers no temptation to steady business-like men to employ him. He does not seek work, and work is not very likely to seek him. He is an idler, and will remain an idler to the end of the chapter. There is no help for him, unless he gives up his silly trust, and betakes himself to a better one.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN
2Ki 18:1-8
The secret of a successful fife; or, trust in God, and its results.
What a refreshing contrast to some of the lives we have been considering, is this description of the life of Hezekiah! How pleasant it is to read of such a life as his, after we have read of so many kings of Judah and Israel, that “they did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin”! It is a pleasant contrast even to the life of Hezekiah’s own father Ahaz. It is a somewhat strange thing that, brought up amid such evil surroundings, Hezekiah should have turned out so well. The chances were all against him. His father’s example was anything but favorable to the development of religion in his son. How careful parents should be as to the example they set their children! The best help parents can give their children to begin life with is godly training and a Christian example. I read lately, “that of the anarchists at Chicago, who were executed for their crimes some time ago, almost all had either been deprived of their parents when young, or had never received any home training; they had never been to a Sunday school; the influences surrounding them had been utterly godless.” What a responsibility rests on parents to train their children well! Much of their future happiness depends upon the home life of childhood and youth. Perhaps Hezekiah had a good mother. Perhaps he had been entrusted to the care of some one of the priests who remained faithful to God amid the prevailing unfaithfulness, idolatry, and sin. Perhaps he was early brought under the influence of Isaiah. At any rate, we read of him that he did right in the sight of the Lord. He is singled out for special praise. It is said of him that “he trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him” (verse 5). What was the consequence? Just what the consequence will be to all who put their trust in the Lord and walk in his ways: “The Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.”
I. TRUST IN GOD LEADS TO PERSONAL RELIGION. Hezekiah’s faith in God was not a mere idle profession. It did not consist in the mere belief of certain historical facts. It did not consist in the mere assent to certain doctrinal truths. It did not consist in the mere observance of certain outward forms and ceremonies. It was a real faith. It extended to his whole life. “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did” (verse 3). “He clave unto the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses” (verse 6). Suck is true religion. Religion is the dedication of the heart and life to God. A man may differ from me in creed, and in the way he worships the same God; but if he loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and serves God in sincerity, he is a truly religious man. “In every nation he that feareth God, and. worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” How expressive and instructive are some of these quaint old phrases! “He clave unto the Lord.” Hezekiah set before him one great aim at the commencement of his life, and that was to please God. Whatever it might cost, he made up his mind to keep close to God. It is a grand resolution for the young to make. It is a grand aim to keep before them in life. But Hezekiah had not merely a goal at which he aimed. He had certain well-defined lines along which he reached that goal. He knew that, to please God, he must keep his commandments. He did not set up his own will in opposition to the will of God, king though he was. He did not dispute the wisdom of God’s commands. He felt that God knew much better than he did the path of wisdom and of duty. This is one of the best evidences of true faithof real trust in God. We may not see the reason for a command of God, but let us obey it. A parent will give his child many commands, for which it is quite unnecessary, perhaps undesirable, that the child should know the reason. Obedience based on faith is one of the first principles of life. Here, then, was the beginning of Hezekiah’s success in life. It began with the state of his own heart. He trusted in God. That trust in God molded his whole character, and character is the foundation of all that is permanent in life.
II. TRUST IN GOD LEADS TO PRACTICAL EFFORT. Hezekiah very soon showed by his conduct that he was determined to serve God. He did not leave the people long in doubt as to which side he was on. In the very first year of his reign, and in the first month of it, he opened the doors of the temple of the Lord, which his father had closed, and repaired them (2Ch 29:3). As soon as the temple was set in proper order, he caused the priests and the Levites to commence at once the public service of God. Then, in the second month, he issued a proclamation throughout all the land of Israel and Judah, inviting the people to come to Jerusalem to keep the Passover in the house of the Lord. What a festival and time of rejoicing that was! For seven days they kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread with great gladness, and the Levites and the priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the Lord. Peace offerings were offered; confession of sin was made, not to the priests, but to the Lord God of their fathers; and the presence of the Lord was so manifested among the large congregation, that when the seven days of the Passover were ended, the whole assembly unanimously agreed to keep seven days more. “So there was great joy in Jerusalem: for since the time of Solomon the son of David King of Israel there was not the like in Jerusalem” The effect of the service was electrical When the Passover was finished, the people went out to all the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars until they had utterly destroyed them all. In all this work of destroying the symbols of idolatry, Hezekiah the king took a leading part. Even the brazen serpent which Moses had made did not escape the destroying hand. It was an interesting relic of Israel’s journeying in the wilderness, and of their wonderful deliverance by God. But it had become a snare to the people. It had become an object of worship to some, as relics and images become to many professing Christians. They worshipped it and burnt incense to it. Hezekiah was not the man to destroy anything that was a help to true devotion. He encouraged the Levites to use the trumpets, the harp, and the psaltery, to stir up and stimulate the singing of the congregation, and to render to God a hearty and glorious service of praise. But he saw that the brazen serpent had become an idol in itself, and was leading the thoughts of the people away from the true Object of worship. So be broke it in pieces. All honor to the determined reformer, who destroyed everything that had become dishonoring to God! All honor to those stern reformers who from time to time have broken in pieces the symbols of idolatry in the Church of Christ! Would that in the Church of Rome today some such reformer would arise, who would denounce and overthrow its image-worship and Mariolatry! Such was the work of reformation which Hezekiah accomplished among his people. It shows how God honors those who are determined to serve him, and how he blesses immediate and decided action. Hezekiah might well have hesitated in this work. The whole country was given over to idolatry. He might have dreaded a rebellion. In some parts of the country he got little sympathy in his efforts to restore the ancient religion. When the messengers inviting the people to the Passover passed through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh and. Zebulon, the people there laughed them to scorn and mocked them. Such manifestations of popular feeling might have caused Hezekiah to falter in his decision. He might have thought that he would introduce his reforms gradually. But no! the idolatry was wrong, and it must be put down at once. The worship of the true God was right, and it must at once be resumed, Hezekiah was right. Had he waited, had he begun his reign by tolerating idolatry for a while, he would have found it much harder to overthrow afterwards. Is there not here a lesson for us all? If you see the right loath clearly pointed out to you, resolve to walk in it, though all men should be against you. Remember the brave words of Athanasius. He was mocked at for his zeal for the truth. Some one said to him, “Athanasius, all the world is against you; ‘ then said he, “Athanasius is against the world.” Follow the light of conscience and of duty. What matter though you may incur danger or worldly loss by so doing?
“And because right is right, to follow right
Were reason in the scorn of consequence.”
Furthermore, whatever work you see needs to be done, do it at once. Promptness and decision are two essential elements of success in life. Do you see that you need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ if you are to be saved? Then come to him today. A more convenient season may never arrive. We know not what a day may bring forth. Do you hear God calling you by his Word to perform some act of kindness or forgiveness? Then do it at once. Do you hear God calling you to some work of usefulness in his Church? Begin at once to undertake it. If our trust in God is a real trust, it will lead us, not only to personal religion, but also to practical effort. We can trust him to take care of us when we are doing his work. “Therefore be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.”
III. TRUST IN GOD LEADS TO SUCCESS IN LIFE. “And the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth” (verse 7). He was victorious over his enemies. He threw off the yoke of the King of Assyria, and drove back the Philistines, who had made great inroads during the previous reign. When the people honored God, their God honored them and gave them victories over their enemies. As a reward of Hezekiah’s faith and faithfulness, God gave him much riches and honor. Hezekiah had trusted God at the beginning of his reign. He had done God’s will, though he did not know what it might cost him, and before he was established on the throne. And God did not disappoint his trust, but made him greater and more honored than all the kings of Judah before or after his time. Even in a temporal point of view, no one ever loses by trusting God and doing what is right. Christ promises that every one who is willing to give up every earthly possession for his sake will receive an hundredfold more in this life, and in the world to come life everlasting. We saw, above, the dangers of prosperity. Hezekiah’s career shows us what is the safeguard of prosperity. “The Lord was with him.” Where that can be said, there is no danger in prosperity. In the godless man, prosperity is often a curse. It hardens his heart. He thinks that he is rich and increased in goods and has need of nothing. But the prosperity of the Christian may be a great blessing to himself and others. Take with you into your business, into your social relations, into every plan you make and every work you undertake, the presence of God, the fear of God, the commandments of God; and then there will be no fear of your success. Trust in the Lord. Put your eternal interests into the hands of Jesus. He is worthy of your trust. They that trust themselves to him shall never perish. Trust in the Lord, that it may lead you to personal religion, to practical effort, to success in life.
“Set thou thy trust upon the Lord.
And be thou doing good,
And so thou in the land shalt dwell,
And verily have food.”
C.H.I.
2Ki 18:9-12
Captivity and its cause.
(See homily on preceding chapter, 2Ki 18:6-23.)C.H.I.
2Ki 18:13-16
Hezekiah’s weakness.
Hezekiah had now been for some time on the throne. God had been with him hitherto, and had prospered him. Perhaps Hezekiah began to trust too much to his own strength. In the seventh verse we are told that he rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not. It does not appear that Hezekiah sought God’s guidance before taking this bold step. Perhaps it would have been wiser if he had waited a little longer. At any rate, now, when he begins to feel the consequences of his action, he is disposed to shrink from them. The King of Assyria “came up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.” Hezekiah was panic-stricken. He trembled for his throne. He sent a submissive message, saying, “I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear.” We learn here
I. HOW WEAK EVEN A GOOD MAN IS WITHOUT THE HELP OF GOD. Hezekiah was a good man. He was a wise man. Yet when left to himself how weak he was! how foolishly he acted! “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” It becometh us all to walk humbly with our God. “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
II. THE EVIL RESULTS OF WANT OF FAITH. Hezekiah’s faith in God failed him. When that went, he was helpless. Sennacherib, seeing his craven spirit, appointed him a tribute of “three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold” (2Ki 18:14). Hezekiah was in a difficulty. He had no money to meet this demand. So he followed the very dangerous example set him by his father, and stripped the gold from the doors and pillars of the house of God, and sent it to the King of Assyria. Want of faith often leads men to use questionable methods. Men are in need of money, and they cannot trust God to provide for them in the way of honest industry, so they have recourse to speculation and fraud. If we are doing God’s will, we may trust him to take care of us.
“It may not be my way;
It may not be thy way;
But yet in his own way the Lord will provide.”
C.H.I.
2Ki 18:17-37
The tempter and his methods: Rabshakeh’s address to the leaders and people of Jerusalem.
Hezekiah’s gift to the King of Assyria had not saved him. The weakness he showed was rather an encouragement to Sennacherib to continue his attacks upon Judaea. And now a detachment of Sennacherib’s army, headed by three officers of rank, comes up to Jerusalem. Their first effort is to induce the people of Jerusalem to surrender. Rabshakeh is the spokesman. His speech is like the speech of a Mephistopheles. It may fairly be taken as an illustration of how the wily tempter himself proceeds in his desire to allure to sin and destruction the souls of men.
I. HE PRETENDS TO BE DOING GOD‘S WORK.
1. He ridicules their confidence in Egypt. Isaiah himself could hardly have warned them more strongly against the vanity of alliance with other nations. “Thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt” (verse 21).
2. He censures Hezekiah for disrespect toward God. “If ye say unto me, We trust in the Lord God: is not this he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away?” (verse 22). So Satan sometimes appears as an angel of light. Men of sin and worldliness sometimes show a remarkable interest in the Church of God.
3. He represents himself as having a commission frown God. “Am I now come up without the Lord against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it” (verse 25). It is thus that sin constantly presents itself to men and women. It masks its real features. It presents itself in a religious garb. A debased theatre professes to be the teacher of morality. But for one whose life it has changed for the better, there are thousands whom it has changed for the worse. Perhaps we should be justified in going the length of Pollok, in his ‘Course of Time,’ and in saying, “It might do good, but never did.” How many questionable practices defend themselves on the ground that they are sanctioned and encouraged by “religious” people?
II. HE MAKES LIGHT OF TRUST IN GOD. But soon the cloven foot appears. The tempter soon begins to wean the soul from that religion ‘of whose interests he professes to be so jealous. See here the inconsistency of Rabshakeh’s speech. He first of all made it appear that he was commissioned by God, and that therefore all their efforts to resist him would be futile. But now he proceeds to ridicule the idea of trusting to God’s power. “Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us” (verse 30). “Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria?” (verses 33-35). So it is in the progress of sin. He who is led away by the allurements of the world and pleasure, first begins with pleasures which lie on the herder-land between the bad and the good. These are the pleasures or pursuits about which men say, “Oh! there is no harm in that.” “No harm” is a very dangerous phrase. When we hear it, we may generally doubt its truth. It usually refers to pursuits or pleasures which are the stepping-stones to worse sins. Many a man crosses the bridge of “no harm,” and enters forever the land of “no good.” Let us never be induced to waver in our trust in God and obedience to him. His way is the way of safety and peace. There are many whose work seems to be like that of Rabshakehto weaken the trust of others in God, to diminish the respect of others for the Law of God. “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Where God and conscience say to us, “You ought not,” let not the tempter ever persuade us by saying, “You may.”
III. HE MAKES FALSE PROMISES. How fair-spoken is Rabshakeh! How very alluring his promises! If the people of Jerusalem would only make an agreement with the King of Assyria by a present, then they would eat every man of his own vine and fig tree, until he would afterwards take them away to a land like their own land, “a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey, that ye may live and not die.” In this specious way he held before them an attractive prospect. But it was as empty as the bubble in the summer breeze. It was the pleasant euphemism by which he sought to gloss over the prospect of conquest and captivity. So with the pleasures of sin. How bright and how attractive, to outward appearance, are the haunts of wickedness and vice! The bright lights of the gin-palacehow they allure its unhappy victims, often by the contrast with the dreariness and misery of their homes! What a pleasant prospect sin in various forms presents! But how terrible is the reality! How grim is the skeleton at the feast! “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.” Such are the tempter‘s methods still. The thirty-sixth verse contains a very good suggestion as to the way of meeting temptation. “But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word; for the king’s commandment was, saying, Answer him not.” It is a wise rule not to parley with the tempter. If we pray, “Lead us not into temptation,” then we ought to be careful not to put ourselves in temptation’s way.C.H.I.
2Ki 18:1-37
A striking reformation, a ruthless despotism, and an unprincipled diplomacy.
“How it came to pass,” etc. Amongst the incidents recorded and the characters mentioned in this chapter, there stand out in great prominence three subjects for practical contemplation:
(1) a striking reformation;
(2) a ruthless despotism; and
(3) an unprincipled diplomacy.
The many strange and somewhat revolting historic events that make up the bulk of this chapter will come out in the discussion of these three subjects.
I. A STRIKING REFORMATION. Hezekiah, who was now King of Judah, and continued such for about twenty-nine years, was a man of great excellence. The unknown historian here says that “he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did,” etc. (2Ki 18:3-8). This is high testimony, and his history shows that on the whole it was well deserved. Compared with most of his predecessors and contemporaries, he appears to have been an extraordinarily good man. He lived in a period of great national trial and moral corruption. Israel, Judah’s sister-kingdom, was in its death-throes, and his own people had fallen into idolatry of the grossest kind. In the very dawn of his reign he sets himself to the work of reformation. We find in 2Ch 29:2-36 a description of the desire for a thorough reformation which displayed itself. But the point of his reformative work, on which we would now fasten our attention, is that mentioned in 2Ch 29:4, “He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.” His method for extirpating idolatry from his country is detailed with minuteness in 2Ch 29:3; 2Ch 30:1-9. In this destruction of the brazen serpent we are struck with two things.
1. The perverting tendency of sin. The brazen serpent (we learn from Num 21:9) was a beneficent ordinance of God to heal those in the wilderness who had been bitten by the fiery serpents. But this Divine ordinance, designed for a good purpose, and which had accomplished good, was now, through the forces of human depravity, become a great evil. The Jews turned what was a special display of Divine goodness into a great evil. I am disposed to honor them for preserving it for upwards of seven hundred years, and thus handing it down from sire to son as a memorial of heavenly mercy; but their conduct in establishing it as an object for worship must be denounced without hesitancy or qualification. But is not this the great law of depravity? Has it not always perverted the good things of God, and thus converted blessings into curses? It has ever done so. It is doing so now. See how this perverting power acts in relation to such Divine blessings as
(1) health;
(2) riches;
(3) genius;
(4) knowledge;
(5) governments; and
(6) religious institutions.
2. The true attributes of a reformer. Here we observe:
(1) spiritual insight. Hezekiah (if our translation is correct) saw in this serpent, which appeared like a god to the people, nothing but a piece of brass”Nehustan.” What is grand to the vulgar is contemptible to the spiritually thoughtful. The true reformer peers into the heart of things, and finds that the gods of the people are but of common brass.
(2) Invincible honesty. He not only saw that it was brass, but said sodeclared it in the ears of the people. How many there are who have eyes to see the vile and contemptible in the objects which popular feeling admires and adores, but who lack the honesty to express their convictions! A true man not only sees the wrong, but exposes it.
(3) Practical courage. This reformer not only had the insight to see, and the honesty to expose the worthlessness of the people’s gods, but he had the courage to strike them from their pedestal. “He brake in pieces the brazen serpent.” I have no hope of any man doing any real spiritual good who has not these three instincts. He must not only have an eye to penetrate the seeming and to descry the real, nor merely be honest enough to speak out his views, but he must have also the manly hand to “break in pieces” the false, in order to do the Divine work of reform. The man that has the three combined is the reformer. Almighty Love! multiply amongst us men of this threefold instinctmen which the age, the world demands!
3. The true soul of a reformer. What is that which gave him the true insight and attributes of a reformerwhich in truth was the soul of the whole?
(1) Entire consecration to the right. “He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him but kept his commandments which the Lord commanded Moses. He trusted in and clave to the One true and living God, and kept his commandments. And this is right, and there is no right but this.
(2) Invincible antagonism to the wrong. “And he rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not.” “The yearly tribute his father had stipulated to pay, he withheld. Pursuing the policy of a truly theocratic sovereign, be was, through the Divine blessing which rested on his government, raised to a position of great public and national strength. Shalmaneser was dead; and assuming, consequently, that full independent sovereignty which God had settled on the house of David, he both shook off the Assyrian yoke, and, by an energetic movement against the Philistines, recovered the credit which his father Ahaz had lost in his war with that people (2Ch 28:18).”
II. A RUTHLESS DESPOTISM. There are two despots mentioned in this chapterShalmaneser and Sennacherib, both kings of Assyria. A brief description of the former we have in 2Ch 30:9, 2Ch 30:10, 2Ch 30:12. What is stated in these verses is but a repetition of what we have in the preceding chapter, and the remarks made on it in our last homily preclude the necessity of any observations here. This Shalmaneser was a tyrant of the worst kind. He invaded and ravaged the land of Israel, threw Hoshea into prison, laid siege to Samaria, carried the Israelites into Assyria, and located in their homes strangers from various parts of the Assyrian dominions. Thus he utterly destroyed the kingdom of Israel. The other despot is Sennacherib (2Ch 30:13-16). Shalmaneser is gone, and this Sennacherib takes his place. The ruthlessness of this man’s despotism appears in the following facts, recorded in the present chapter.
1. He had already invaded a country in which he had no right. “Sow in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib King of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.” “The names of the principal of these cities are perhaps enumerated by Micah (Mic 1:11-16), viz. Saphir, lying between Ashdod and Eleutheropolis; Zaanan or Zenan (Jos 15:37),; Beth-Ezel or Azel (Zec 14:5), near Saphir and Zaanan; Maroth or Maarath (Jos 15:59), between these towns and Jerusalem; Lachish (Um Lakis); Moresheth-Gath, situated in the direction of Gath; Achzib, between Keilah and Mareshah (Jos 15:44); Mareshah, situated in the low country of Judah (Jos 15:44); Adullam, near Mareshah (cf. Isa 24:1-12). Overrunning Palestine, Sennacherib laid siege to the fortress of Lachish, which lay seven Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, and, therefore, southwest of Jerusalem on the way to Egypt. Amongst the interesting illustrations of sacred history, furnished by the recent Assyrian excavations, is a series of bas-reliefs representing the siege of a towna fenced townamong the uttermost cities of Judah (Jos 15:39; Robinson’s ‘Biblical Researches’).” Now mark, he now determines on another invasion, although:
2. He had received from the king most humble submission and large contributions to leave his country alone. Mark his humiliating appeal, “And Hezekiah King of Judah sent to the King of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear.” Alas! herein is a yielding of this great man’s courage. Why did he apologize, pay the tribute which his ancestor had immorally pledged? Up to this point he had been bold in withholding it. But here, in crouching fear, he makes an apology. And more than this, he unrighteously promises a large contribution in answer to the despot’s demands. “And the King of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah King of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.” The sum that he promised was extravagant, amounting to three hundred and fifty thousand pounds; but what was worse, this sum was abstracted from the public funds, to which he had no right, and was also rifled from the temple, which was a desecration. “And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house. At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah King of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the King of Assyria” The conduct of Hezekiah in this matter cannot be justified. Inasmuch as Sennacherib accepted the offering, he was in honor bound to abandon all idea of another invasion. Albeit, contrary to every principle of justice and kindness, not to say honor, he dispatches his army again into Judaea. “And the King of Assyria sent Tartan,” etc. (verse 17). What monsters are such despots! and yet they are not rare. Is there a nation existing on the face of the earth to-day, whatever its form of government, that has not at one time or another played this part?
III. AN UNPRINCIPLED DIPLOMACY. On behalf of Hezekiah, “Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder,” appeared before the invading soldiers, and they are thus addressed by Rabshakeh, one of the leaders of the invading host: “And Rahshakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?” etc. He appears as the diplomatist of the Assyrian war-king, and what does he do? By an impassioned harangue, fraught with insolence, falsehood, and blasphemy, he urges Hezekiah and his country to surrender. In doing this:
1. He represents his master, the King of Assyria, to be far greater than he is. “Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyria.” Great, indeed! A flashing meteor and a gorgeous bubble, nothing morel A diplomatist is ever tempted to make his own country fabulously great in the presence of the one with whom he seeks to negotiate.
2. He seeks to terrify them with a sense of their utter inability to resist the invading army. “What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?”D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 18:1-8
Hezekiah the good. It is with a sense of relief that we emerge from the dark and oppressive atmosphere of the time of Ahaz into the “clear shining” (2Sa 23:4) of a reign like that of Hezekiah. Once more Divine mercy gave Judah a king in whom the best traditions of the theocracy were revived.
I. RIGHT CONDUCT.
1. An evil upbringing belied. As if to set laws of heredity at defiance, the worst King of Judah hitherto is succeeded by one of the bestthe best after David. It is difficult on human principles to account for such a phenomenon. Hezekiah had every disadvantage in inherited tendency, in evil example, and in adverse surrounding influences. But Divine grace triumphed over all, and made out of him “a chosen vessel” (Act 9:15). Doubtless some human agency unknown to us was employed in molding the young prince’s character. It may have been his mother, “Abi, the daughter of Zachariah;” or perhaps the Prophet Isaiah, who had afterwards so much to do with him.
2. A good example followed, Hezekiah took as his model, not his own father, but David, the founder of his line, of whom God had said, “I have found David the son of Jesse a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will” (Act 13:22). Hezekiah is the new David. Of no other since the times of Asa is it affirmed that he did “according to all that David his father did;” and even of Asa the testimony is less emphatic than here (1Ki 15:11). Hezekiah mounted to the original model. David was the model for the kings of Judah; we have a yet higher oneChrist. It is well in ordering our lives to go back to this ultimate standard, judging ourselves, not by the degree of likeness or unlikeness to our neighbors, but by the measure of conformity to him.
II. REFORMING ZEAL. Hezekiah evidenced the reality of his piety by his works. In carrying out his reforms Hezekiah would no doubt be strengthened and assisted by the prophets; and the people were perhaps prepared to acquiesce in them by their disgust at the extravagant idolatries of Ahaz (cf. 2Ch 28:27).
1. Temptation removed. Hezekiah early took the step which had hitherto been neglected by even the best kingshe “removed the high places.” This centralized the worship at Jerusalem, and did away with the temptations to idolatry which the local altars afforded. It was further important as an evidence of his thorough-going determination to carry out the provisions of God’s Law. We may wonder how Hezekiah could venture on such a step without awakening widespread resistance and disaffection; but the Book of Chronicles shows that it happened while the wave of enthusiasm created by the great Passover was yet at its heighta sufficient explanation (2Ch 31:1).
2. Destruction of monuments of idolatry. Hezekiah next proceeded to clear the land of those idols of which Isaiah, at an earlier period, had said that it was full (Isa 2:8). He brake the images, and cut down the asherah. These vigorous measures were indispensable if true religion was to be re-established. It is not otherwise with the individual heart. True repentance is a stripping the soul of its idolslove of money, fashion, gaiety, dress, etc. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew vi- 24). “Covetousness, which is idolatry” (Col 3:5).
“The dearest idol I have known,
Whate’er that idol be,
Help me to tear it from thy throne,
And worship only thee.”
3. Breaking of the brazen serpent. Another noteworthy act of Hezekiah was his breaking in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made. This is the first and last glimpse we get of this venerable relic since the time when it was set up in the wilderness. Its preservation was natural; it had done a wonderful work in its day; it was the symbol of a great deliverance; it had clustered around it the associations of miracle; it was the type even of the salvation of Messiah. We cannot marvel that it was reverenced as a sacred object. Yet now it had become a snare to the people, who burnt incense to it, and Hezekiah ruthlessly destroyed it, calling it (or it was called) contemptuously Nehushtan”a piece of brass.” We see from this how things originally sacred may become a snare and a temptation. Superstition is a fungus of rank growth, and fastens on nothing more readily than on the objects which call forth a natural reverence. Cf. the story of Gideon’s ephod (Jdg 8:24 27). Thus from the veneration of martyrs in the Christian Church there grew the worship of relics. So with all other aids to devotion, conceptions that fitly invest religious feelings, which, as Carlyle says (‘On Heroes’) are eidola, things seen, symbols of the invisible. When the sense and spiritual meaning goes out of these, and they become objects of superstitious reverence in themselves, it is time for them to be broken up. Even an object so sacred as the serpent which Moses made sinks to the level of a mere “piece of brass.” We are reminded of Knox’s reply when a prisoner in the galleys, and the image of the Virgin was presented to him to kiss. “Mother? Mother of God?” he said. “This is no mother of God; this is a painted bread‘a piece of painted woodand flung the thing into the river.
III. PRE–EMINENT GODLINESS.
1. Hezekiah the best of his line. Additional emphasis is given to the commendation of Hezekiah by the statement, “After him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.” It is good to be preeminent, but most of all to be pre-eminent for godliness. When we remember that among the kings with whom Hezekiah is here compared are such as Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Uzziah before him, and Josiah after him, we see that the praise is very great.
2. The praise particularized. The general statement is expanded into its particulars. Hezekiah trusted in the Lord; he clave to the Lord; he departed not from following him; he kept his commandments, as given to Moses. Trust, fidelity, obedience, and perseverance, in all these were his distinctive characteristics. Some kings had trusted, but not with so entire a heart; some had been obedient, but not so fully; some had been faithful for a time, but had failed to persevere. Hezekiah had the better record. God puts special honor on whole-hearted service. We are to see, however, that, exceptional as his goodness was, Hezekiah was not perfect. He bad his flaws, his sins, his failures too. The intention of the text is not to represent him as sinless, but only as pre-eminently great and good. “There is not a just man on earth that doeth good, and sinneth not” (Ecc 7:20).
IV. DIVINE REWARD. Hezekiah’s piety won for him Divine favor, protection, and success.
1. Freedom from servitude. “He rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not.” He thus rescued the kingdom from the humiliating dependence into which it had been brought by Ahaz.
2. Victory over enemies. Hezekiah had also important victories over the Philistines, and was prospered “whithersoever” he went forth. Spiritually, God gives to those who fear him deliverance from the power of sin within, and victory over the world, the devil, and the flesh.J.O.
2Ki 18:13-17
Sennacherib’s first assault.
We enter in this passage on the consideration of one of the most memorable crises Judah ever passed through. The Assyrian, the rod of God’s anger (Isa 10:4), hung over Jerusalem, showing how near destruction it was if God did not interpose. A mighty deliverance was vouchsafed, showing how inviolable was its security if only fleshly confidence was renounced, and the people put their trust in the living God.
I. SENNACHERIB‘S EARLY SUCCESSES:
1. Connection with the moral state of the people. Despite the efforts of Hezekiah and Isaiah, the moral state of the people continued at bottom unchanged. The enthusiasm enkindled by Hezekiah’s great Passover (2Ch 30:1-27.) passed away, and things reverted very much to their former state. The idols which Hezekiah had destroyed were brought back (cf. Isa 10:10, Isa 10:11). The nation is pointedly described as “an hypocritical nation,” and pictures of the saddest kind are drawn of its wickedness (Isa 10:6; cf. 2Ki 1:1-18 :22.; Mic 3:1-12.). At one point, indeed, the Prophet Micah was sent with a direct announcement of judgment, and the fulfillment was only postponed by the earnest repentance of the king (Jer 26:18, Jer 26:19; cf. Mic 3:12). Hezekiah was not faultless, but had himself transgressed through pride on the occasion of the visit of the messengers from Babylon, which falls before this period (2Ki 20:12-19; 2Ch 32:31). He had besides been seeking to strengthen himself by political alliance with Egypt (Isa 30:1-33.). What wonder that chastisement should be allowed to descend on a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers” (Isa 1:4)! As we forget God, and abuse his favors, God withdraws from us.
2. Extent of his successes.
(1) Sennacherib took all the fenced cities of Judah. His own annals mention forty-six strong cities, and lesser cities without number. He claims to have taken also 200,150 prisoners. This was a fearful blow to the prosperity and resources of the kingdom.
(2) At this stage, moreover, Sennacherib invested Jerusalem. The text speaks only of Hezekiah paying tribute, and entreating Sennacherib to depart from him; but it is morally certain that at this time Jerusalem endured a severe siege, and was saved only by the submission referred to.
(a) In 2Ch 32:1-8 we have an account of Hezekiah’s vigorous preparations for the siege.
(b) Sennacherib, in his own annals, describes the siege.
(c) The prophecy in Isa 22:1-25; which belongs to this period, depicts the state of Jerusalem during the siege, and a fearful picture of demoralization it is. The theory that this prophecy refers to an earlier siege under Sargon seems to us to have little probability. The hand of God was thus lying heavily on the people. Only by leading men to feel their own weakness does God train them to rely upon his help. When Hezekiah’s trust in man was shattered, and he was led to look to God alone, Sennacherib s campaign came to an ignominious end.
II. HEZEKIAH‘S SUBMISSION.
1. The failure of the arm of flesh. Hezekiah had been seeking alliances with Egypt and Ethiopia, but no help reached him in his hour of extremity. Isaiah had warned him of this (Isa 30:1-33.). The act of seeking such an alliance implied a distrust of God. Astute politicians no doubt thought an alliance with Egypt a much more tangible affair than an alliance with the invisible Jehovah. So long, however, as Hezekiah looked in this quarter for aid he was doomed to disappointment. Neither the King of Egypt nor strongly fortified wails availed to save him. He had to learn the lesson: “In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength” (Isa 30:15).
2. The humiliating tribute. Despairing of help from his ally, and faltering in his faith in God, Hezekiah made an unworthy submission. It may be gathered from Isa 22:1-25. that affairs in the city had reached an awful height of wickedness. Pestilence was sweeping off the people in crowds; and Hezekiah may have felt that he could stand it no longer. The King of Assyria accepted his submission, and appointed him three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold as tribute. To obtain this large sum he had not only to empty once more the often-ransacked treasuries of the temple and the king’s house, but had to cut off the gold from the very doors and pillars of the temple. It was himself who had overlaid these pillars with the precious metal, but now they had to be stripped of their adornment, and all given to the rapacious Assyrian. Truly it was “a day of trouble, and of treading down, and of perplexity” (Isa 22:5). What humiliations men are willing to endure rather than submit themselves heartily to the sway of the living God! After all, “willing” is not the word, for they would fain escape these humiliations, but find they cannot. Yet they do not return.
3. His submission no advantage. Sennacherib withdrew to Lachish, and Hezekiah was left to hope that by this great sacrifice he had got rid of him. He was soon to be undeceived. What happened we do not know; possibly some rumors reached the King of Assyria of the march of Tirhakah alluded to in 2Ki 19:9, and he may have suspected further treachery on the part of Hezekiah. In any case, a new host was dispatched against Jerusalem, and fresh demands were made for surrender (2Ki 19:17). Hezekiah’s distress must have been unspeakable. He had paid his tribute, and was no better than before. Waters of a full cup were wrung out to him (Psa 73:10). It is thus evermore till men turn from the help of man to the help of God.J.O.
2Ki 18:17-37
Rabshakeh’s boastings.
From Lachish Sennacherib sent an army to Jerusalem, and with it some of his highest officers, the Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh. Taking their stand by “the conduit of the upper pool,” where they could be heard from the walls, they called for the king to come to them. Hezekiah did not come, but sent three envoys, Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah, to whom Rabshakeh, the orator of the party, addressed himself. His speech is a very skilful one from his own point of view, and fails into two parts. It is pervaded by the utmost arrogancy and contempt of the God of the Jews.
I. HIS ADDRESS TO THE ENVOYS. The question Rabshakeh had been sent by his master to ask of Hezekiah was”What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?” He proceeds to demolish one by one Hezekiah’s supposed confidences, and to show how vain it was for him to hope to carry on the war.
1. Hezekiah‘s confidence in Egypt. Rabshakeh answers his own question by declaring, first, that Hezekiah’s confidence was placed in Egypt. This was true; and it was also true that, as the speaker next went on to say, this confidence was in a “bruised reed.” The policy of relying on Egypt, instead of seeking help from God, was Hezekiah’s great mistake. Rabshakeh did not denounce the worthlessness of this ground of confidence too scornfully. Pharaoh King of Egypt was indeed a bruised reed, on which, if a man leant, it would go into his hand, and pierce it. Isaiah’s language had been not less strong (Isa 30:1-33.). The metaphor may be applied to any reliance on mere human wisdom, human power, or human help. Often it has proved so in individual experience and the history of nations. Through some overlooked factor in the calculations, some unexpected turn in providence, some treachery, self-interest, or delay on the part of allies, the best-laid schemes break down, the strongest combinations dissolve like smoke.
2. Hezekiah‘s confidence in Jehovah. Rabshakeh next deals with Hezekiah’s trust in the Lord. He does not at this point urge the plea afterwards put forth, viz. that no gods can stand before the King of Assyria. Indeed, he claims (verse 25) to be commissioned by Jehovaheither an idle boast or an allusion to what he had heard of Isaiah’s prophecies (cf. Isa 7:17-25; Isa 10:5-19). But he skillfully makes use of Hezekiah’s action in destroying the high places and altars. “Is not this he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?” This sweeping away of the high places is represented as an outrage on the religion of Jehovah, which that Deity might be expected to avenge. How, then, could Hezekiah expect any help from him? The argument was a skilful one as directed to the body of the people. The high places were of long-standing sanctity, and they at least were disposed to regard them with superstitious reverence. What if, after all, Hezekiah had displeased Jehovah by suppressing them? Calamity upon calamity was falling on the nation: was there not a cause? A reformer must ever lay his account with charges of this kind. Any political, social, or religious change is apt to be blamed for troubles that arise on the back of it. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The early Christians were blamed for the calamities of the Roman empire; the Reformation was blamed for the civil convulsions that followed it; when drought or trouble falls on tribes which have been persuaded to abandon idolatry, they are apt to think the idols are angry, and to go back to their old worship. In this argument, however, Rabshakeh was as wrong as he was right in his first one. The fault was that the people did not trust God enough, and what he thought was a provocation of Jehovah was an act done in his honor, and in obedience to his will.
3. Hezekiah‘s confidence in his resources. Lastly, Rabshakeh ridicules the idea that Hezekiah can resist his master by force. Where are his chariots and horsemen? Or, if he had horses, where are the riders to put on them? He undertakes to give two thousand horses, if Hezekiah will furnish the men; and he knows he cannot. How, then, can he hope to put to flight even the least of Sennacherib’s captains? Rabshakeh again was right in assuming that Hezekiah had not material forces wherewith to contend with Sennacherib, and Hezekiah himself was too well aware of the fact. He had not confidence in his forces, and therein the orator was wrong. But Rabshakeh’s whole speech shows that he was himself committing the error he denounced in Hezekiah. If the question were retorted, “What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?” the answer could only beIn chariots and horses, in the proved might of the Assyrian arms. His speech breathes throughout the spirit of the man who has unbounded trust in armaments, provided only they are gigantic enough. Because Sennacherib has such immense armies, valiant soldiers, and such numbers of them, therefore he is invincible in war, and can defy God and man. The arm of flesh”big battalions”is everything here. Herein lay his profound mistake; and it was soon to be demonstrated. The might of the Invisible was to be declared against the power of the visible. Philistinism was to receive another overthrowthis time without even the sling and atones (1Sa 16:1-23 :40-51).
II. ADDRESS TO THE JEWS. At this point Hezekiah’s officers interposed, and requested Rabshakeh to speak, not in the Hebrew, but in the Syrian tongue, that his language might not be understood by the people on the wall. Rabshakeh had come on a mission of diplomacy, and it was proper that in the first instance only the king’s representatives should be consulted with. The envoy, however, insolently broke through all customary bounds, and declared that it was the common people he wished to address. Taking up, therefore, a yet better position, he now spoke directly, and in louder tones, to the people, who by this time may be supposed to have crowded the battlements. Again declaring that he bears a message from “the great king, the King of Assyria,” he bids them not let Hezekiah deceive them, and urges:
1. The advantages of submission. As it was, they were in evil ease. But if they surrendered to Sennacherib, they had nothing to fear. Here Rabshakeh touches on delicate ground. He cannot deny that they will lose their liberty, and be transported as captives to Assyria All he can do is to attempt to gild the pill. He tells them, first, that in the mean time they will be allowed the utmost freedomto eat every man of his own vine and of his own fig tree, and to drink every man the waters of his own cistern. When the time does come that they must be removedand he tries to represent this as a privilegeit will be to a land like their own, a land of corn and wine, of bread and vineyards, of oil and olives and honey; a land where they shall live, and not die. The promises were alluring only by contrast with the worse fate that awaited them if they did not submit to the Assyrian; but more than this, they were deceitful. They were promises which, if the people had trusted to them, would never have been fulfilled. Sennacherib was not in the habit of treating his captives tenderly. His good faith had just been tested by his perfidy towards Hezekiah. Is it not always so with the promises of the tempter? When a soul capitulates, and yields to sin, what becomes of the bright prospects that are opened up beforehand? Are they ever realized? There is a brief period of excitement, of giddy delight, then satiety, loathing, the sense of degradation, the dying out of all real joy. What, if by yielding to sin, some present evil be avoided, some immediate good gained? Is the good ever what was anticipated? or can it compensate for the exile from God and holiness which is its price? At all hazards the wise course is to adhere to God and duty. The visions of corn and wine, of bread and vineyards, of oil and olives, by which the soul is tempted from its allegiance, are illusionsas unsubstantial as the desert mirage.
2. The futility of resistance. To enforce his argument for submission, Rabshakeh returns to what is undeniably his strongest point, viz. the futility of resistance. Can they hope to be delivered? He had argued this before from the side of Hezekiah’s weakness, showing the baselessness of his grounds of confidence; be now argues it from the side of Sennacherib’s strength. Here undoubtedly he has a plausible case.
(1) From the military point of view. “Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you out of his hand.” Since the days of Tiglath-pileser the Assyrian arms had swept on in a tide of almost uninterrupted conquest. Not only Hamath and Arpad and Sepharvaim, but Babylon, Damascus, Israel, Phllistia, and Egypt, had felt the force of their resistless might. Judah had already severely suffered. What hope bad Hezekiah, with his little handful of men, caged like a bird in Jerusalem,.of rolling back this tide of conquest! The thing, on natural grounds, seemed an impossibility.
(2) From a religious point of view. “Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us.” Here the position of the Assyrian conqueror seemedfrom the heathen standpoint, but of course only from thatequally strong. In heathen view, the contest was not only a contest of man with man, but of Asshur and the other Assyrian gods, with the gods of other nations. And how had that contest gone? The gods of Assyria had in every ease proved the stronger in the battle. Where were the gods of the conquered nations? What had they been able to do for their worshippers? What had even Jehovah been able to do for Samaria? Who among them all had delivered their country out of the hand of Sennacherib? What hope was there that Jerusalem would fare any better than Samaria had done? The validity of this conclusion depends entirely upon the soundness of the premises. If the gods of these nations had a real existence, and Jehovah was but one more local deity among the rest, it would be difficult to resist the inference that the chances were strongly in favor of Asshur. But the case was altered if these idol-gods were nullities, and Jehovah was the one Ruler of heaven and earth, in whose providence the movements even of Sennacherib and his all-conquering armies were embraced. And this, of course, was the faith of Isaiah and Hezekiah and the godly part of Judah. That is was the right one was shown by the result. We see from this example how a false view-point compels a false and mistaken reading of the whole facts of history and of human life. The view which history presents to one who denies the postulates of revelation will differ entirely from the view which it presents to a Christian believer. Belief in God is the right center for understanding everything.
III. THE ANSWER OF SILENCE. To these harangues of Rabshakeh the people “answered not a word.” Hezekiah had given this instruction to his officers, and they, when the people gathered, doubtless spread among them the knowledge of the king’s wish. Accordingly they “held their peace.” There were many reasons why this answer of silence was a wise one.
1. Rabshakeh’s words did not deserve an answer. His address to the people on the wall was a breach of all diplomatic courtesy; it had for its object to sow the seeds of mutiny, and set the people against their king; it was obviously insincere in its tone and promises, scrupling at nothing which would induce the people to surrender their liberties; in relation to Jehovah, it was profane and blasphemous. Speeches of that kind are best left unanswered. A tempter is fittingly met with silence. A man who makes insincere proposals does not deserve to be reasoned with. Profanity and blasphemy should be left without reply (Mat 7:6).
2. From Rabshakeh‘s point of view no reply was possible. This has freely to be conceded. What would it have availed to point out to him that the gods of these other nations were no gods, and that Jehovah was the one living and true God? Such statements would have but provoked a new burst of mockery. It was better, therefore, to say nothing. In all reasoning with an opponent there must be a basis of common ground. When we reach a fundamental divergence of first principles, it is time to stop. At least, if argument is to proceed, it must go back on these first principles, and try to find a deeper unity. Failing in that, it must cease. Between the Christian and unchristian views of the world, e.g; there is no middle term.
3. Even from the Jewish point of view no reply was ready. God was to be trusted, but would he indeed save? What if the iniquities of the people had provoked him to deliver them up, as he had delivered up Samaria? Deliverance was conditional on repentance: did the state of morals in the city show much sign of repentance? Or, if God meant to deliver them, how would he do it? They seemed fast in the lion’s jaws. The way of escape from their present predicament was not obvious, yea, no way seemed possible. What, then, should they answer? At most, their belief in Jehovah’s interposition was an act of faith, for which no justification could be given in outward appearances. In such crises, when all rests on faith, nothing on sight, the best attitude of the soul, at least in presence of the worldly, is silence. “Be still, and know that I am God,” is the counsel given in the psalm supposed to commemorate this deliverance (Psa 46:10).J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
THIRD PERIOD
(727588 b.c.)
THE MONARCHY IN JUDAH AFTER THE FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL
(2 Kings 18-25)
FIRST SECTION
the monarchy under hezekiah
(2 Kings 18-20)
A.The Reign of Hezekiah; the Invasion by Sennacherib, and Deliverance from it
2 Kings 18, 19 (Isaiah 36, 37)
1Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign [became king]. 2Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign [became king]; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mothers name also was Abi, the daughter of Zachariah. 3And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according [like] to all that David his father did. 4He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves [Astarte-statues], and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he [they]1 called it Nehushtan. 2 5He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. 6For he clave to the Lord, and departed not [did not swerve] from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses. 7And the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth [in all his goings-forth;i.e., in everything which he went out to do]: and [omit andInsert] he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not. [;] [and] 8He smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
9And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. 10And at the end of three years they took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken. 11And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in [on the] Habor [,] by 12the river of [omit of] Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes [Media]: Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them.
13Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.3 14And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended [erred]; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto [put upon] Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. 15And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the kings house. 16At that time did Hezekiah cut off [strip] the gold from [omit the gold from] the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from [omit from] the pillars4 which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it [them] to the king of Assyria.
17And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem: and they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fullers field. 18And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the 19son of Asaph the recorder. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? 20Thou sayest, (but they are but [omit they are but] vain words, [it is a saying of the lips only]) [:] I have [There is] counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? 21Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him. 22But if ye say unto me, We trust in the Lord our God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem? 23Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to [make a bargain with] my lord the king of Assyria, and I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. 24How then wilt thou turn away the face of [i.e., repulse, put to flight] one captain of [amongst] the least of my masters servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? 25Am I now come up without the Lord [uninstigated by Jehovah] against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it. 26Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews 27language in the ears of the people that are on the wall. But Rab-shakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may 28eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? Then Rab-shakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria: 29Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you out of his [my]5 hand: 30Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us, and this city6 shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 31Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement [terms,] with me by a present [omit by a present], and come out to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern: 32Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die: and hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadeth you, saying, The Lord will 33deliver us. Hath [Have] any of [omit any of] the gods of the nations delivered at all [omit at all] [each] his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? 34Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand [that 35any delivered Samaria out of mine hand ]? Who are they [there] among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand? 36But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word: for the kings commandment was, saying, Answer him not. 37Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rab- 2Ki 19:1 shakeh. And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the Lord. 2And he sent Eliakim, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. 3And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble [distress], and of rebuke [chastisement], and blasphemy [rejection]; for the children are come to the birth [opening of the womb],7 and there is not strength to bring forth. 4It may be the Lord thy God will hear all the words of Rab-shakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach [blaspheme] the living God; and will reprove the words which the Lord thy 5God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left. So the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah 6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants [minions] of the king 7of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold I will send a blast upon him [I will inspire him with such a spirit that], and [whenomit and] he shall hear a rumour, and [heomit and] shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.
8So Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. 9And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee; he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying, 10Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 11Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by 12[in] destroying them8 utterly: and shalt thou be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed; as Gozan, and 13Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar? Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivah?
14And Hezekiah received the letter of the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. 15And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. 16Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear: open, Lord, thine eyes, and see: and hear the words of Sennacherib, which [he] hath sent him [omit him] to reproach the living God. 17Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands, 18And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of mens hands, wood and stone:9 therefore they have destroyed them. 19Now therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only.
20Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib 21king of Assyria I have heard. This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him:
[oracle of god in regard to the impending danger.]
[I. Scornful Rebuke of Sennacheribs Boast.]
She despises thee, she scorns thee,the virgin daughter, Zion!
She wags her head at thee, the daughter, Jerusalem!
22Whom hast thou insulted and blasphemed? against whom hast thou lifted voice?
Thou hast even lifted thine eyes on high against the Holy One of Israel!
23Through thy messengers thou hast insulted the Lord, and hast said:
I come up with my chariots on chariots10 to the top of the mountains, to Lebanons summit;
And I hew down its loftiest cedars and its choicest cypresses;
And I come to its summit as a resting-place,
To its forest-grove.
24I dig, and I drink the waters of foreign nations;
Yea! I parch up with the sole of my foot all the rivers of Egypt!
[II Refutation of his Self-assumption.]
25Hast thou not heard?Of old time I made it
From ancient days I ordained its course;
Now. I have brought it to pass,
And thou art [my instrument] to reduce11 fortified cities to heaps of ruins.
26Therefore their inhabitants were short-handed;
They despaired and were terror-stricken;
They were grass of the field and green herb;
Grass of the house-top, and corn blasted in the germ.
27So, thy resting in peace, and thy going out, and thy coming in, I know;12
Also thy violent rage against me;
28For thy violent rage and thine arrogance are come up into mine ears,
And I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips,
And I will lead thee back by the way by which thou camest.
[III. Encouragement to Judah and Hezekiah.]
29And this be the sign to thee:
Eating one year what springs of itself from the leavings of the previous crop,
And the second year the wild growth,
And the third year sow, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat their fruit.
30And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall take root again downwards,
And shall bear fruit again upwards;
31For from Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and from Mount Zion a rescued band:
The zeal of Jehovah (of Hosts)13 shall do this!
[IV. Gods Decree in regard to the Crisis.]
32Therefore, thus saith the Eternal in regard to the king of Assyria:
He shall not come against this city,
Nor shoot an arrow there,
Nor assault it with a shield,
Nor throw up a siege wall against it.
33By the way by which he came he shall return,
And he shall not come against this city;is the decree of the Eternal;
34But I will protect this city to save it,
For mine own sake and for the sake of David, my servant.
35And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, beheld, they were all dead [,] corpses. 36So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. 37And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons14 smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia [Ararat]. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.
Preliminary Remarks.We have, besides the narrative before us in 2 Kings 18, 19, , 20, two other accounts of Hezekiahs reign, one in Isaiah 36-39, and the other in 2 Chronicles 29-32 To these authorities may be added some of the prophecies, especially of Isaiah, who had great influence at this time. The first question which arises, therefore, is this: what relation do these various accounts bear to one another?
a) The narrative in Isaiah , 36-39, agrees with the one before us from 2Ki 18:13 on, with the exception of a few subordinate details, so literally, that the two cannot possibly have been produced by different authors independently of one another. The question is: whether the one served as the original of the other? or, whether both were derived independently from the same source? Different opinions are maintained in answer to these questions, but it is not necessary here to enter into a careful examination of them in detail. We limit ourselves to general and necessary considerations. Gesenius (Commen. zum Jesai. II. s. 392 sq.), following Eichhorn, sought to show in detail that the account before us is the original, and that the one in Isaiah is borrowed from it. De Wette, Maurer, Kster, Winer, and others take the same view. The chief ground for this opinion is that the text in Isaiah is comparatively more condensed, that it presents common and simple words in the place of those in the text which are rare and obscure, and that forms which belong to the later usage of the language appear in it. On the contrary, Grotius, Vitringa, Paulus, Hendewerk, and, most recently, Drechsler, have asserted the originality and priority of the account in Isaiah. In proof of this they bring forward the following considerations: The account in Isaiah cannot be borrowed from that in Kings because it contains Hezekiahs long and highly important hymn of gratitude (Isa 38:9-20), which is entirely wanting in the latter: The language in Kings is the more careless dialect of common life, the style is inferior, while the version in Isaiah is more rich, more correct, and more elegant. When the opinions in regard to the style and language of the two versions are so diverse, it is impossible to deduce any arguments from this consideration for the priority of either. The truth is, as will appear from the detailed exegesis, that, as far as expression and language are concerned, sometimes one and sometimes the other version is to be preferred. The omissions are more important. The account in Isaiah cannot be borrowed from that in Kings on account of the hymn of Hezekiah; but it is just as certain that the account in Kings is not based upon that in Isaiah, for it contains additions which cannot be regarded as simple assumptions of the redactor; such, for instance, as the passages 2Ki 18:14-15, and especially 2Ki 20:7-11, compared with Isa 38:7-8; Isa 38:21-22. In view of the omissions which occur sometimes in one account and sometimes in the other, the majority of the modern expositors, Rosenmller, Hitzig, Umbreit, Knobel, Ewald, Thenius, Von Gerlach, Keil, suppose that both narratives are borrowed from a common source which we no longer possess. This seems to us also to be the correct view, though we cannot agree in the opinion that the Annals of the Kingdom were the common source, for both accounts bear the character of prophetical, and not of mere civil, historical records. The source was more probably that collection of histories of the separate reigns, composed by different prophets, of which we spoke in the Introduction 3. According to 2Ch 32:33, Isaiah was the author of the history of Hezekiah, which had a place in this collection. Neither this narrative, therefore, nor the one in Isaiah 36-39, is Isaiahs original composition, but both are borrowed from this, which, unfortunately, we no longer possess. Both come from Isaiah originally, but neither reproduces accurately and fully the original account. Sometimes one and sometimes the other approaches nearer to the original. This view is, on the whole, the one which the editors of Drechslers Commentar zu Jesaia (II. s. 151 sq.), Delitsch and Hahn, and the former also in his own Comm. zu Jes. (s. 24, 351 sq.), maintain. But they evidently contradict themselves when they admit, on the one hand, that the text in the book of Kings is, in many cases, and, perhaps, in the most, to be preferred to that in Isaiah, and yet, on the other hand, assert that the author of the book of Kings cannot have obtained the parallel account 18:1320, 19. from any other source than the book of Isaiah. It is true that Delitsch appeals again and again to the relation between Jer. chap. 52. and 2Ki 24:18, sq. and chap. 25. as an analogous proof that the text of a passage may be more faithfully preserved in the secondary recension than in the original one, from which it was borrowed; but, although it is possible to render a pure fountain impure, it is impossible that a pure stream should flow from a more or less impure fountain. How, then, can a secondary text be better and purer than the primary one? [The author agrees with the authorities mentioned above that both the accounts are borrowed from a third document as their source. Neither one of the accounts, therefore, as we have them, can be said to have superior claims to the other, as the primary recension. No one will deny that the ultimate human source of the words of the oracle was the brain and lips of Isaiah. Whether he himself collected and arranged his prophecies in the form in which we have them, is a question to be treated in its proper place. If we assume that he did, then it is indeed fair to suppose, wherever any doubt arises, that he cited his own words more accurately than another could do it. But now we have to take account of the history of the two texts since they left the hands of those who put the book of Kings and the book of Isaiah in the form in which they have come down to uswhoever they may have been. In the course of time the primary recension may have been copied more frequently, and by other means also have incurred more corruptions than a recension which, in the first place, was a secondary one. This is what Drechsler means when he says that a secondary recension may have retained the text until our time in a purer form than the primary recension. An element is here introduced which interferes materially with any apriori claim to superior weight which either the one or the other of the texts before us may make, as having come more directly from the hand of the original author. We are thrown back upon the critical examination of each individual variant in each account to determine which reading is more probably the original and correct one. The question which text presents, in the most cases, the preferable reading, is one which can only be decided by reviewing the results of these separate critical investigations.W. G. S.] Nevertheless, we believe that the version in Isaiah was written earlier than the one in Kings, for, whatever opinion one may hold in regard to the time of composition of the second part of Isaiah (chaps, 4066), no one can assert that the first part (chaps. 139.) was not composed before the end of the Babylonian Exile, which is the time of composition of the book of Kings (Introd. 1). It does not by any means follow that this account was borrowed from Isaiah. The two accounts are independent recensions from the same original. The reason why the same passage occurs in two different books of the Bible is simply this, that in the one it is given for the sake of the prophet, and in the other for the sake of the king. The whole forms an important incident in Isaiahs work, and an important incident in Hezekiahs reign, which was an important part of the history of the kings of Judah, on account of the deliverance from Assyria.
b) The account in Chronicles condenses into very concise form the contents of the other accounts, but it contains also additions peculiar to itself. It gives (2Ch 29:3 to 2Ch 31:21) detailed descriptions of the rites and ceremonies which Hezekiah prescribed; especially of the Passover which he celebrated. All that has been brought forward against the credibility of this narrative has been refuted by Keil (Apolog. Versuch ber die bibl. Chron. s. 399 sq.). Although it is still asserted that the Chronicler allows himself to treat the historical facts with more freedom, yet it is admitted that his account has the foundation of an exact historical tradition (Bertheau, Comm. zur Chron. s. 396), and Winer says: There is, generally speaking, nothing in it which represents the facts and incidents in a manner false to history. The account before us especially emphasizes the fact, in regard to Hezekiahs reform in worship, that he abolished idolatry, and even the Jehovah-worship upon the high places. It is a matter of course, however, that the zealously pious king did not stop with the destruction and abolition of the false worship, but also positively put in its place the one which was prescribed in the Law. This the Chronicler states distinctly, and he describes this reformed cultus in detail, in complete consistency with the tendency and stand-point of his work. For him, neither the prophetical institution nor the monarchy stands in the foreground, but the levitical priesthood. While the author of Kings fixes his attention upon the political and theocratic side of the history of Hezekiahs reign, and writes from the stand-point of the theocracy, the Chronicler fixes his attention upon those incidents of it which were important for the levitical priesthood, and writes from the stand-point of a levite. His statements are, in this case, therefore, an essential addition to the story in Kings and in Isaiah, as indeed his peculiar contributions generally supplement the narratives elsewhere found. The source from which he obtained this information was, as he himself tells us (2Ch 32:32), the of the prophet Isaiah, the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel, that is to say, the same work to which the author of Kings refers (2Ki 20:20) for the history of Hezekiah.
c) The prophetical oracles in Isaiah and Micha contain, it is true, most important descriptions of the moral and religious state of things at the time when these prophets lived, but no history, in the proper sense of the word. Definite facts, which might supplement the historical narrative, cannot be derived from them, and it is especially vain to attempt this, since, up to the present day, there is no consensus of opinion in regard to whether particular oracles are to be assigned to the time of Hezekiah, or to that of some other king, during whose reign Isaiah also exerted influence. For instance, the first chapter of Isaiah refers, according to some modern critics, to the time of Hezekiah; according to others, to that of Uzziah; according to still others, to that of Jotham; and yet again, according to others, to that of Ahaz. We therefore adhere, in this place, since we have to deal with the firm substance of history, as closely as possible to the historical narratives, and leave it to the exposition of the prophetical books to show to what events, recorded in the historical books, the separate oracles refer.
[The author would probably be greatly misunderstood, if any one should infer from this that he estimated as unimportant the light which the prophetic oracles of the Old Testament throw upon the Jewish history. It is one of the unique and most remarkable features of the Old Testament that it presents to us side by side a section of human history, and a criticism of the same from the stand-point of the highest, purest, and most intense religious conviction. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are simple, brief, and dry annals of events and facts. The seventeenth chap of 2d Kings presents a solitary example in which the author comes forward to discuss causes, to weigh principles, and to review the moral forces at work under the events he records. All that we call nowadays the philosophy of history is wanting in the strictly historical books. It is supplied by the books of the prophets. They give us an insight into the social and political status, into the vices, the moral forces, the ambitions, and the passions which were at work under the events and produced them. To modern minds the history is not by any means complete until these are elucidated. History is not bare events or facts. If it were, we might save ourselves the trouble of ever studying it. It would be a pure matter of curiosity. But history is the fruit of certain moral forces. We study the forces in their fruits. We deduce lessons of warning and encouragement from the study. The forces are the same now as ever since mankind lived upon the earth, and they act, under changed outward circumstances, in the same way. They will produce the same results, and the whole practical value of history is that we may profit by the accumulated experience of mankind, as the individual profits by the mistakes and sufferings of the years through which he has lived. To this end, however, insight into the moral causes of events is the valuable thing, and it is that which we must aim at in studying history. What is peculiar to the prophets of the Old Testament, as such, is that their criticisms of Jewish history were not bare literary or scholarly productions, but appeals, rebukes, and warnings, of the most personal and practical description. That is a characteristic of them which has ethical and perhaps homiletical interest, but does not contribute to our historical knowledge, while their analysis of the social condition under which these events took place, and their statement of the moral causes which produced them, are of the highest importance for the history. These fill up the back-ground, and give the light and shade, and the perspective, to a picture of which the historical books have only sketched the outline. We have a sort of parallel in the works of the ancient orators, which have contributed essentially and undeniably to our knowledge of ancient history. Such being the case, it is evident that any one who undertakes to expound the historical books must give good heed to the light which the prophetical books throw upon them. It is indeed true that it is often very difficult to assign particular oracles to their time and circumstances, but we have only to observe the wonderful light which the oracle before us (2Ki 19:22-34), and its historical setting, throw upon one another, now that we have them in undoubted juxtaposition, to see what we may hope for, if we can succeed in fixing the connection and relations of other and similar oracles. The light to be derived from the prophecies for the history is not by any means to be lightly set aside, but it is to be regarded as one of the fruits of critical science most highly to be valued, and most earnestly to be labored for.W. G. S.]
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 18:1. Now it came to pass, &c. It must be carefully observed that 2Ki 18:1-8 contain a summary account of the entire reign of Hezekiah, like the one given of Ahaz reign in 2Ki 16:1-14. In the first place there is given, as usual, his age, the time of his accession, and the duration of his reign (2Ki 18:1-2); then, what he did in regard to the Jehovah-worship (2Ki 18:3-4); then, what spirit animated his life and conduct in general (2Ki 18:5-6); finally, what successes were won, during his reign, against foreign nations (2Ki 18:7-8). After this general summary follows, from 2Ki 18:9 on, the narrative of the chief events during his reign, in chronological order, viz., the overthrow of the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, in his fourth year (2Ki 18:9-12), and the oppression of the Assyrians, which began in his fourteenth (2Ki 18:13 sq.).In the third year of Hoshea. Since the fourth and sixth years of Hezekiah correspond to the seventh and ninth of Hoshea, according to 2Ki 18:9-10, it has often been thought that the third year in this statement must be incorrect (see Maurer on the passage), and it has been believed that it ought to read in the fourth year. Josephus, in fact, has . But the explanation is that the years of the two kings do not run exactly parallel. The difficulty is removed, and the text is assured as soon as we assume that Hoshea came to the throne in the second half of 730, and Hezekiah in the first half of 727, before Hosheas third year had expired (Thenius); or, If we assume that Hezekiahs. accession took place near the end of Hosheas third year, then his fourth and sixth years correspond, for the most part, with the sixth and ninth of Hoshea (Keil). is the shortened form for , which is found in Chronicles, and in 2Ki 20:10; Isa 1:1; Hos 1:1. In Isaiah 36-39. the name always has the form . This form is also found several times in Kings. In Mic 1:1. we find Gesenius gives, as the signification of the name, Jehovahs strength. Frsts explanation is better: Jah is Might. In like manner is shortened from which is found in Chronicles. Which Zachariah was her father, we cannot determine.
2Ki 18:4. He removed the high-places. On see notes on 1Ki 3:2. Here, as in 1Ki 3:2; 1Ki 15:12; 1Ki 15:14, we have not to understand by the Word, places of idolatry, but elevations on which Jehovah was worshipped, in contrast with the temple as the central place of worship. This is clear from 2Ki 18:22. On the images (probably of stone), and the wooden Astarte-columns, see note on 1Ki 14:23. Instead of the singular , all the old versions have the plural, which is also found in 2Ch 31:1. Therefore Thenius reads , but this change is unnecessary. According to Keil the singular is here used collectively.And brake in pieces the brazen serpent, &c. (cf. Num 21:5 sq.). It is commonly assumed that this refers to the serpent-image which was made by Moses in the wilderness. Von Gerlach says: It was perhaps preserved in a side-chamber of the temple as a highly revered treasure and memorial. In the times of manifold idolatry it had been brought out, and an idolatrous worship had been practised with it. It is not impossible, in itself, that the image was still in existence after 800 years, and was preserved in the temple as a relic. We have no hint, however, that such was the case, and it is hardly supposable that Moses, who so carefully avoided everything which could nourish the inclination of the people towards idolatry, should have taken this image with him during his entire journey through the wilderness. Moreover, the tabernacle had no side-chamber in which it could have been kept. Even if we suppose that it was still in existence when the temple was built (480 years after the exodus), yet there is no mention of it at all amongst the objects in the tabernacle which Solomon caused to be brought down into the temple (see 1Ki 8:4); neither is there any mention of the fact that any later king caused it to be brought out and set up where it would be possible for the people to offer incense to it. It is reckoned as a merit in Hezekiah that he caused it to be broken in pieces, but it is hardly probable that he would have been the one to destroy a symbol which had been set up and preserved by the great Law giver himself, and which had survived so long, as a sacred memorial and treasure, all the storms of time. Winer (R.-W.-B. II. s. 415) therefore infers: The brazen serpent mentioned in 2 Kings cannot be the very one which was set up by Moses. If the sensuous people wished to see their God and to have an image of Him, scarcely any image would suggest itself more immediately than the one which Moses had himself once made and commanded them to look upon, and of which the people were so directly reminded by their history. In the time of idolatry, therefore, they made an image like the one which Moses had set up, and offered incense to it. The text seems to us not only to admit this supposition, but also, when taken with the context, even to require it. The clause: that Moses had made, distinguishes this image expressly from the statues and images mentioned just before. They had been borrowed from the heathen, but that, though it had been made by Moses in the first place, had been abused for idolatry. Moreover, Moses had not made it with his own hands, but had caused it to be made. This also does away with the oft-repeated assertion that the serpent-worship in Israel had its origin in Egypt, where this cultus was very widespread. The serpent was there the symbol of healing power (Winer, l.c.), whereas in the book of Numbers it is represented as bringing death and destruction, wherefore Moses, who certainly was far enough from intending to thereby set up an image of idolatry, hung up a serpent-image as a sign that it could not bring death to those who, with faith in Jehovahs death-conquering power, should look up to it.Unto those days, i.e., not from Moses time on uninterruptedly until the time of Hezekiah; but from time to time, and the idolatrous worship which was practised with this image continued until Hezekiahs time (Keil). The subject of is not Hezekiah, as the Vulg. and Clericus understand, but Israel. Sept. . [It is better to take it as a singular with indefinite subject (one called) = they called, or it was called. See note 1 under Grammatical.] The name , i.e., a brazen thing, shows that the brass was not an accidental circumstance in the construction of this image, but was essential, perhaps on account of its glowing-red color, in which it resembled the fiery serpents (Num 21:6; Deu 8:15; cf. Rev 1:15), whose bite burned and consumed. , therefore, meant, The Glowing-red One, The Consuming One, The Burning One. There is no contemptuous sense in it, such as: A little bit of brass, as those think who assume that Hezekiah is the subject (Dereser). Still less is it correct that the image had that name only in contrast with the other idols which were of wood or stone. Neither is the designation: The so-called Brass-God (Ewald), an apt rendering of the word.The sentence in 2Ki 18:5 : After him was none like him, &c. has been incorrectly understood as a proverbial form of expression for something which is very rare, the parallel of which is not on record. It is not in contradiction with chap, 23:25, for its application must be restricted to the single characteristic of trust in God. In this particular Hezekiah showed himself the strongest, whereas, in 23:25, strict fidelity to the (Mosaic) Law is applauded in Josiah (Thenius).He clave to the Lord (2Ki 18:6). This appeared from the fact that he never gave himself up to idolatry, but kept the commandments of God.
2Ki 18:7. And the Lord was with him, &c. has exactly the same sense as in 1Ki 2:3. The words are not to be translated as by Luther and De Wette [and the E. V.]: Whithersoever he went forth, but, as by the vulg.: in cunctis, ad qu procedebat. His prosperity appeared in two points; in his escape from the Assyrian supremacy, under which Judah had disgracefully fallen during Ahaz, reign (2Ki 16:7); and in his war against the Philistines, who had, during Ahaz, reign, made conquests in Judah (2Ch 28:18). Luthers translation, Dazu [d. i. ausserdem] ward er [Moreover he rebelled], destroys the connection of thought. The before is the simple copula, and is equivalent to the German nmlich [that is to say, or, for instance]. As those two facts only are mentioned here as instances of his prosperity, we must not infer from their position in the story that they took place at the outset of his reign. It is to be observed that his revolt from Assyria is not mentioned here as something blameworthy, but as something which redounded to his praise. The apostate Ahaz subjected the kingdom to Assyria; Hezekiah, who was faithful to Jehovah, made himself independent of the Assyrian yoke. As to the time at which he resolved to do this, see note on 2Ki 18:13.
2Ki 18:9. And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, &c. 2Ki 18:9-12 repeat what has been already narrated in 2Ki 17:3-6. This is due, according to Thenius, to the fact that the author found these words not only in the annals of Israel, but also in those of Judah, and that he reproduces his authorities with complete fidelity. But the repetition cannot be due to any such merely mechanical procedure; it has a further and deeper cause. In the first place, the overthrow of Samaria was an event of the highest importance for Judah also, and it deserved especial mention here on account of the contrast with 2Ki 18:1-8. Hezekiah carried out a reformation in his kingdom. He remained faithful to the Lord, and he succeeded in what he undertook. Israel, on the contrary, had come into conflict with the Assyrian power. The king of Assyria, encouraged and stimulated by his success in this conflict, now turned his arms against Judah. But this kingdom, although it was weaker and smaller, did not fall, because Hezekiah trusted in the Lord. This is what the historian desired to show by the repetition, so that it is exactly in its right place between 2Ki 18:8; 2Ki 18:13.For the detailed exposition of 2Ki 18:9-12, see notes on 2Ki 17:3 sq.
2Ki 18:13. Now in the fourteenth year did Sennacherib come up, &c. Herodotus calls this king ; Josephus, . Nothing but guesses, which we do not need to notice, have yet been brought forward in regard to the signification of this name. [The true form of the name is Sin-akhe-rib, and it means: Sin (the Moon-god) has multiplied brothers.Lenormant.] Sennacherib was the immediate successor of Shalmaneser, for Sargon (Isa 20:1) is, as was remarked above on 2Ki 17:3, one and the same person with Shalmaneser. [For a correction of this error see the Supplementary Note after the Exeg. section on chap 17, and also the similar note at the end of this present section.] Delitsch (on Isa 20:1) has lately once more denied this on the authority of the Assyrian inscription published by Oppert and Rawlinson, and has ventured this assertion: He [Sargon], and not Shalmaneser, took Samaria after a three years siege. Shalmaneser died before Samaria, and Sargon not only assumed command of the army, but also seized the reins of power, and, after a conflict of several years duration with the legitimate heirs and their party, he succeeded in establishing himself upon the throne. He was, therefore, a usurper. The biblical text is wholly silent in regard to all this; nay, it even contradicts it. For the king of Assyria mentioned in 2Ki 17:4-6, is necessarily the same one who is mentioned in 2Ki 18:3 just before, viz., Shalmaneser. It is impossible to insert another king, and he a usurper, between these four successive verses. If Sargon was a different person from Shalmaneser, the statements of the biblical text in 2Ki 17:3-6 are incorrect; if these are correct, then either the Assyrian inscriptions are incorrect, or they are incorrectly read and interpreted. Sennacherib would hardly have called his predecessors his fathers, if the supposititious Sargon had been a usurper who had come to the throne by the overthrow of the reigning dynasty.
[The reading and interpretation of the cuneiform inscriptions cannot yet, it is true, be regarded as beyond all question, yet there are certain results which are now placed beyond doubt. They constitute the highest authority for Assyrian history, and by them nothing is more satisfactorily established than the fact that Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser and was a usurper, and Sennacherib was his son. The above quotation from Delitsch correctly states the facts of the case. If the inscriptions are not correctly interpreted it remains for those who are competent to do so to make the necessary corrections; but those who have not mastered the subject (and it is a very difficult one) are not justified in treating the authority of Assyrian scholars with neglect and contempt, even upon the supposed authority of the biblical text. The author of the book of Kings was an inhabitant of Judah. Before the time of Sennacherib this kingdom had had very little to do with Assyria. Even Israel knew the king of Assyria only as an enemy, the head and representative of the great and threatening world-monarchy. They did not fear Shalmaneser or Sargon as individuals; they feared the head of the hostile nation, the king of Assyria. Shalmaneser was celebrated for his campaign against Tyre as an individual who bore this dreaded title. If, as is supposed, he began the siege of Samaria, but died during it, and if Sargon finished it, but then returned to Assyria to secure his usurped power(Rawlinson seems to think that he was not at Samaria, but took advantage of the discontent of the people of Nineveh at Shalmanesers long absence to raise a rebellion against him, and then counted among the great deeds of his first year the conquest of Samaria, which Shalmaneser, or his generals, had nearly accomplished)then it is not strange that his name is not mentioned here among those individuals who were known to the author of these books to have worn the crown of Assyria. Sennacherib was his son, and again so far from his mention of his fathers being an argument that he was not the son of a usurper, it is rather in character for such a person to boast of his ancestors, to try to obliterate the recollection of his origin and title to the throne, and to endeavor to avail himself of the prestige of the old dynasty. The Bible is silent in regard to all this, it is true, but it is generally silent in regard to contemporaneous Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek history. Of China, India, and Arabia it tells us nothing. For our knowledge of these things we are thrown upon the proper authorities. The silence of the Bible is no disparagement of the Bible, and no argument against the conclusions to which we may be led by such separate national authorities as we possess. For the facts in regard to the question here before us, as they appear from the Assyrian inscriptions, see the Supplementary Note at the end of this Exeg. section, and for a list of the Assyrian kings, with the dates of their reigns, see the right-hand column of the Chronological Table at the end of the volumeW. G. S.]
The fourteenth year of Hezekiah, who became king in 727, is the year 713. The fall of Samaria took place in 721 (see the Chron. Table). How long after that Shalmaneser reigned cannot be determined [by biblical data]. The ordinary opinion that he lived until 718, and that Sargon reigned from 718 to 715 or 714, falls to the ground when the identity of the two is established. Sennacherib seems to have reigned a year or two before he undertook the great expedition. Probably the change of occupant of the throne of Assyria had encouraged Hezekiah to make himself independent of the oppressor (2Ki 18:7). It is not likely, as Niebuhr supposes, that he attempted this soon after his accession, for then Shalmaneser would not have retired from Samaria in 721 without chastising him for this revolt. It is not especially stated what caused the expedition of Sennacherib, but it certainly was not the revolt of Hezekiah alone. It was an expedition of conquest, directed especially against Egypt, which was then the great rival of Assyria, under whose protection the small kingdoms of Western Asia ranged themselves against Assyria. We do not know certainly whether Hezekiah entered into an alliance with Egypt after he revolted from Assyria. It is clear from Isa 3:1; Isa 31:1, compared with 2Ki 18:21; 2Ki 18:24 of this chapter, that the authorities at Jerusalem were much inclined to this course, and that they had taken preliminary steps towards it. We shall recur to the subject of Sennacheribs expedition against Egypt below, at the end of the Exegetical notes. [See the Supplem. Note after this Exeg. section. The facts, as established by the inscriptions, are there briefly stated. All that is said above about the relations of Jewish and Assyrian history must be corrected by what is stated in the Note below.]Against all the fenced cities of Judah, &c. The statement in Chronicles is more accurate: He encamped against the fenced cities and thought to win them for himself (2Ch 32:1). It is clear from 19:8 that he did not take them all. When he approached with his great army, Hezekiah armed himself to resist, and, as he could not risk a battle in the open field, he set Jerusalem in the best possible condition for defence (2Ch 32:2 sq.; Isa 22:9-10).
2Ki 18:14. And Hezekiah sent to the king of Assyria, &c. 2Ki 18:14-16 are entirely wanting in Isaiah, and are an important addition to the narrative there given. They are evidently taken from the common source. They are not, therefore, a mere annalistic insertion (Delitsch). The text of Isaiah is here condensed as it is in the following verse (17), where he only mentions Rab-shakeh, and says nothing about Rabsaris and Tartan.Lachish, whither Hezekiah sent his messengers, was fifteen or eighteen hours journey south west of Jerusalem on the road to Egypt (see note on 2Ki 14:19). Sennacherib had, therefore, already passed Jerusalem on his way to Egypt. The possession of this city was, on account of its position, a matter of great importance to an army which was invading Egypt (Thenius). Hezekiah, therefore, had grounds for extreme anxiety, more especially as there was no sign of movement on the part of any Egyptian force to meet Sennacherib, and Judah seemed to have been abandoned by Egypt. He determined to try to make terms with the powerful enemy, and rather to submit to a heavy tribute in money than to risk the possession of his capital and the independence of his kingdom. does not mean: I have sinned against God by my revolt from thee (that would require that should be added, as we find it Gen 13:13; Gen 39:9; 1Sa 7:6; 2Sa 12:13 and elsewhere); nor, as the ancient expositors supposed: I have, in thy opinion, sinned; nor, imprudenter egi. We have simply to adhere to its original signification, to fail, to err (Job 5:24; Pro 19:2). It is an acknowledgment wrung from him by his distressed circumstances (Thenius). Hezekiah admits, in view of the great danger to which he has exposed himself and his kingdom, that he has committed an error.The sum which Sennacherib demanded was certainly a very large one. Thenius estimates it at one and a half million thalers ($1,080,000), and Keil at two and a half million thalers ($1,800,000). The reduction to terms of our modern money is very uncertain. The fact that Hezekiah stripped off the metal which he had himself put upon the door-casings shows how difficult it was for him to raise this sum.
2Ki 18:17. And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, &c. Josephus thus states the connection between 2Ki 18:16-17. Sennacherib had promised the ambassadors of Hezekiah that he would abstain from all hostilities against Jerusalem, if he received the sum which he had demanded. Hezekiah, trusting in this, had paid it, and now believed. himself to be free from all danger. Sennacherib, however, did not trouble himself about his promise. He marched in person against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, but he left the general () Rab-shakeh, with two other high officers ( ) and a large force to destroy Jerusalem. This undoubtedly fills up correctly the omission of the biblical text. The two last of these names are clearly official titles, but the first is not a proper name. See Jer 39:3; Jer 39:13, where these titles stand by the side of the proper names. is the title of the general or military commander, as we see from Isa 20:1. Probably it is equivalent to (2Ki 25:8; Jer 39:9; Gen 37:36), captain of the life-guard. We pass, without discussion, Hitzigs suggestion that the title is of Persian origin and means, Skull of the body, that is, Person of high rank. is the chief of the eunuchs, who, however, was not himself a eunuch (2Ki 25:19; cf. Gen 37:36; Gen 39:1; Gen 39:7; Dan 1:3; Dan 1:7). This officer is now one of the highest at the Turkish court (Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 654). All the officers and servants of the court were under his command. is the chief cup-bearer, who is more distinctly designated in Gen 40:2; Gen 40:21 as . This was also a post of high honor at Oriental courts. Nehemiah once filled it (Neh 1:11; Neh 2:1). These court dignitaries were at the same time the highest civil and military officers (cf. Brissonius de regno Pers. i. p. 66, 138. Gesenius on Isa 36:2). Sennacherib sent three such officers in order to give importance to the matter.The upper pool is the one called Gihon (2Ch 32:30; 1Ki 1:33) outside of the city, on the west side. A canal ran from this to the field of the fullers or washers, which, partly on account of the impurity of the water collected in the pool, and partly on account of the uncleanliness of that occupation, was outside of the city. The same designation of this locality is found in Isa 7:3, from which it is clear that this canal existed in the time of Ahaz and earlier, and is not the one mentioned in 2Ch 32:30.And when they had called to the king, &c, i.e., They made known to those upon the wall their desire to speak with the king. He, however, did not yield to their demand to speak with him in person, not, as Josephus thinks, , but because it was beneath his dignity. The chief officers of the king appeared (Thenius). On the offices which they filled, see notes on 1Ki 4:3 sq. From Isa 22:15-22 it is commonly inferred that Shebna, who there appears as the officer , but is threatened with deposition from that office, had been degraded to a , in which rank he appears here, and that Eliakim had been put in his place. Other expositors, Vitringa for instance, will not admit that he is the same person. It is at best very uncertain. Nothing can be inferred from this in regard to the comparative rank of these officers, for in 1Ki 4:3 sq. the Sopher and the Maskir stand before the Master of the Palace.
2Ki 18:19. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, &c Probably he was more familiar with the Hebrew language (2Ki 18:26) than either of the others, and otherwise better fitted to be spokesman. The rabbis falsely consider him an apostate Israelite and even a son of Isaiah.Rab-shakeh calls his king the great king, because he had kings for his vassals, Isa 10:8; Hos 8:10. Cf. Eze 26:7; Dan 2:37, where Nebuchadnezzar is called a king of kings. In Ezr 7:12, the name is applied to the Persian king. does not mean defiance (Bunsen: What is this defiant confidence with which thou defiest?), but confidence, reliance: cf. in ver 5. The question does not contain a rebuke (Gesen.: qualis est fiducia ista: i. e., quam insanis ea est); but rather astonishment. What reliance hast thou that thou darest to revolt from me? I look about in vain for any satisfactory answer to this question (Drechsler). in 2Ki 18:20 is to be preferred to in Isaiah. A saying of the lips only is not object: Thou speakest but a word of the lips [when thou sayest]: counsel and strength, &c. (Knobel). Still less is the sense: Thou thinkest that my words are only empty talk. The sense is rather: Thou sayest (it is, however, no well-considered expression of a conviction, but a mere pronunciation of the lips) counsel and strength, &c, cf. Pro 14:23; Job 11:2. The Vulg. translates very arbitrarily: Forsitan inisti consilium, ut prpares te ad prlium. 2Ki 18:21 is not a question (Vulg. Luther). Rab-shakeh himself gives the answer to his own question in 2Ki 18:20, and affirms roundly that Judah is in alliance with Assyrias arch-enemy, Egypt (Knobel). The image of the staff (, cf. Isa 3:1) of a reed is a very striking one. As it is used also in Eze 29:6 in reference to Egypt, it evidently is suggested by the fact that the Nile, the representative river of Egypt, produced quantities of reeds (Isa 19:6). The reed, which at best has a feeble stem, bent hither and thither by the wind, is moreover bruised, so that, although it appears to be whole, yet it breaks all the more easily when one leans upon it, and moreover, its fragments penetrate the hand and wound it (cf. Isa 42:3, where and are accurately distinguished from one another). [For , Germ, knicken, we have no precise equivalent. It is a kind of breaking which applies peculiarly to green reeds. The stem may be broken in such a way as to destroy its rigidity, its power to sustain any weight upright, and yet the tenacity of the fibre is such that the parts hold together, and the external form is maintained. A reed is not available as a staff under any circumstances. One which has been thus impaired will give way at once under any weight.W. G. S.] Thenius: Sennacherib compared Egypt to a reed thus snapped or bent, not because he had broken the Egyptian power, but because, in his arrogance, he regarded it already as good as broken. Delitsch thinks that he calls it so in consequence of the loss of the dominion over Ethiopia, which had been lost by the native dynasty of Egypt (Isaiah 18). What is here said about Pharaoh agrees exactly with Isa 30:1-7.
2Ki 18:22. But if ye say unto me, &c. In Isa 34:7 we find instead of , thou sayest. Keil considers this the original reading, because in 2Ki 18:23 sq. Hezekiah is once more directly addressed in his ambassadors. The majority, however, from Vitringa on, are in favor of , because Hezekiah is immediately afterwards referred to in the third person. In this case the words are not addressed simply to the ambassadors but to the entire people. Thenius takes the question, Is not that he, &c., as a continuation of the speech of those who trust in Jehovah, and who thus refer to Hezekiahs zeal for the centralization of the national cultus as a ground for hoping for Gods help. But 2Ch 32:12 is opposed to this notion. According to that passage the words are an objection raised by Rab-shakeh in order to overthrow the confidence of the people, and thus they are understood by nearly all the commentators, ancient and modern. The conclusion of the speech, 2Ki 18:25, requires the same interpretation. The argument is: God is not with the one who has removed His altars and restricted His worship to one single place, but with the one who, at His command, has taken possession of the country, and has already won such great success. Rab-shakeh desires to inspire them with suspicion of Hezekiah, who, according to 2Ki 18:30 and 2Ch 32:7, had encouraged them to trust in Jehovah. He knew how much the people were accustomed to the worship on the high-places, and how much more convenient it was for them.
2Ki 18:23. Now, therefore, make a bargain with, &c. i e., Take account, moreover, of the lack of a proper military force, of which cavalry forms an important part. does not mean: Promise to my Lord (Luther), nor, lay a wager with my Lord (Bunsen, Von Meyer). means to change, exchange, barter (Eze 27:9; Eze 27:21). In the hithpael it means to enter into intercourse with (Psa 106:35; Pro 24:21). The reference here is to a mutual giving and taking, not to entering into a contest (Knobel). The sense is: Even if any one should give thee ever so many horses, thou hast not men who are fit to ride upon and use them. [It is a strong expression of contempt for the military power of the Jews. you talk about opposing me by force, but even if I, your enemy, should furnish you with horses, you could not find men to form cavalry. If you should make terms with me so that I gave you these odds, it would not do you any good.W. G. S.]. means literally: to cause to face about, i. e., to put to flight. The , the governors of provinces, were likewise commanders in the army in time of war, 1Ki 20:24 (cf. 22:31); the least is the one who commands the smallest number of soldiers. Drechslers interpretation seems to us to be entirely mistaken. According to him there is no reference here to war, and , &c. has the signification: to reject a suppliant, so that the sense is, He [Hezekiah] will have to concede every demand and yield to every wish which is brought before him by such a person [as one of these governors].On the chariots see 1Ki 10:28 sq.In 2Ki 18:25 Rab-shakeh presents the matter in a light exactly contrary to that in which the Jews look at it: So far from thy being justified in relying upon Jehovah, He is, on the contrary, on our side, and it is by His command that we are come hither to destroy Jerusalem. This was, as Clericus says, purum putum mendacium. As an Assyrian he did not believe at all in the God of Israel, but only made use of this form of statement, cf. 2Ki 18:34-35. It can hardly be that he meant to refer to the successes which the Assyrians had had up to this time as proofs that they were under the guidance and approval of Jehovah (Calmet, Thenius). Still less can we suppose that he had heard of the declarations of the prophets, who had predicted this distress as a punishment sent by Jehovah (Knobel, Von Gerlach, Keil, Vitringa and others.) [At the same time, if we impute to Rab-shakeh such a disbelief in the existence of Jehovah as makes his reference to His providence here a pure fiction, merely assumed for the purpose of producing an effect upon the listeners who did believe in Jehovah, we shall introduce, a modern or monotheistic idea into the speech of an ancient heathen and polytheist, to whom it was foreign. The characteristic of the Jewish monotheistic religion was exclusiveness, intolerance. The polytheistic heathen religions did not deny the existence of the national divinities of each separate nation. The fact that Rab-shakeh believed in the Assyrian divinities does not, therefore, exclude all belief on his part in Jehovah. In 2Ki 18:12 he assumes the existence of gods of the countries mentioned. In 17:26 we have another instance of the usual heathen conception. That was, that every nation had its own divinities. These were conceived of as existing and being true gods, one as much as the other, in all the sense in which heathen ever conceived of gods as truly existing. Each nation held its own god or gods to be greater and mightier than those of other nations, but thought it necessary, especially when in a foreign country, to pay proper respect to the local divinity. Rab-shakeh no doubt went thus far, at least, in his belief in Jehovah, and his claim to enjoy the favor of Jehovah was either a pure assumption, good at least until the event contradicted it, or it was founded upon the successes hitherto won, or it took advantage of such prophecies of the Jewish prophets as he may have heard of. Cf. the bracketed note on p. 57 of Pt. II. in regard to Naamans idea of Jehovah.W. G. S.]
2Ki 18:26. Then said Eliakim, &c. As the haughty words of Rab-shakeh, especially what he had last said (2Ki 18:25), might have a depressing effect upon the soldiers posted on the wall, the kings ambassadors interrupted him and begged him, in a friendly manner, to speak Syriac. To this he gives a rude answer. i.e., Syriac,[more strictly and correctly, Aramaic. The name Syriac is commonly restricted to a later dialect of the Aramaic.W. G. S.]was spoken in ancient times in Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia (Gesenius). It was the connecting link between the languages of Eastern [middle] Asia and the Semitic languages of Western Asia (Drechsler). On account of the intercourse between the Hebrews and these nations, the high court-officials especially were acquainted with Hebrew. The Hebrew and the Aramaic were closely related languages (Eze 4:7). Rab-shakeh spoke Hebrew in this case, not out of politeness, but in order that he might be understood by the listening people, who were not acquainted with any other language. His object was to influence the common people. and in 2Ki 18:27 have no distinction of meaning. In Isa 36:12 we find for . Rab-shakeh pretends to be a friend of the people. So he says, in substance: Ye are abusing your common people. In exposing them to a wasting siege ye are bringing them, with yourselves, into the direst extremity, so that they will at last be compelled to consume their own excrement. (Compare similar abominations, 2Ki 6:28, sq.) Instead of the vulgar word , excrementa sua, and , urinas suas, the keri substitutes the euphemisms their out-going, and , the water of their feet. The text is punctuated for these readings (Knobel). stands here as in 1Ki 8:32. Ewald: He now, for the first time, took up a position directly in front of the wall. It can hardly mean what Keil understands: He took up a position calculated for effect. He does exactly the contrary of what they begged him to do. He approaches nearer in order to be still more distinctly heard by the people, and follows still more directly his object of influencing the minds of the common soldiers (Drechsler).
2Ki 18:31. Make terms with me, &c. Vulg.: Facite mecum quod vobis est utile. Luther: Accept my favor. But means blessing, and implies the same as , peace, prosperity (Jos 9:15), for peace was concluded with mutual blessings, and expressed wishes for prosperity on either hand (1Ch 18:10). Come out to me, the usual expression for besieged who go out and surrender to the besiegers (1Sa 11:3; Jer 21:9; Jer 38:17). The threats are now followed by wheedling and promises. Then eat ye, &c.; i.e., ye shall lead a life which is in every way peaceful and happy. See 1Ki 4:25. Until I come, 2Ki 18:32. Not, until I come back from Egypt (Knobel), but, in general; I will come and take you away. It appears, therefore, that, Even in case of a capitulation, the Assyrians proposed to transport the Jewish population, according to their usual custom. For the proofs that they were accustomed to adopt this measure with all subjugated nations see Hengstenberg, De rebus Tyriis, p. 51, sq. (Keil). [On these deportations see the Supplementary Note after the Exeg. section on chap. 17. The first one on record is there noticed, as well as a large number both out of, and into, Syria and Samaria.] We need not attempt to define the land referred to. The whole promise was a mere pretext. is the olive-tree which bears oil-producing fruit, in distinction from the wild olive-tree.
2Ki 18:33. Have the gods of the nations delivered each his land, &c. Finally the speaker puts the Assyrian power (the king of Assyria is here used generally for the Assyrian imperial power, not for Sennacherib in particular) above the might of all the national divinities, and therefore above the supposititious god Jehovah, and proves the justice of the assumption by those successes of the Assyrian power which no one could deny. It is very skillful of him to close his speech with this argument which he considers the strongest and most effective. He means to say: If all the gods of these numerous and mighty nations could not resist the might of Assyria, much less will Jehovah, the insignificant god of an insignificant nation, be able to do so (Knobel). It is true that he thereby falls into a contradiction of what he had himself said in 2Ki 18:25, and this shows that his words there were empty pretence.In 2Ki 18:34, Drechsler translates both times by the singular, following the Vulgate. But as it must be taken as a plural in 2Ki 18:33, so also here, especially as it is a fact that those nations had more than one god each. On Hamath, Sepharvaim, and Joah see notes on 2Ki 17:24; 2Ki 17:30 sq. Many hypotheses have been suggested in regard to Arpad. As it is mentioned here and Isa 10:9; Isa 37:13, and Jer 49:23, in connection with Hamath, it must have belonged to Syria. We have no trace of it either in writings or elsewhere (Winer). It cannot be certainly affirmed that the district Arfad in northern Syria, seven hours journey north of Haleb (Keil), is the same place. Hena is also mentioned with Joah in 2Ki 19:13, and in Isa 37:13, but its location is as little ascertainable as that of the latter place. It is more probable that we must look for it in Mesopotamia (Winer) than on the Phoenician frontier (Ewald). [In 742, when Tiglath Pileser conquered Syria (see Supp. Note on chap. 15. p. 161), the city of Arpad alone resisted him with any success. It held out for three years. The same city joined Samaria and Damascus in the revolt mentioned in the Supp. Note on chap. 17. p. 189. Sargon reconquered it. It is, therefore, certain that it was in Syria, though the identification with Arfad is doubtful. It was a large and important city, for it is mentioned in the acts of Sargon, together with Hamath, Damascus, Syria, and Samaria, as among the chief cities of that part of the world.Some good maps offer Hena in the Euphrates valley and identify it with Anah, or Anatho. Sepharvaim was certainly in the Euphrates valley (see Exeg. note on 17:24) and it is very probable that Hena and Ivah were also there.W. G. S.] The Vulg. which Luther, Clericus, and Thenius follow, takes as a question. Thenius even considers the original reading. But it cannot well be taken differently from in the following verse, where there certainly is not a question, but an inference, as in 2Ki 18:20. The sentence is abbreviated. In full it would read: Where are the gods of Samaria that they should have saved it? Jehovah will be just as unable to save Jerusalem. The gods of Samaria are included in those of the nations,But the people held their peace, 2Ki 18:36. In Isaiah the word is wanting, so that only refers the three officers. Of course Hezekiah had forbidden them to reply, or to enter into any negotiations, partly because he reserved this responsibility to himself, and partly in order not to provoke the enemy still more. Because they kept silence, the people, to whom Rab-shakeh had addressed his last words, also kept silence. Hezekiah could not have commanded the people to keep silence, because he did not know beforehand that Rab-shakeh would address himself to them instead of to the ambassadors. The latter returned with rent garments, in grief and sorrow, not only for the hard message which they had to bring, but also on account of the insults to the king, and still more on account of the blasphemies against Jehovah, which they had been obliged to hear. See 2Ki 6:30.
Chap. 19. 2Ki 19:1. And it came to pass when king Hezekiah heard it, &c. The sackcloth which Hezekiah put on was not only a garment of sorrow, but also a garment of penitence, as in 1Ki 20:32; 2Ki 6:30. The king saw in this event a divine chastisement (2Ki 19:3). The rabbis use the passage to prove that when blasphemies are uttered, not only those who hear them, but also those to whom they are reported, ought to rend their garments (See Schttgen, Hor. Hebr. on Mat 26:65). Hezekiah goes into the temple, in order to humble himself before God and to pray for help (Thenius). At the same time he sends a solemn embassy of the highest officers and the most important men to the prophet Isaiah. The elders of the priests are the most notable amongst them. Embassies are often sent to the prophets by the kings in times of extraordinary distress (Von Gerlach), cf. Num 22:5; Jer 21:1). It is very significant of the comparative position of prophets and priests that the latter were chosen as ambassadors to the former. The priests were officers only by virtue of their birth. The prophets were chosen men of God, filled with His Spirit. Isaiah was the only one to whom the nation could turn under the circumstances, the one to whom it must turn. From the point of time referred to in Isa 7:3 sq. he presided over this work of divine discipline (Drechsler). Thenius remark: This official embassy was intended to encourage the people, is an error. It was not sent with any politic intention at all, but sprang from the need of reliable counsel in a desperate situation. Hezekiah desired first of all to know Gods will. He therefore sent to the approved and highly honored prophet.A day of distress, &c., 2Ki 19:3. Luther incorrectly, following the Vulg. (et increpationis et blasphemi): und des Scheltens und Lsterns [E. V. of rebuke and blasphemy]. means chastisement, punishment (Hos 5:9; Psa 149:7). means disdain, abhorrence, especially of the people by God (Deu 32:19; Lam 2:6). [The meaning here is that it is a day on which God has disdainfully rejected his people, and left them to their enemiesW. G. S.].For the children are come to the opening of the womb, &c. The proverb is taken from the crisis in child-bearing, where the child is in the midst of the birth, but the strength of the mother fails on account of the continuous pains, so that she and the child are both in danger. Clericus, therefore, interprets it of the situation of those in great peril, who know what they must do in order to escape, but who feel that it is beyond their power to take the necessary measures, and who fear that, if they should make the attempt, all would be lost., 2Ki 19:4, non est dubitantis particula, sed bene sperantis (Clericus). He hopes that God will not allow the words which have been spoken to go unnoticed. The Lord thy God, inasmuch as the prophet is in an especial sense His servant. The remnant are those who, like Jerusalem, were not yet in the power of the Assyrians, who had already overrun the country and captured the strongholds.
2Ki 19:6. And Isaiah said unto them, &c. The prophet does not call the officers of the king , but . He does not thereby simply designate them as servants, or, in fact, body-servants, as Thenius insists. There is rather a contemptuous significance in the word, which is never used of old men, such as these officers were. Knobel: The youths, the youngsters. Ewald and Umbreit even render it: The boys; Drechsler: The guards, the rank and file, who have no discretionary judgment. [Herein lies the contumely of the epithet. These high officers are called by a name applicable only to those who have nothing to do but mechanically obey orders. It is like calling cabinet ministers, who are, in a good sense, servants of the State, public lackeys.W. G. S.]I will inspire him with such a spirit, &c. 2Ki 19:7. Malvendas rendering: Veniet per arem nuncius seu rumor, is entirely erroneous. Others understand by spirit here, a wind, especially a noxious wind, the Simoom, or something of that kind, which can sweep away a whole army, and which the angel (2Ki 19:35) may have used as an instrumentality (Richter). That, however, is not the meaning. is often used for disposition, state of mind. (Knobel: I will awaken in him such a state of mind. Thenius: a despondent disposition or mood. Similarly Theodoret: , ). Here it evidently means more than that, and refers to the extraordinary impulsion of a divine inspiration which is to hurry him blindly on (Drechsler). This spirit is to leave him no rest, so that, as soon as a certain rumor reaches his ears, he shall hurry away. The sense is, therefore: I will bring it about that he shall feel himself powerfully impelled to retreat. The rumor which he is to hear is not the news of the defeat of his army (Lightfoot, Thenius), for he was with his army in person, but the news of Tirhakahs approach (2Ki 19:9). This news was the first and immediate occasion of his retreat. The destruction of his army was then added, and this hastened his steps. The prophet does not, therefore, refer expressly to the latter. Drechsler finds in this a kind of pedagogic wisdom, for thus he forced Hezekiah and the people to put implicit faith in the word of God upon which they had to rely.And I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. The assertion that this declaration is put in the mouth of Isaiah by the historian, post eventum, is both arbitrary and violent. It appears also in the other narrative, Isa 37:7, in the same words. It therefore belongs to the common source of both, which Isaiah himself wrote.
2Ki 19:8. So Rab-shakeh returned. He did not, therefore, forthwith commence the siege, although he had come to Jerusalem with a large force (2Ki 18:17), but first reported to his master that he had accomplished nothing by his speeches, and had found Jerusalem strongly fortified. He found Sennacherib making war before Libnah. In regard to this city, see note on 2Ki 8:22. It lay some distance north [north-west] of Lachish, about as far from it as from Jerusalem, which lay to the northeast of both. [The position is uncertain. On the authority of Eusebius, Gesenius, Thenius, and Keil place it in the neighborhood of Eleutheropolis or Beit Jibrin. Lenormant puts Libnah on his map S. E. of Lachish.] It follows that Sennacherib had not, in the mean time, advanced southwards, towards Egypt, but northwards, that is, he had retreated. This he had done, no doubt, on account of Tirhakahs advance. It can hardly be, as Keil and Thenius suppose, that he had taken Lachish, for, if he had done so, he would probably have remained in that place, and not have retreated. Lachish appears to have been so strong by nature that he could not take it at once, and therefore desired to get possession of Libnah at least. He heard the news of Tirhakahs advance, not at Libnah, but while he was besieging Lachish. In the first place he passed by Jerusalem, but it was now of the utmost importance to him to get possession of this strong position, so as not to have it in his rear. [On this point also see the Supplementary Note.]Tirhakah, who is called by Manetho, , by Strabo, , on Egyptian monuments Tahrka or Tahraka, is represented on the Pylon of the great temple of Medinet-Abu in the guise of a king, who is slaughtering, before the god Ammon, enemies from the conquered countries, Egypt, Syria, and Tepopa (a country which cannot be identified) (Keil). When, and how long, he ruled over Egypt, are questions which do not here concern us further. (See Niebuhr, Gesch. Assyr., s. 72 and 458). He is described, like Sesostris, as one of the great conquerors of the ancient world (Strabo 1:45). This was the ground for the effect which his approach produced.
2Ki 19:9. He seat messengers again unto Hezekiah. Instead of we find in Isa 37:9 . Drechsler thinks that this word is much more forcible, and that it is repeated from the beginning of the verse, in order to show that Sennacherib sent the messengers as soon as he heard the news. The text before us, however, seems to be the better one, as Delitsch also admits in this case. The point to be emphasized is, not that Sennacherib sent at once upon hearing this news, but that he sent again, made another attempt to get possession of Jerusalem by capitulation, without drawing the sword, for Jerusalem was far stronger than Samaria, and the latter cost Shalmaneser a three years siege.On 2Ki 19:10 see 2Ki 18:30, and on 2Ki 19:11 cf. the similar piece of boasting, Isa 10:8-11. This time Sennacherib addresses himself directly to Hezekiah by a letter, and hopes for better success than was won by his servants. The letter contains the same arguments as Rab-shakehs speech, with this difference, that still more countries which had been conquered by the Assyrian arms are here enumerated, in order to heighten the effect. (2Ki 19:11), not: in order to destroy them, but; so that they destroyed, or: ,by this, that they destroyed them; strictly: by devoting them to destruction. Cf. Deu 2:34; Deu 3:6; Jos 8:26; 1Sa 15:3; 1Sa 15:8; Num 21:3.In 2Ki 19:12 the countries which Rab-shakeh had not mentioned are mentioned first, and then, in 2Ki 19:13, those which he had mentioned. On Gozan see note on 2Ki 17:6. The mention of this place in connection with Haran in Mesopotamia (Gen 11:31) does not force us to conclude that it refers to Gauzanitis in that country. The enumeration is founded on historical, not on geographical facts (Keil). Rezeph was a place in the district of Palmyra, in eastern Syria, which Ptolemy calls (5,15) . It was a days journey west of the Euphrates (Winer, R.-W.-B.). Jalkuti mentions nine cities of this name in his geographical dictionary. The one here referred to was probably the most important amongst them. Eden is certainly not the Syrian Eden (Amo 1:5), for the reference here is to Assyrian conquests; but is the Eden mentioned in connection with Canneh and Haran, in Eze 27:23. It must, therefore, be sought in Mesopotamia. It is quite uncertain where Thelasar was, and whether it was a city or a district. Perhaps it was in Mesopotamia, like the other places here mentioned, or perhaps it was in Babylon, for (hill) occurs at the first part of many Babylonian geographical names. Ewald considers it identical with Theleda, near Palmyra. According to Delitsch, it is Thelser of the Tab. Peuting., on the east side of the Tigris. The children of Eden may have been a tribe which had just then acquired importance, had established itself in Thelasar, a place which did not originally belong to it, and had founded a kingdom there, as the Chaldeans did in Babylon (Drechsler).On 2Ki 19:13 see notes on 2Ki 17:24; 2Ki 18:34.
2Ki 19:14. And Hezekiah received the letter. The plural, , has here a singular signification; liter, epistola, as the suffix in shows. Hezekiah went into the temple to pray, after the receipt of Sennacheribs letter, as he had done after Rab-shakehs speech (2Ki 19:1). He spread it before the Lord, as it were before the throne of Jehovah. It is incomprehensible that Gesenius should have asserted that Hezekiah did this with the same motive with which the Thibetans set up their prayer-machines before their gods, in order that the gods may read the prayers for themselves. The substance of the prayer itself (2Ki 19:15-19) contradicts any such notion most distinctly, for the conception of the one sole God of heaven and earth, as opposed to all heathen conceptions of divinity, which here appears, excludes totally any such coarse anthropomorphic fantasy. It is impossible to impute any such gross superstition to that king of Israel, who displayed zeal against idolatry such as no king since David had shown, and who stood in such relation as we have seen to Isaiah, the most gifted of the prophets. Nor can we explain to ourselves Hezekiahs action in spreading the letter before God, with Keil and Von Gerlach, as child-like faith and confidence, for it would have been more than childish if Hezekiah had believed that this letter must be presented to God for Him to see and read it Himself. Still less can we suppose that his object was ut populum earum litcrarum conspectu ad deum orandum excitaret (Clericus). It was rather a significant, or symbolic, act. Hezekiah solemnly hands over the letter, the documentary blasphemy, to Jehovah. He spreads it before Jehovah and leaves to Him the work of punishing it. Lisco: The act of spreading out the letter before Jehovah is a symbolic presentation of the great distress into which he has been brought by Sennacherib, and to which his prayer refers. Delitsch: It is a prayer without words, a prayer in action, which then passes into a spoken prayer. He calls upon Jehovah as the God of Israel, i.e., as the one who has chosen Israel out of all the nations of the earth to be His own people, and has made a covenant with this nation, and who, therefore, sits between the cherubim, and dwells amongst His chosen people (see the dissertation on the Significance of the Temple under 1 Kings 6, 6, c and d), is not, however, a mere national divinity like the gods of the nations which the Assyrians had conquered, as Sennacherib supposed, but is the One, Almighty Creator of heaven and earth. In Isa 37:16 we find with the word , (2Sa 5:10; 2Sa 7:8). This would hardly have been left out if the author had found it in the original document which served as his authority. in is an emphatic repetition, and so a reinforcement, of the subject, as in Isa 43:25; Isa 51:12, &c.; tu ille (not, tu es ille), that is, tu, nullus alius (Delitsch).
2Ki 19:16. Lord, bow down thine ear. Drechsler: This express mention of the two chief senses, the development of each of the two chief ideas, according to their details, into a twofold prayer, the complete symmetry of the two clauses of the sentence, the repetition of in the second clauseall these conspire to give to the prayer the greatest urgency and emphasis. The singular, thine ear, with the plural, thine eyes, is a standing formula (Psa 17:6; Psa 31:2, &c.). When we wish to hear, we bend down one ear to the speaker; when we wish to see, we open both eyes (Gesenius). That open thine eyes does not mean: Read the letter (Knobel) is evident from Isa 1:15, where the reference is not to a letter at all, but only to a prayer. The second hear is equivalent to notice, pay heed to. [The anthropomorphism is plain. The explicit mention of the senses in addressing God is intended to express the most urgent prayer for attention.W. G. S.] In 2Ki 19:17 Hezekiah admits the truth of what Sennacherib had boasted of, namely, the subjugation of all those peoples and countries. By the following words he means to say: This was possible for him because they had no protection and no help in their gods of wood and stone; but thou, O Jehovah! our God, art the only God, the Almighty One, Who canst help. Help then thy people for thine own glory, that all nations may know Thee as the One True God (2Ki 19:19). does not mean: to put to death by the sword (Luther), but: to devastate, to destroy. Eze 19:7; Jdg 16:24. Instead of the nations and their lands, Isa 37:18 reads: all the lands and their (own) land. [E. V. (as an escape from the difficulty) all the nations and their lands.] The reading of Isaiah is not to be preferred on account of its greater difficulty (Keil, Drechsler). On the contrary, the text of Kings seems to be more correct, as the majority of the commentators admit. Thenius goes so far as to say that the text of Isaiah must be totally rejected. The explanation that the Assyrians had, in consequence of their numerless wars, devastated their own country, is altogether too forced. It does not fit the context, for, if it were adopted, then their gods in 2Ki 19:18 might refer to the gods of the Assyrians. Neither does , in Isaiah, deserve to be preferred, as the more difficult reading, to the of the text before us. Knobel gives an incorrect interpretation of the words: And have cast their gods into the fire. Hezekiah does not mean to put their godliness in its proper light, and to say: They acted wickedly even from their own stand-point, since they held these idols to be gods, and nevertheless destroyed them. Drechslers remark is more correct: Standing themselves in the midst of the heathen modes of thought, and moving with the mythologic tendency which was in the process of development, they recognized the deep connection between the religion of a people, its national cultus, and its identity as a particular individual in the family of nations. It was a result of this fundamental conception that the idols of conquered peoples were often carried into captivity. [That is, the whole nationality was taken captive, reduced to submission, and carried away by the victor, root and branch.Hezekiahs mention of the destruction of the heathen gods (idols), in his prayer, therefore, belongs to his description of the completeness of the Assyrian victory, and the utter extirpation of the nationalities which they had conquered.W. G. S.] Thenius refers, in his comment on this passage, to Botta, Monum. pl. 140, where an idol is being hewn in pieces while the booty from a conquered city is being carried out and weighed.Therefore they have destroyed them. They were easily able to do so, he means to say, because these were gods made by mens hands out of wood and stone. It will, however, and it must, be entirely different, if he now proceeds to assail Jehovah (Drechsler). [The connection of thought may be thus developed: His boast is true. He has indeed uprooted the nations, devastated their countries, and destroyed their idols, in whom they trusted for protection. The inference he desires us to draw is, that Jehovah, our God, in whom we trust, will not be able to save us, any more than these gods to save their worshippers. But what is the assumption on which this inference entirely depends? It is that Jehovah is only another god like those. But they are only pieces of wood and stone, while Jehovah is the sole and almighty God of hosts. Hence the assumption is false, the inference falls to the ground with it, and the boast, although it is true, is idle.W. G. S.]
2Ki 19:20. Then Isaiah sent to Hezekiah, &c. He did not probably send the following answer by a younger prophet, or prophet-disciple (2Ki 9:1) (Knobel), but by the same embassy which Hezekiah, who in the mean time had gone into the temple, had sent to him. The reply was not written (Starke), it was delivered orally, but it is certain that it was recorded by Isaiah.She despises thee, &c. 2Ki 19:21. The entire passage 2Ki 19:21-34 may be divided into three parts. In the first, 2Ki 19:21-28, the haughty Assyrian himself is addressed. It consists of words especially adapted to scorn his pretensions. In the second, 2Ki 19:29-31, the prophet addresses himself directly to Hezekiah. In the third, 2Ki 19:32-34, the catastrophe of the Assyrian enterprise is solemnly foretold. The commencement of the oracle constitutes, in form and contents, the strongest and most confident contrast to the Assyrian haughtiness. [This division is correct for the sense of the passage. According to its poetic construction, however, it is rather composed of four strophes, two of four and two of three verses. The oracle is highly finished both in its poetic construction, and in the flow of thought. It commences with an indignant and scornful outburst of utter contempt for the Assyrian pretensions (first str.); it then proceeds to refute them by calmer reasoning (sec. str.); then it turns to Hezekiah and Judah, the other parties to the dispute, with encouragement (third str.); and finally it gives, with quiet confidence, a declaration as to the solution of the crisis (fourth str.).W. G. S.]The virgin daughter, Zion: not of Zion. Even the stat. const. , only expresses the relation of apposition. Daughter is the ordinary figure under which lands and cities are designated (Isa 23:12; Isa 47:1; Jer 46:11; Lam 1:15). Virgin is used of a city which is as yet unconquered (see Gesenius on Isa 23:12). Here it is prefixed by way of emphasis, and expresses in contradiction to the confidence of the Assyrian, the consciousness of impregnability (Drechsler). At thee, lit. after thee or behind thee. This is a picturesque feature in the description, and is, therefore, mentioned first (Hebrew text). Behind thee, as thou departest in shame and disgrace (Drechsler). She wags her head, not moving it from side to side as a sign of refusal or disapproval, but up and down, as a sign of ridicule, Psa 22:7; Psa 109:25; Job 16:4; Jer 18:16. She shows by this gesture that it must have turned out so and not otherwise (Delitsch). This scorn and ridicule is well deserved, because Sennacherib had blasphemed the Most High, therefore, 2Ki 19:22 : Whom hast thou insulted and blasphemed? He that sitteth upon the heavens shall laugh.Lifted voice, not in the sense of shouting aloud (Drechsler, Keil) (for Rab-shakeh was the only one who had lifted up his voice in this sense, not Sennacherib), but in the more general sense of uttering words against anybody [a poetic expression for speaking]. is not the height of thine eyes (Umbreit), but on high, upwards towards heaven; cf. Isa 57:15, I dwell in the high and holy place. It does not, therefore, simply mean, as in Isa 40:26, to look up towards heaven, but, as is seen by the following words: Against the Holy One of Israel, it has an accessory reference to that pride and arrogance, which places itself on a level with Him who dwells in heaven. The Holy One of Israel is, it is true, the name which is peculiar to Isaiah, but here it is used because Jehovah is especially designated by the title which distinctly implies that His majesty cannot be outraged by anybody with impunity, Isa 5:16 (Drechsler). The Sept. and Vulg. [and E. V.] translate, in violation of the masoretic accents: Against whom hast thou lifted up thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? Against the Holy One of Israel!
2Ki 19:23. By thy messengers thou hast insulted the Lord. The messengers are those mentioned in 2Ki 19:9. In Isa 37:24 we find instead: thy servants, evidently referring to those mentioned in 2Ki 18:17. The speech which the prophet here puts in the mouth of Sennacherib, and in which he gives the key to all the feelings and disposition of the latter, is divided into two parts by the emphasized in 2Ki 19:23-24. Then each principal clause is subdivided. The Sept., Vulg., Luther, and others take all the verbs in both verses as perfect tenses, but it is incorrect because the perfect , 2Ki 19:23, is followed by the two futures and , and likewise the perfect , 2Ki 19:24, . It is still less admissible to refer 2Ki 19:23 to past time and 2Ki 19:24 to future time, and to translate the perfect as a perfect, but the perfect as an imperfect, as is often done. The rule which here applies is the one given by Gesenius (Hebr. Gramm. 126, 4): The perfect may even refer to the future, especially in strong affirmations and assurances, in which the speaker regards the matter, in his own will, as already done, or as good as accomplished. In German [and English] the present is used in such cases instead of the future (cf. Ewald, Lehrb. 135, c.). This use is common in prophecies, Isa 9:1; Isa 5:13. Cf. Psa 31:6; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:20. We therefore translate, with De Wette, Hitzig, Knobel, Umbreit, Ewald, and others, both perfects by the present, especially as it could not, in any sense, be said of Sennacherib that he had already dried up all the rivers of Egypt. Sennacherib boasts not so much of what he has done as of what he can do; he represents himself as almighty. Yet it is true that in each of the two verses, the second clause gives the consequence of the first, that is to say, the second clause tells, in each case, what the Assyrian proposes to do after he has accomplished what is mentioned in the first clause (Keil). Drechslers objection that this makes the Assyrian appear as an empty boaster, who, in ridiculous hyperboles piles up a catalogue of things which he boastfully intends to do, has no weight, for it is not the prophets intention to mention all the great things which the Assyrian has already done, but to show what he imagines that he can do. He does not mean to make him enumerate the great deeds which he has accomplished, but he means to describe his disposition, the thoughts of his heart.This answers the question whether the words which are here put into the mouth of Sennacherib are to be taken literally (historically) or figuratively. Many of the old commentators thought that they were literal and historical. Drechsler adopts this view. He says: The greater the deeds were which he boasted of, the more necessary it was, if he did not wish to produce an entirely contrary effect from the one which the words seem to indicate, that there should be earnest facts behind his words, and that they should rest upon incidents which could not be denied, but were notorious. Keil justly objects that there is not the slightest reason to believe that Sennacherib, or any of his predecessors, ever crossed Mt. Lebanon, with all his chariots and military force, and conquered Egypt, or dried up its rivers. Umbreit also says: We do not see what the cutting down of the cedars and cypresses signifies, under this interpretation. Nevertheless, the speech, although it is here given in a rhetorical and poetical form, is not mere poetry. The figures used rest upon actual circumstances, and the speech is not exhausted if we simply interpret it to mean: There exists no effectual hindrance to my power, neither heights nor depths, neither mountains with impenetrable forests, nor plains which are barren and waterless, or cut up by rivers. On the contrary, 2Ki 19:23 refers directly to Palestine, and 2Ki 19:24 to Egypt. Lebanon is the mountain which forms the northern boundary of Palestine. It shuts it in and forms the gateway to it (cf. Zec 11:1, Cocceius: Libanon munimentum terr Canaan versus septentrionem est). When an enemy has passed over it and occupied it, the whole land lies open before him; it is in his power. Just as the word gate is made to cover that to which the gate leads, so Lebanon here stands for the whole country to which it is the key (Isa 33:9; Isa 35:2). [There is no instance of this use of language. Lebanon is often spoken of as one of the glories of the country; never as standing for, covering, or representing the country. The two instances quoted belong to the former usage. In Isa 33:9, Lebanon is mentioned with Sharon and Bashan, the other especial sources of pride to the country, as lying waste. In 35:2, among the details of the future glory which was to be enjoyed, Lebanon is mentioned to say that it shall recover its former grandeur. In neither case does it, in any sense, stand for the land of Canaan.W. G. S.] As in the north Canaan was shut in by Lebanon, so it was enclosed and protected on the south by the waterless desert of Beersheba (Gen 21:14), which is contiguous to the desert El Tih (Herodotus 3:5, Robinson, Palestine I., 300). Beyond are the rivers, the arms of the Nile which protect Egypt. These two great hindrances, the mountain on the north, and the desert and then the rivers on the south, the haughty king declares to be insignificant. He can pass over Lebanon even with his chariots, and can dry up the rivers of Egypt with the soles of his feet. But all this even does not exhaust the meaning of this speech. If, namely, 2Ki 19:23 only meant to say: The highest mountain in the country is no hindrance for me, then we could not see what was the significance of the following words: And I will hew down its loftiest cedars and its choicest cypresses. It cannot refer to any actual cutting down of these trees, since Sennacherib had no reason for devastating Lebanon, or for wanting cedar or cypress wood. Moreover the cedars and cypresses were no particular hindrance to him. We have here another instance of the figure which occurs in Jer 22:6-7; Jer 22:23; Eze 17:3, only somewhat further elaborated. Lebanon is the kingdom of Judah, its summit is Jerusalem, the city of David and Mount Zion. Its cedars and cypresses are its princes and mighty men, whom Sennacherib thinks that he can hew down. Its resting-place and forest-grove are the kings palace on Mount Zion; there he intends to make his encampment (Isa 10:29. See Delitsch on Isa 37:24). is not a designation for the places on Mount Lebanon which were thickly grown with herbs (Frst), but for the forest on its summit, which consisted of beautiful trees forming an orchard-like grove, see Isa 29:17. The predicate garden is applied to this forest because it consists of choice trees (Drechsler). [It rather resembles a carefully kept grove or orchard than an untrained forest.W. G. S.] Both expressions are decisive in favor of the figurative acceptation of the passage, for we cannot suppose that there was a real inn, or resting-place, on the summit of Lebanon (Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmller); in the first place, because there is no mention of any such thing, and again, because, if there had been, it would not have been of any importance to Sennacherib. Moreover, Resting-place [literally inn] and forest-grove are in apposition, but a forest is not an inn, and can only be called a resting-place in so far as it is a shady place fit to rest in, that is, in a figurative sense. There is, however, in both expressions a reference to the House of the Forest of Lebanon (1Ki 7:2; Isa 22:8), which represented the defensive military force (see 1 Kings 7, Exeg. on 2Ki 19:2, and Hist. 2), and which resembled a forest on account of its cedar columns. The full sense of 2Ki 19:23, therefore, which, because it affected Hezekiah, is more detailed than 2Ki 19:24, which refers to Egypt, is this: I am putting an end to the kingdom of Judah with its capital, its citadel, its kings, and its princes, and all its glory.
[The figurative interpretation is adopted by all the commentators of note, but the above special application of the details of the verse to Mount Zion, the Kings palace, the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Princes and Chief men, &c., &c., suffers from the weakness which is inherent in every symbolical interpretation which is not directly suggested in the context. It is evident that the symbolical explanations are forced and far-fetched, and, in the mouth of an Assyrian, inexplicable. Moreover, a careful examination of the other cases where Lebanon is used in a metaphor (Isa 33:9; Isa 35:2; Isa 22:6; Isa 22:1; Isa 22:23; Eze 17:3; Hab 2:17) shows that they differ essentially from this one. The simile is always formally introduced as such, and there is no evidence of any usage of language by which Lebanon was made to stand for the whole country as, for instance, Jerusalem or Mount Zion were used for the whole nation. The details given in verse 23 form an exact description of the march of an army over Lebanon. Let us suppose for a moment that Sennacherib had actually entered Palestine from the north by passing over the mountain. He then boasts that by or with the whole host of his chariots, usually supposed to be fit only for travelling over a plain, he has even gone up to the top of the mountain; that he there cut down the largest and strongest trees (cypresses and cedars being the principal trees on Lebanon), in order to make a way for his armythese mighty trees, the pride of the mountain, making it difficult for an army to march through and preserve its order, had not availed to hinder him. He had hewn them down and cast them away. He had found a resting-place and encamped his army on the very summit of the mountain, in its choicest and most beautiful forest, which had proved for him a shelter and resting-place, not a hindrance. If we thus suppose that, as a fact, he had accomplished this difficult military feat, it is seen that the details of this boast, which is put into his mouth, fit well into the actual details of such an undertaking. We will not infer that he had accomplished this feat, since no hint of it occurs anywhere, but the accuracy of the details is very remarkable. 2Ki 19:24, on the other hand, is brief, and purely poetical. What are we to understand by parching up rivers with the soles of ones feet? This rather corresponds to the nature of a bold enterprise, as yet unaccomplished, than to the actual details of a feat already performed. The attempt to specify in detail the things referred to by the separate objects in a bold poetic image or reference of this kind is always a failure. It only sketches in bold outline the thoughts, ambitions, and intentions of Sennacherib, being based possibly on actual deeds which he had accomplished, and in this form it must be left. It is not a parable, but a poetic and boastful statement, in huge outline, of what was in his mind. Whether, as an actual fact, he had led his army over Lebanon or not, he makes use of such a feat as a general specimen of the kind of things he was capable of accomplishing. If he had not done something of that kind, Drechslers objection would have great force, that his boast would be ridiculous. That Lebanon figures in this speech may be merely owing to the fact that a Jewish prophet puts it into the mouth of the Assyrian, and Sennacherib may somewhere else have passed with his army over a mountain which was supposed to be impassable. In short, then, it is a boast, founded probably on some feat which the Assyrians had accomplished, calling up in vivid figures their power to overcome hindrances supposed to be insurmountable, and setting forth the arrogance which these successes had inspired in them, which led them to think that no obstacles could stay them. Having passed mountains, they were ready to believe that they could parch up rivers. Then follows the rebuke that they had had all these successes only because they were foreordained instruments of Gods Providence, but that, when they had reached the limit of what he intended them to do, they could go no farther, and moreover that their arrogance in ascribing their success to their own power would call for punishment from Him.W. G. S.]
In regard to the detailed exegesis we have yet to notice , literally: With chariot of my chariots, i.e., with my numberless chariots (cf. Nah 3:17, ). According to Keil this is more original; according to Knobel it is more choice, more difficult, and therefore preferable to , with the multitude of my chariots, which we find in Isa 37:24, and which the keri, many codices, and all the ancient versions have in this place. We agree with Thenius in preferring the latter reading as the more natural one. The sense is the same in either case. Ewald translates: By the simple march of my chariots, but the point of importance here is not the uninterrupted onward march, but that chariots, which generally are only fit for level ground, are said to have passed over the highest mountains. Its summit, (, cf. Jer 6:22, where the Sept. has ), literally, its outmost limit or boundary, Vulg. summitas. is decidedly to be preferred to , height (Isa 37:24), for it is far more significant, and the idea of height is already expressed in .I dig and drink, 2Ki 19:24. 2Ki 19:23 refers to the subjugation of Palestine; 2Ki 19:24 to that of Egypt. The digging does not refer to the redigging of the wells and cisterns which had been filled up by the fleeing enemy (Thenius), but to the work which is necessary to find water for a great army in a district where it is wanting. Strange water is water which is not sprung from the soil of this nation (Drechsler), not, water which belongs to others (Clericus: in alieno solo, quasi in meo, fodiam puteos). is used as in Isa 17:10. The word is wanting in the text of the parallel passage of Isaiah, but it is very forcible. [This interpretation is not clear. It must mean either that Sennacheribs army carried with it water from Assyria, which is not conceivable unless possibly for the king alone, or else, taking the verb as a distinct preterite, that he had drunk the waters of other nations than Judah, viz., of Assyria, and hence his strength. This latter hypothesis would not chime well with the next clause and is not acceptable. Clericus interpretation is better. The Assyrian boasts that he comes into foreign nations and digs for and drinks the water of their soilmakes use of their resources.W. G. S.] On the other hand, where there is a superabundance of water, as in Egypt, where the rivers assure the inhabitants an abundant supply, and, at the same time, form barriers to an invader (Nile and its arms, see Winer, R.-W.-B., I. s. 25), there he parches it up. With the sole of my foot, a strong hyperbole. It does not mean under the footsteps of my countless army (Knobel). [It seems to be a purely imaginative and poetic idea, with which no literal, corresponding, fact can be associated. It could only be applied to a deity, and then only by a poetic image, if the river should disappear by some extraordinary interposition. The king, in his self-assumption, asserts that he will, by some similar god-like power, which is not probably defined as to its mode of operation, even in his own mind, dispose of this hindrance when he meets it.W. G. S.] is the poetic name for Egypt. [, the land of distress (Angstland), is a poetic metamorphosis of the Hebrew name of Egypt, , cf. 2Ki 19:6; Mic 7:12 (Ewald).] are the arms and canals of the Nile; Isa 19:6 compared with 7:18; Eze 29:3; Eze 30:12; Mic 7:12. In like manner Claudian (De Bello Goth., V. 526) represents Alarich as boasting: Cum cesserit omnis Obsequiis natura meis? subsidere nostris. Sub pedibus montes, arescere vidimus amnes. Drechsler thinks that the historical acceptation of 2Ki 19:24 cannot be refuted, but the notion of drying up the Nile with the soles of the feet is certainly figurative. [2Ki 19:24 certainly cannot be understood literally or historically, see above.] The Nile and its branches are to Egypt what the Lebanon and its cedars were to Palestine, viz., the fortification and protection of the country. Sennacherib exalts himself above both as if he were almighty: Where there is no water, there I know how to bring it out of the earth, and where a mass of water lies in my way, I can dry it up.
2Ki 19:25. Hast thou not heard? Jehovah now answers Sennacheribs insolent and arrogant boast (2Ki 19:23-24) by a question, the form of which assumes that he must give an affirmative reply, as the most lively and sharpest form of rebuke (see the questions in Job 38.): Thou speakest as if the greatness of thy might were thy work, and all which thou hast done an achievement of thy power. Know that I planned and ordained it thus of old, and that thou hast only executed my decrees, and been an instrument in my hand, cf. Isa 7:20; Isa 10:5; Isa 6:12 sq. The old commentators took hear in a literal sense as referring to the wonderful deeds of God in delivering His people out of Egypt and bringing them to Canaan, which, they think, were well known to Sennacherib; but the following , this, shows that that only is meant which had been accomplished by the Assyrians. Hence others have imagined that there was a reference to prophetic oracles like Isa 7:20 sq. which had come to the ears of Sennacherib (cf. Jer 40:1-15), but we may be sure that the prophet did not, in his oracle against the enemy, refer back to that declaration, which was pronounced against Israel. Still less can we agree with Thenius that it refers to an inner hearing of the soul or conscience, or indeed to Assyrian oracles which were consulted before undertaking the expedition. The question has rather this simple sense: If thou hast never heard it, then hear it now, and know that I planned and determined (literally, fashioned) it so (Isa 22:11). Vitringa: Eventum hunc in omni sua prformasse in consilio me providenti. is used here of time, as in Isa 22:11; as in Isa 23:7; Mic 7:20, from ancient days. is generally translated: That thou mayest be for the destruction. Keil and Drechsler: That there may be fortified cities for destruction, as in the formula (Isa 5:5; Isa 6:13; Isa 44:15), i.e., that strong cities may be to be destroyed. [Bhr, in his translation of the text, follows the latter. The former is strictly grammatical and less constrained: Thou art to destroy, i.e., this is thy destiny, thou art an instrument for this work.W. G. S.]
2Ki 19:26 is closely connected with 2Ki 19:25. That the inhabitants fell down so powerless (literally: were short of hand, i.e., powerless, Num 11:23; Isa 50:2), and made no resistance, was not the work of the Assyrians, but was foreordained by God. The same images are used for sudden decay of power in Psa 37:2; Isa 40:6. This series of metaphors forms a climax. The grass upon the roof is that which fades more quickly than that of the field, because it lacks soil (Psa 129:6). The corn blasted in the germ is the corn which is blighted and withers away before the blade springs, so that at the very outset it has the germ of decay in itself. is much to be preferred to the less definite and more general , ground (Isa 37:27).Resting in peace, going out, and coming in (2Ki 19:27) cover all the activity of a man (Psa 121:8; Deu 28:6; Psa 139:2). [See note 12 under Grammatical]Violent hate, Vitringa: Commotio furibunda, qu ex ira nascitur superbi mixta (Isa 28:21). Arrogance, which comes from the feeling of security, Amo 6:1; Psa 123:4. The first figure in 2Ki 19:28 is taken from the taming of wild animals, the second from the controlling of restive horses (Eze 19:4; Eze 29:4; Isa 30:28; Psa 32:9). There are two sculptures at Khorsabad which represent a victorious king leading captives, who stand before him, by a rope and a ring fastened in their lips (Thenius). Dignum superbo supplicium, ut qui se supra hominem esse putat, ad morem bruti abjiciatur (Sanctius). By the way by which thou camest, i.e., with this purpose unaccomplished, without having reached thine object.
2Ki 19:29. And this be the sign to thee. With these words now, the prophet turns to Hezekiah. Tibi autem, Ezechia, hoc erit signum (Vulg.). means in general, as Delitsch accurately observes (note on Isa 7:11), a thing, an event, or an action, which is intended to serve as a pledge or proof of the devine certainty of another. Sometimes it is a miracle, openly performed, striking the senses (Gen 4:8 sq.), sometimes it is a permanent symbol of what is to come (Isa 8:18; Isa 20:3), sometimes it consists in a prophecy of future events, which, whether they are natural or miraculous, are not to be foreseen by human wisdom, and therefore, when they occur, either reflect backwards in proof of their own divine origin (Exo 3:12), or furnish evidence of the divine certainty of others yet to come (Isa 37:30; Jer 44:29 sq.). In the case before us the sign is no miracle (, 1Ki 13:3), but a natural event which serves to give assurance of the truth of a prophecy (Keil). This sign is taken from agriculture, since this was, at that time, the most important interest of the people, and their attention might be expected for a sign which took this form (Knobel). In the following declaration stands first with emphasis, an infinitive absolute, which can stand concisely and emphatically for any tense or person of the verb which the context demands (Gesenius, Gramm. 131, 4 b.). It is often understood here as an imperfect: One shall eat, i.e., people shall eat, or, ye shall eat (Drechsler, Keil, and others); or, as a present; One eats, i.e. Ye are eating (Umbreit, Delitsch, and others), and is then translated, this current year. But we have here three years mentioned, of which the third is the first, which shall be a complete harvest-year, viz., on account of the withdrawal of the Assyrians, who shall leave the land which they have occupied once more free. 2Ki 19:35 shows distinctly that the Assyrian army perished before the third year after the prophets declaration, and Sennacheribs retreat therefore followed before the third year. Observe especially, in 2Ki 19:35, the words: that night. (See notes below on these words.) Sennacherib, when he heard of Tirhakas advance, had withdrawn from Lachish to Libnah. From there he once more threateningly demanded the surrender of Jerusalem (2Ki 19:8-10). How can we now understand that, from this point on, he remained in Palestine yet three years, without really laying siege to the city which he had so earnestly threatened? We are, therefore, compelled to take this inf. abs. in the sense of a perfect: edistis (Maurer, Gesenius, Thenius. Cf. Ewald, Lehrb. 240, a.; 302, c.). [Sixth Ed. In the seventh Ed. the subject is otherwise treated, and the inf. abs. is not represented as standing for any finite form, but as a pure and indefinite expression of the verbal notion, without giving it limitations of time or person. This is unquestionably correct. See 328, b.W. G. S.] , in contrast with the second and the third year, cannot, of course, refer to anything else than the year which precedes them, that is, the first one. In this first year the Assyrians had invaded the country, and had prevented the people from raising crops. In the second year they were still there, and the crops failed because they had devastated the country. In the third year they retired, and therefore the land could be cultivated. In the first year they lived upon , i.e., upon that which grew up from the leavings of the former crop, Lev 25:5; Lev 25:11. Vitringa: Ex etymo valet accessorium, quod sponte nascitur post sementem; a sort of after-growth from fruit of the previous crop which was accidentally dropped in gathering in the harvest. In the second year they lived upon , i.e., offshoots of the roots, which spring up in the second year after the planting (Frst); (Aquila, Theodoret). In the fertile parts of Palestine, especially in the plain of Jezreel, on the highlands of Galilee, and elsewhere, the grains and cereals propagate themselves in abundance by the ripe ears whose super-abundance no one uses (cf. Schubert, Reise, III. s. 115, 166. Ritter, Erdkunde XVI. s. 283, 482, 693). Strabo (11, p. 502) makes a similar statement in regard to Albania, that the field which has been once sown bears, in many places, a double harvest, sometimes even three, the first one fiftyfold (Keil on Lev 25:6). And the third year sow, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat their fruits. The long series of imperatives makes a strong impression, especially in contrast with the indifference of the infin. absol. in the first hemistich (Drechsler). This interpretation of the oracle is the only one which gives just force to . The sign is not something which does not yet exist but is to come; it is something visible, physical, and present, which announces and gives a pledge of something invisible and future. The sense, therefore, is not: Ye shall from this time on, in the present year, eat the chance product of the uncultivated fields, and in the next, the fruit of the offshoots from the roots of the plants, and then, in the third, sow and reapfor that would not be a sign;but the sense is: So certainly as ye have lived one year on the chance produce, and one year on after-growth, just so certainly shall ye sow and reap in the third year; that is to say: the land will be delivered from the Assyrians, and free for you to cultivate (cf. Hos 6:2). [Clearly this, when it should come to pass, would not be any sign that something, viz., the retreat of the Assyrians, should yet come to pass. In the nature of things the Assyrians must depart before the Jews would venture into the fields. We might as well say: The clouds shall be dispelled, and the sign of it shall be that the sun shall shine. The interpretation of the passage given above is correct, but the sign cannot be understood to mean that, when this thing should come to pass according to the prophecy, it should be a pledge that another thing, which the prophet had also foretold, should yet come to pass. It can only mean that when the Jews should once more find themselves at work in the fields, where they had not been for two years, this should be a sign, proof, and reminder to them that they had been delivered, by divine interposition, from a great national calamity. It is a sign which is of the nature of a symptom, or index.W. G. S.] The interpretation which is given by many of the old expositors admits, on account of 2Ki 19:35, that the retreat of Sennacherib took place in the year in which the prophet delivered this oracle, but it takes the infinitive as an imperative on account of the following imperatives, and then assumes that the first year, the one in which Sennacherib retreated, was a Sabbath-year, in which, under any circumstances, according to the Mosaic law, the people neither sowed nor reaped, but lived on the second, spontaneous growth (Lev 25:5), and that a Jubilee-year followed next after this, in which likewise there was no sowing or reaping (Lev 25:11), so that two harvests in succession were passed over. But the simple fact that is an infinitive forbids us to take it as an imperative, and, even if we assume that the Sabbath-years and Jubilee-years were, at that time, regularly observed, yet there is no hint in Leviticus 25 that the Jubilee-year followed immediately after a Sabbath-year. But still farther, who can prove, since every hint of it is wanting in the text, that just at that time a Sabbath-year and a Jubilee-year followed successively? Others have, therefore, given up the Jubilee-year and have supposed that only the spontaneous product of the fields was eaten in the first year, because the country had been devastated by the Assyrians, but that the second year was a Sabbath-year. Yet even this cannot be accepted, for the intent of the sign is not that they, trusting in Jehovah, should for still another year have food to eat, although they did not sow or reap, but that Sennacherib should retreat, the land should be delivered from him, and that too at once, not after three years. We cannot, therefore, agree with Ewald (Proph. des Alt. Bundes, I. s. 299 sq.), whom Umbreit follows, when he says: As, after the year in which, according to the Law, the ground lay fallow, yet another year was to be spent without raising crops, in order to restore the land to its original condition, a figure which evidently (?) floated before the mind of the prophet here, so he apprehended (?) that, in this far more important case, still a second year must pass without field-labor, in which they must eat the spontaneous product of the ground, until, after the extirpation of all that was unsound and corrupt in the State, a small company of purified men should commence, in the third year, a new and prosperous existence, and the messianic time should begin, taking its rise in Zion. There is no reference to the Sabbath, or Jubilee, year in the entire passage, and no such reference can ever be established from the mere fact that occurs also in Lev 25:5; Lev 25:11. Neither can we agree that Drechslers explanation (s. 184) is very simple. According to him there was left in Judah at that time only a greatly diminished population, which could not at once undertake the cultivation of the fields, so that it was not until after three years that the regular cultivation of the soil was restablished. If there was only a small remnant of the population remaining, then they did not require much. They could cultivate enough soil to produce what they needed, and did not need to live on , much less on . These interpretations are all more or less forced, and they all fall to the ground as soon as we no longer insist upon taking the infin. absol. as an imperfect or an imperative.
2Ki 19:30. And the remnant of the house of Judah that is left. Starting now from the reference to the growth of the crops, the prophet goes on to matters of higher importance, and takes up that which is the chief theme of his prophecies in all their diverse phases (Schmieder), viz., that God, although he inflicts fierce judgments upon His people for their apostasy, nevertheless will not allow them to perish utterly, but will preserve a remnant which has escaped or been delivered, a holy seed, and that from the midst of this the Messiah shall at last arise (Isa 7:3; Isa 10:20; Isa 4:2; Isa 6:13; cf. 1Ki 19:18). The repeated expressions ,, and , in 2Ki 19:30-31, refer to this idea. The Assyrian invasion, like that of Ephraim and Syria (Isaiah 7; 2Ki 16:5), was a divine judgment upon Judah, but the prophet says that the nation shall not perish under it. A remnant (, 2Ki 19:31, refers back to in Hezekiahs prayer, 2Ki 19:4) shall still remain, and it shall add roots (), that is, it shall go on to develop new roots, and shall win firmer hold (Thenius); cf. Isa 11:11; Isa 27:6.For, from Jerusalem, &c., 2Ki 19:31, i.e., it is the determination of God, adopted of old, that from Jerusalem, which now is so much distressed and apparently lost, salvation and redemption shall go forth (Isa 2:3). Jerusalem and Mt. Zion form the centre of the theocracy, or kingdom of God. The Assyrian chastisement will, therefore, be a purification of the nation. It will not result in its destruction. That judgment was, therefore, a prototype of all the others which befell the kingdom of God in later times, out of which the election of grace is developed (Rom 11:5) in more and more glorious form (Von Gerlach). The only ground for what is said in 2Ki 19:29-31 is the zeal of Jehovah, i.e., His zealous and faithful love to His people (Zec 1:14). The same concluding words follow the oracle, Isa 9:1-6, and they show that the passage before us is also, at least indirectly, messianic.Therefore, thus saith the Eternal. gathers up the substance of all which precedes. The first of the four members of the verse, He shall not come, contains the principal idea. The three others are nothing but a development of this one, intended to surround it here, at the close, with all possible emphasis (Drechsler). At the same time they form a climax: So far from coming into the city, he shall not even discharge his missiles against it, or form an assault against it, or even build up a wall to besiege it. in the piel means to advance. The reference is to an assault with shields held out in front (Thenius). Cf. Psa 18:5; Psa 18:18; Psa 59:10. Instead of , in 2Ki 19:33, we find in Isa 37:34 : , which is unquestionably the correct reading. All the old translations here present the perfect. The other reading seems to have arisen from the second . That which has been already said in 2Ki 19:28; 2Ki 19:32 is here repeated in order to emphasize the promise.For mine own sake, as Hezekiah had prayed, 2Ki 19:20, and for the sake of David, my servant, i.e., for the sake of the promise given to David, 2 Samuel 7. (Drechsler), cf. 1Ki 11:13; 1Ki 15:4.
2Ki 19:35. And it came to pass that night. According to Thenius, 2Ki 19:35-37 are evidently borrowed from a different source from that of 18:1319. 34, and 20:119. In the original document of 2Ki 19:35-37 he thinks that the words: It came to pass in that night, referred to something which had been narrated immediately before and which is not mentioned here. Delitsch also believes that there is a gap between 2Ki 19:34-35, for, according to 2Ki 19:29, there was to be yet a full year of distress between the prophecy and the fulfilment, during which agriculture would be neglected. This consideration loses its force under our interpretation of 2Ki 19:29. The narrator undoubtedly means to say in 2Ki 19:35-37 that the prophecy which reaches its climax in 2Ki 19:32-34, was fulfilled at once, and not after the lapse of years. This point was of especial importance to him, and we have no reason to interpret 2Ki 19:35-37 according to 2Ki 19:29; rather, on the contrary, 2Ki 19:29 according to 2Ki 19:35-37. Further, when we consider that both narratives [the one here and that in Isaiah] were constructed independently of one another from the same source (see the Prelim. Remarks), and that in both, 2Ki 19:35-37 follow immediately upon 2Ki 19:34, we must infer that the same was the case also in their common source. There is, therefore, no room to assume the existence of another source in which that was supplied which is here supposed to be left out.The words: are generally understood in the sense of ea ipsa nocte, i.e., in the night following the day on which Isaiah foretold the retreat of the Assyrians. On the contrary Delitsch thinks that it can only mean (if, indeed, it is not a mere careless interpolation), illa nocte, referring to 2Ki 19:32 sq., (i.e., the night in which the Assyrians sat down to besiege Jerusalem). The Rabbis (Guemara Sanhedr. iii. 26), and Josephus ( ) thus understood it. But the text does not anywhere say or imply that Sennacherib had advanced with his whole army from Libnah to Jerusalem, and that he stood before it ready to besiege it. [This is true, but does not meet Delitschs hypothesis, which is that a year is to elapse before the Assyrian would commence the formal siege of Jerusalem, and that that night refers to the first night of this siege. Such an hypothesis removes the difficulty, but does not seem to be a natural interpretation of the words.W. G. S.] The Vulg. translates: Factum est igitur, in nocte illa venit angelus. Menochius takes this to be emphatic for: in celebri illa nocte, viz., in the one in which the destruction of the Assyrian army took place. It is very noticeable that the words in question are wanting in the narrative in Isaiah, although that account is in other respects here identical with the one in Kings, and that 2Ki 19:36 there begins with . Also the Sept. version of the verse before us omits and reads simply: . Now, although the statement is no thoughtless interpolation, and still less, as Knobel thinks, manufactured out of Isa 17:14, yet it would never have been passed over in Isaiahs narrative, if it had been essential, or if the chief emphasis lay upon it. The interpretation ea ipsa nocte does not, therefore, seem to be absolutely necessary. The main point is, what is common to both narratives, that there was no delay in the fulfilment of the prophecy. It was not yearsfor instance, three yearsbefore it was fulfilled.The angel of the Lord is the same one who, as , smote the first-born in Egypt (Exo 12:29 compared with 2Ki 19:12-13), and who inflicted the pestilence after the census under David (2Sa 24:15 sq.). The latter passage suggests that the slaughter of the Assyrians was accomplished by a pestilence (Keil). Josephus (Antiq. x. 1, 5,) declares outright: . The interpretations which assume that there was a battle with Tirhaka, or an earthquake with lightning, or a poisonous simoom, are all untenable. The greatly abbreviated account in Chronicles states, instead of giving the definite number of the slain (185,000), that the angel cut off all the mighty men of valor and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria (2Ch 32:21). This does not mean that only those persons were killed (Thenius), but that even these, the real supporters and the flower of the Assyrian power, fell. In the camp. We are not told where this was at that time. It is most natural to suppose that it was where Rab-shakeh found it on his return, viz., before Libnah (2Ki 19:8), whither Sennacherib had retreated from Lachish. It was not, therefore, as has been said, before Jerusalem; neither was it in the pestilential country of Egypt (Thenius), for Sennacherib sent the letter to Hezekiah, not from there, but from Libnah (2Ki 19:8-10).And when they arose early in the morning, &c. The word , which occurs also in Isa 37:36, presupposes the previous reference to that night, which is not there mentioned. Those who were spared, whose number cannot have been large, arose as usual early in the morning and found corpses everywhere. If is regarded as an attribute it is very flat and superfluous, but as an apposition it gives emphasis (Drechsler). It was a cause of great trouble to the old expositors that Sennacherib was not among the slain. It is not necessary to suppose that he chanced just then to be outside the camp. Death of a still harder kind was destined to befall him (see verse 7), but the arrogant man was first to suffer the humiliation that his entire force in which he trusted was to be destroyed, and he was to march home in shame and disgrace (2Ki 19:21). The heaping up of the verbs: he departed, and went, and returned, expresses the hastiness of his retreat (Keil). This retreat cannot, therefore, have been delayed until the third year after Isaiahs prophecy, any more than the pestilence which occasioned it. Sennacherib dwelt in Nineveh. The object of these words is to emphasize the fact that he did not, from this time forward, undertake any assault upon Judah (Drechsler). On Nineveh, the capital and residence of the kings of Assyria, see Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s, 158 sq. Nisroch is probably the name of the chief Assyrian divinity, which is represented on the Assyrian monuments in human form with double wings and an eagles head. See Keil on the place and Mller in Herzogs Realencyc. X. s. 383. [The rank of Nisroch in the pantheon is not yet determined. He was also called Shalman. He was king of fluids. He presided over the course of human destiny. Hence marriages were placed under his care (Lenormant).] Adrammelech is the name of a divinity. [See the bracketed note on 2Ki 17:31.] It was a very wide-spread custom that princes bore the names of divinities (Gesenius on Isa 7:6). Sharezer is probably also the name of a divinity. It is said to mean Prince of Fire. [His full name was Asshur-sarossor = Asshur protects the king.] The murder of Sennacherib by his sons is mentioned in Tobias 1:21, and also by Berosus, who, however, only mentions one son (Euseb. Chron. Armen. i. p. 43). The land of Ararat is, according to Jerome on Isaiah 37.: Regio in Armenia campestris per quam Araxes fluit. It forms, according to Moses of Chorene, the middle portion of the Armenian high land. Esar-haddon, Ezr 4:2, called by Josephus , is mentioned by Berosus also as the successor of Sennacherib. The questions whether he ruled during his fathers life-time as viceroy of Babylon, and whether Nergilus reigned before him, do not here demand our attention. See Niebuhr, Geschichte Assyr. s. 361. It is not by any means free from doubt that Sennacherib lived nine years after his retreat before his assassination, as the Assyrian inscriptions are asserted to show. Accordingly, when Hitzig declares that the mention of Sennacheribs assassination bears witness against Isaiahs authorship of this historical passage, he has at least no ground in the chronology for this assertion, for it is more than possible, it is very probable, that Isaiah lived into the reign of Manasseh (Delitsch). [See the Supplem. Note at the end of this section.]
Appendix.It remains still to consider the oft-debated question, whether and when the expedition of Sennacherib against Egypt took place. It is certain according to 2Ki 19:24 that Sennacherib had the intention of marching against Egypt. It is not, however, asserted, in the biblical documents at least, that he ever carried out this intention. On the contrary, Herodotus gives (II. 141) the account which he received from the Egyptian priests, that Sennacherib advanced against Egypt as far as Pelusium, in the days of the Tanitic king Sethon, a priest of Vulcan. (Pelusium is the of Eze 30:15. It lay at the mouth of the eastern branch of the Nile, twenty stadia from the Mediterranean, in the midst of marshes and morasses. Partly on account of this position and partly on account of its strong walls, it was the key to Egypt, of which every invading army which came from the East must seek to get possession. All the conquerors who invaded Egypt from this side stopped at Pelusium and besieged it. Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 469.) They added that, at the prayer of this priest to the God for deliverance out of danger, field-mice () came by night and gnawed the quivers, the bows, and the straps of the shields, so that the army whose weapons had thus been made useless, was obliged to flee, and many fell; and that, on this account, there was, in the temple of Vulcan, a. stone image of this priest-king, having in the hand a mouse, and bearing the inscription: . Josephus (Antiq. 10:1, 15), referring expressly to Herodotus, narrates that Sennacherib undertook an expedition against Egypt and Ethiopia, but that , he returned leaving his object unaccomplished, because the siege of Pelusium had cost him a great deal of time, and because he had heard that the king of Ethiopia was advancing with a very strong army to the relief of the Egyptians. Furthermore, Josephus adds that the Chaldean historian Berosus also states that Sennacherib . It can hardly be doubted, therefore, that though the Assyrian army did not dry up the rivers of Egypt (2Ki 19:24), yet it advanced to the frontier. But now we come to the far more difficult question, at what point of time did this take place? The least probable reply is that it fell between 2Ki 19:34-35 (Sanctius, Knobel), and that the historian gives no account of it after 2Ki 19:34, because it did not affect Judah, but simply mentions the destruction of the army in 2Ki 19:35-36 without mentioning whether it took place in Judah or in Egypt. But it is incredible that Sennacherib, for whom it was of the utmost importance (2Ki 18:17 sq.; 19:9, sq.) to get possession of Jerusalem, should have given up the effort to capture it without putting any of his threats into execution, and should have marched on against Egypt, leaving in his rear this city which was favorably disposed towards his enemies (2Ki 18:21). His backward movement from Lachish to Libnah (2Ki 19:8) shows that he was no longer pursuing his advance against Egypt. Ewald (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 630 sq.) proposes another hypothesis. He sets the expedition against Egypt before all which is narrated from 18:13 on. He suggests that Sennacherib marched into Egypt, by the ordinary way, by Pelusium; that he was there arrested and turned back by some extraordinary calamity to which Herodotus story refers; that he then fell upon Judah with a greatly superior power, and that at this point in the course of events 18:1319:37 comes in. But this hypothesis also is untenable, for, according to it, in 2Ki 18:13 must refer to a march of Sennacherib from South to North, from Egypt towards Judah; but it cannot have any different meaning in 2Ki 19:13 from what it has in 2Ki 19:9, and there it is used of a march from Assyria to Judah, that is, from North to South. It is used in the same way in 2Ki 16:7 in regard to Tiglath Pilesers expedition, and in 2Ki 17:3; 2Ki 17:5 in regard to Shalmanesers. Moreover, it would be very astonishing, if the biblical narrative did not mention the march against Egypt with a single word, but only mentioned the retreat from there; for Sennacherib must have gone through Judah in order to reach Egypt, and Judah was hostile to him and friendly to Egypt. If, however, 2Ki 19:13 is to be understood as referring to the advance of the army, then 2Ki 19:14-16 must refer to the same and not to the retreat. Finally, Josephus proposes a third hypothesis. According to him, Sennacherib devastated Judah, but on the receipt of gifts from Hezekiah, withdrew, and advanced with his whole army against Egypt. Contrary to his agreement, under which the tribute was paid, he left Rab-shakeh and Tartan behind () that they might destroy Jerusalem. When, however, he found, after a long siege, that he could not take Pelusium, and when he heard of Tirhakahs advance, he suddenly decided to return to Assyria; , , …. . There is but slight objection to this hypothesis. On the whole it is the most probable of all. Hezekiah became king in the year 727 b.c. In his fourteenth year (2Ki 18:13) Sennacherib made this expedition, and sought to get possession of all the fortified towns in Judah. This was in the year 714. In 713 he marched against Egypt, leaving Rab-shakeh in Judah. In 712 he was once more before Lachish and Libnah, and, after his overthrow by the pestilence, he retreated to Assyria. This accords with 2Ki 19:29, according to our interpretation of it. On the contrary, according to 2Ki 19:7-9, Sennacherib, appears to have heard of Tirhakahs advance, not when he was before Pelusium, but when he was once more before Libnah. That he boasted as he does in 2Ki 19:23-24, even after his retreat from Egypt, is not astonishing in the case of such a haughty king. Possibly he had drained off or dried up a few swamps in the neighborhood of Pelusium. There can be no more truth in Herodotus story which he obtained from the priests than possibly this, that Sennacherib besieged Pelusium, but returned without having taken it. The rest, of course, is purely mythical. A mouse was the hieroglyph for devastation and destruction (Horapoll. Hierogl. i. 50); the inhabitants of Troas worshipped mice, ; also, the symbol of Mars was a mouse (Bhr, Herodot. Mus. i. p. 641). It may well be that Sennacherib was impelled by some natural occurrence to desist from the siege of Pelusium and to turn back, and this may have occasioned the story about the mice. If there had not been some event of the kind, he certainly would have advanced further than the frontier. The army cannot, however, have been rendered destitute of weapons ( ) at Pelusium, or it could not have carried on war in Judah on its return. According to all this it can hardly be doubted that it is one and the same expedition of Sennacherib which is mentioned by Herodotus and by the Scriptures, nevertheless the further supposition which is commonly adopted, that the event mentioned in 2Ki 19:35 is the same one which Herodotus narrates, though under a mythical form (Bhr, l. c. p. 881), does not seem to us to be correct. That event took place in Judah, this one before Pelusium, and it is very improbable that the Egyptian priests should have made a myth out of an event which took place in another country, and did not immediately affect them, and should have commemorated it by a statue. We cannot determine definitely what the event was which occurred before Pelusium, but we must assume that it was a very striking and important one which influenced the haughty king to give up his plan and return to Assyria. In like manner, when he stood in Judah once more with his army of 185,000 men, and there assumed such a haughty bearing, some weighty incident must have occurred which determined him to hasten his flight.
[There is no reasonable ground for finding two distinct events in these two accounts, and without reasonable ground we cannot assume that two distinct calamities befell Sennacherib which were of such a character that they were regarded as divine interpositions. Pelusium was on the frontier, and it is not at all remarkable that an event which happened there, or even at Libnah, immediately after Sennacherib had retreated from Pelusium, should figure in the history of both Judah and Egypt. Neither is it astonishing that the traditional account of the event should wear a mythical color; on the contrary, such events always take on mythical features. The biblical account is more original and direct, and is older than that of Herodotus, but it certainly refers to the same event.W. G. S.]
However the fact may be in regard to this point, the story of Herodotus, which, as Delitsch says, depends upon a hearsay tradition of lower Egypt, and which therefore appears as a suspicious imitation of the biblical story, cannot be put on the same footing with the scriptural account, much less be used to correct it.
[Supplementary Note on the references to contemporaneous history in chaps. 18 and 19 (See similar notes on the preceding chapters.) In the note on chap. 17 we gave a summary of the Assyrian history, so far as it bears upon the history of the Northern Kingdom, especially upon the recolonization of Samaria by Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon. This led us to notice some of the conquests of those kings, and so to observe the nationalities of the new population. We have now to go over the same reigns so far as they bear upon the history of Judah. Here also the Assyrian inscriptions offer us invaluable information for enlarging and correcting our knowledge of the biblical history.
It might at first seem strange that the historical books of the Bible contain no mention of Sargon. We find that he was really king of Assyria when Samaria fell; that he subdued a revolt in Samaria a few years later; that he was the king who introduced a large part of the new population into Samaria; that he conducted two very important campaigns in Philistia, in both of which he came into conflict with Egypt, and in one of which he won the battle of Raphia, one of the great battles of Assyrian history. It is impossible that this all should have come to pass without exciting the attention and interest of the inhabitants of Judah. The author of the Book of Kings seems, however, to have so construed his task, that he did not consider himself called upon to notice campaigns of the Assyrians which never actually touched, or directly threatened, Judah. Isaiah (chap. 20) mentions Sargon and his attack upon Ashdod rather in the way of a chronological date; but his reference shows that this expedition of the Assyrian king (or of his Tartan, commander-in-chief) formed an important event, and fixed a date for the Jews. Sargon was assassinated (it is not known by whom), in August, 704.
Sennacherib, son of Sargon, succeeded. We now possess very full accounts of his reign. These Assyrian statements and the biblical narrative of the conflict of Hezekiah and Sennacherib are in full accord so far as they go; but in the attempt to harmonize the details we meet with some difficulty, not from their inconsistency, but from their defectiveness. Lenormant and Rawlinson do not agree in their accounts of this section of the history. Rawlinson thinks that Sargon made or sent two separate expeditions into Judah; Lenormant thinks that the whole story belongs to one campaign. The chief argument against the theory of two separate campaigns is that only one is mentioned in the inscription, although, according to the usage of the inscriptions, the campaigns are always catalogued in their consecutive order, so that, if there was one against Judah, then one against Babylon, and then another against Judah, we should expect them to be so catalogued. Rawlinsons account makes a very clear and satisfactory narrative (see Five Great Monarchies II. 431443 2d Ed. 161168), but the usage of the inscriptions is so constant that we seem compelled to follow the theory of one campaign.
On the death of Sargon (704), Hezekiah revolted (18:7) together with the kings of Phnicia, Philistia, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. They had also sympathy and encouragement from Shabatok (Sabacon II., the Sethos of Herodotus, son of Sabacon I., the So of the Bible), king of Egypt. It was not until Sennacheribs third year that he turned his attention to this revolt. An inscription on a cylinder in the British Museum reads thus:
In my third campaign I marched towards Syria. He swept down through Phnicia and Philistia, crushing all opposition. The rulers of Ekron (Lenormant reads Migron, cf. Isaia. 10:28) had betrayed the king, Padi, who was inspired by friendship and zeal for Assyria, and had given him up bound in chains of iron to Hezekiah of Judah. The Egyptians came against Sennacherib and a battle ensued near Eltekon (Jos 15:59), in which the Assyrians won a great victory which ranked with that of Raphia in their annals. Sennacherib then took Ekron. He executed vengeance on the anti-Assyrian party. I brought Padi, their king, out of Jerusalem, and restored him to the throne of his royalty. (This is the point at which the biblical narrative begins. The statement in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (18:13) has thus far proved irreconcilable with the inscriptions. It was the year 700. Rawlinson proposes to read twenty-seventh for fourteenth.) But Hezekiah, king of Judah, did not submit. There were forty-four walled towns and an infinite number of villages that I fought against, humbling their pride and braving their anger. By means of battles, fire, massacre, and siege operations, I took them. I occupied them. I brought out 200,150 persons, great and small, men and women, horses, asses, mules, camels, oxen, and sheep without number, and carried them off as booty. As for himself I shut him up in Jerusalem, the city of his power, like a bird in its cage. I invested and blockaded the fortresses round about it. Those who came out of the great gate of the city were seized and made prisoners. I separated the cities I had plundered from his country, and gave them to Mitenti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, to Ishmabaal, king of Gaza.
Then the fear of my majesty terrified this Hezekiah king of Judah. He sent away the watchmen and guards whom he had assembled for the defence of Jerusalem. He sent messengers to me at Nineveh, the seat of my sovereignty, with 30 talents of gold and 400 (300?) talents of silver, metals, rubies, pearls, great carbuncles, seats covered with skins, thrones ornamented with leather, amber, seal skins, sandal wood, and ebony, the contents of his treasury, as well as his daughters, the women of his palace, his male and female slaves. He sent an ambassador to present this tribute and to make his submission (Lenormant).
Thus the inscription omits all mention of the disaster which befell the Assyrians in this campaign, and which the Jewish and Egyptian traditions concur in affirming. There is no mention of the siege of Lachish, although that siege is represented on a bas-relief in the British Museum (Lenormant). This want of candor is not very astonishing, but it serves to show us that the account in the inscription lays stress upon the flattering circumstances and slurs over the disasters of the campaign.
Now let us interweave this with the biblical story. 2Ki 18:13 is a parallel description of Sennacheribs devastations in the open country. The idea of the character of the campaign which we get from this verse is exactly that which the inscription offers in detail. Hezekiah was shut up in Jerusalem, and the enemy ravaged the country and destroyed the small towns at will. Hezekiah sent to sue for peace. He met with certain demands and he sent certain offerings. Yet in 2Ki 18:17 we find, when we expect to hear of peace, that an army was sent against him. The only explanation which suggests itself is that the offerings which he sent did not satisfy the Assyrian demand. Probably Sennacherib did not desire to make peace with Judah, but to get possession of Jerusalem, which he dared not leave behind him when he advanced into Egypt. Hezekih desired to create the impression, by tearing off the decorations of the temple, that his resources were exhausted, though we find that he was able to make a boastful display of his treasures to the Babylonians, a year afterwards. Perhaps he did not send the full amount demanded by the Assyrian, pleading inability, and sending these decorations stripped from the temple as a proof that he had no further treasures. This gave Sennacherib an excuse for persisting in hostility. Rawlinson is led by this difficulty to suppose that Hezekiah paid the full amount demanded, and secured a respite. Three years later (698) Sennacherib came again, besieged Lachish, and sent the three great officers. Then there would be a gap of three years between 2Ki 18:16-17. With our present information it is impossible to decide definitely between these theories. During the siege of Lachish, whether it was in the campaign referred to in 2Ki 18:13-16 or in a later one, Sennacherib sent a detachment of his army to besiege Jerusalem, or rather, if possible, to secure its surrender, for it was of the highest importance for him to finish the reduction of the few strongholds which still held out in Judah and Philistia, so that he might push on against Egypt, before that nation recovered from the blow which he had already inflicted. Hence the parley of the three chief-men on each side. Encouraged by Isaiah, Hezekiah sent a refusal. On the return of the three Assyrians they found that Sennacherib was besieging Libnah, having taken Lachish. (Bhr, in the text of the Comm. above, assumes that Sennacherib had suffered a check at Lachish. The only ground for this is the belief that Libnah was north of Lachish, so that going from the latter to the former was a retreat. The situation of Libnah, however, is so very uncertain, that this assumption rests on a slender support. There is no hint of any disaster to Sennacherib in this campaign until the great one recorded in 2Ki 18:35 sq. This seems to have interrupted him in the full tide of success.) The success which he had won, and the news that Tirhakah was coming with a new force of Egyptians, made Sennacherib more impatient than ever to finish the conquest of Jerusalem and Libnah. Tirhakah is called king of Ethiopia. The dynasty to which he belonged (the XXVth) was a dynasty of Ethiopians. He was the son of Sabacon II. mentioned above, and grandson of Sabacon I., called in the Bible, So. He seems to have been, at this time, crown-prince (Lenormant). He raised a new army to try to retrieve the disaster of Eltekon. Under these circumstances Sennacherib sent messengers once more to Hezekiah to demand a surrender, warning him to make terms while he could, and not to incur the total destruction which had befallen those who stubbornly resisted the Assyrian power. This was again refused, and soon after the great calamity fell upon the Assyrians which forced them to retreat without coming to blows with Tirhakah. Hence the story of this disaster was preserved both in Jewish and Egyptian annals, each nation ascribing it, as a great national deliverance, to its own God.
It will be seen that this gives a simple and clear explanation of many points which, in the above section of the Commentary, remain obscure. The question in regard to Sennacheribs invasion of Egypt is entirely solved, and it is not necessary to show in detail how much of the authors discussion of this question in the above Appendix, which was founded upon less perfect information than we now possess, is wide of the mark.
Sennacherib was assassinated in 680 by his sons Adrammelech and Asshursarossor. Another son, Esarhaddon (Asshurakhidin [Asshur has given brothers]), had for a few years been viceroy in Babylon. He returned with hostile intentions against the assassins, who fled into Armenia. Esarhaddon was recognized throughout the Empire.W. G. S.]
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. King Hezekiah stands in the front rank of Israelitish kings. The general characterization which precedes the history of his reign gives him a testimonial such as no other king had received up to that time, especially in reference to that which was the main point for the history of redemption, namely, his bearing towards Jehovah and His Law. In the panegyric of the holy fathers, Sirach 44-49, he is placed in the same rank with David and Josiah (Sir 49:5 : All the kings except David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, were guilty). Not one down to this time had reproduced the model theocratic king, David, as he did. He was, as Ewald justly says (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 621), one of the noblest princes who ever adorned Davids throne. His reign of 29 years offers an almost unmarred picture of persevering warfare against the most intricate and most difficult circumstances, and of glorious victory. He was very noble, not unwarlike or wanting in courage (2Ki 20:20), yet by choice more devoted to the arts of peace (2Ch 32:27-29; Pro 25:1). Von Gerlach, on the contrary, characterizes him often and in general as a weak and dependent man, but this is in contradiction with his very significant name (see notes on 18:1), and still more with the testimony in 18:38, and cannot, moreover, as will be seen, be brought into accord with the story of the separate acts of his life. How wonderful it was that the most godless king of Judah had the most excellent son. An Hezekiah followed an Ahaz (Schlier). The Scriptures give no explanation of this. It is a mere guess when it is hinted that Hezekiahs mother may have influenced him, for we learn nothing more of her than just her name and that of her father. It is also a mere guess that she was the granddaughter of Zachariah, who, under Uzziah, had such a good influence (2Ch 26:5) (Schlier). It is equally unsatisfactory when Kster says (die Propheten des A. T. s. 106): Hezekiah was the opposite of his unbelieving father Ahaz; the difference is explicable from the fact that they had lived through the destruction of Ephraim, and that that event had had a mighty influence on both the king and the people of Judah. It is certain that Hezekiah did not wait until after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel before he began his reformation of the worship, but that he commenced it immediately after his accession to the throne. The notion of the rabbis, that he had Isaiah for his tutor and guide, as the high-priest Jehoiada was the tutor of Joash, seems more probable, but, not to mention the complete silence of the text in regard to this, it does not follow from Sir 48:25, and it is very improbable in itself, that Ahaz, who never himself listened to Isaiah, should nevertheless have entrusted him with the education of his son and successor. All these and similar grounds do not suffice to account for such a sudden and complete change of policy on the throne; rather we must recognize here, if anywhere, a dispensation of Divine Providence. Just now, when Ahaz had brought the kingdom to the verge of ruin, when the kingdom of Israel was near its fall, and little Judah alone still represented the Hebrew nationality, this Judah was, according to the decree of God, to take a new start, and to receive a king on the model of David, who should be a true and genuine theocratic king, and bring the true character and destiny of the nation home to the consciences of the people. Hezekiah was for Judah a gift of the Lord. In a true sense he was king by the grace of God of whom the saying held good: The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will (Pro 21:1). Therefore his whole life is somewhat typical. It shows more than that of almost any other king that Gods ways are pure goodness and truth to those who keep his covenant and his testimony (Psa 25:10).
2. The first thing that Hezekiah did after his accession to the throne was to abolish the idolatry which Ahaz had introduced, and to restore the legal worship of Jehovah. The history expressly states how far he went in this effort. He not only destroyed the heathen idols, but also put an end to the Jehovah-worship on the high places, which even Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah had permitted to continue, and had not ventured to assail (1Ki 3:2; 1Ki 15:12; 1Ki 15:14; 1Ki 22:44; 2Ki 12:4; 2Ki 14:4; 2Ki 15:4; 2Ki 15:35). He returned to the original ordinances of the Mosaic Law, which prescribed not only one central sanctuary, but also one central worship (Lev 17:8-9; Deu 12:13 sq.). Hezekiah was, therefore, the restorer of that central worship which was so important and indispensable for the unity of the people and kingdom (see 1Ki 12:1-24, Hist. 1). His reign, for this reason, forms an epoch in the history of Israel. It is moreover specifically stated that he destroyed even the brazen serpent, which was of purely Israelitish origin, and to which there clung such important memories and associations for the people. This he did not do from puritanical zeal such as the later Judaism displayed (see 1 Kings 7 Hist. 3), but because this , as it is called, Wis 16:6, had been perverted by the people into an , whereas once every one who turned to it, , . To offer incense to this image was not only contrary to the Law (Exo 25:5; Deu 5:8-9), but also it was senseless, because thereby the very thing through which Jehovah, by His own might and power, intended to grant salvation, was regarded as holy, and adored as divine. If there was anything which was contrary and hostile to the worship of the Holy One in Israel, then it was the worship of this image; therefore Hezekiah destroyed it as ruthlessly as he did all the other images. If we add to this all that is said in Chronicles about the restoration of the levitical worship by Hezekiah, then it is clear that no king of Israel since David had been filled, as he was, with zeal for the divinely-given fundamental Law. If we consider further that he ascended the throne in a time of deep decay, at a time when the temple of Jehovah was closed (2Ch 29:3; 2Ch 29:7), and Judah was filled with all the abominations of heathenism, when disgraceful apostasy was widely spread among the great and mighty of the kingdom, then this king cannot certainly be called a weak and dependent man. To carry out such a reformation under the most unfavorable circumstances, is not the work of a weak man; on the contrary, it presupposes courageous faith, and extraordinary energy.
3. The oppression of Judah by the Assyrians, and its deliverance from the same, is one of the greatest and most important events of the Old Testament history of redemption, as we may infer from the fact that it is narrated with such careful detail, and that we have no less than three accounts of it. How deep an impression the event made upon the mind of the people, and what great significance was ascribed to it, is shown by its express mention in the late apocryphal books, in Jesus Sir 48:18-21, in the books of Maccabees I. 7:41; II. 8:19; III. 6:5, and in the book of Tobias 1:21 (of the Latin; 1:18, of the Greek, text). It is also generally admitted that the noble Psalms 46 refers to this event, if not also Psalms 75, 76 (Sept. ). Assyria stood at the summit of its power under Sennacherib; it had become a world-monarchy. Besides the nations of Eastern [Central] Asia, it had subjugated Phnicia and Syria, and overthrown the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. It was just ready to extend still farther and to subjugate Egypt. Having invaded Judah, which was already tributary, the conqueror had already devastated the country and captured the strongholds. Only Jerusalem yet remained. Now he threatened this last stronghold of the once prosperous kingdom. With arrogant and threatening words, scoffing at the God of Israel, he demanded a surrender of the city which was already hard pressed on every side, and spoke of carrying off its inhabitants into captivity. The greatest power on earth stood in hostility to the little kingdom of Judah, which was reduced to two small tribes, and rendered powerless by misgovernment. Its destruction seemed to be inevitable. But just at this point the power which had hitherto been resistless was broken, and it remained broken. This world-monarchy now commenced to decline. [This is a mistake. The next half century (700650) includes the height of the Assyrian power.W. G. S.] A change took place in the affairs of Judah which secured it yet a century and a half of existence. This change in its affairs it owed, not to its own strength or courage, not to a great army which came to its help, not to any human power, but only to its Lord and God, who said to the roaring sea: So far and no farther, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed! The great and invincible army perished without a battle or a stroke of the sword, as the Lord had foretold by His prophet (Isa 31:8). In a single night Judah was delivered out of the hand of its mighty enemy. With the downfall of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes a new epoch had begun for Judah. It was, from this time on, to represent alone the ancient covenant people. The great act of divine deliverance which is here recorded stands at the commencement of this new era, as a new covenant-sign, and pledge of the election of Israel, but at the same time also as a loud call to faithfulness. This was the significance of an event which had had no parallel since the deliverance from Egypt. It is, therefore, put parallel with that great event which was the type of all national deliverances (see notes on 17:7, and Exeg. on 1Ki 12:28). In subsequent times of peril it was mentioned together with the deliverance from Egypt, as a ground of prayer for divine aid (see the places quoted from the books of Maccabees). As there was there, so there is here, an arrogant enemy, who obstinately resists the God of Israel, who oppresses Jehovahs people so that they cry to him. As Moses there promised protection and deliverance, and said: These Egyptians whom ye see to-day shall ye see no more forever, so Isaiah here promises help: Fear not! for the Lord will guard this city. He shall not come into it, but shall return by the way by which he came; as there, Moses stretched out his hand over the sea and the sea returned at the dawning of the morning (Exo 14:27), so here, When they arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead, corpses: Isa 37:36 (Von Gerlach on Psa 46:6); as there the angel of the Lord smote at midnight all the first-born in Egypt, and rose up against the oppressor, so that he sank in the sea with his chariots, his horses, and his horsemen (Exo 12:29; Exo 14:19; Exo 14:28), so he here smote the Assyrian army by night so that Sennacherib arose, departed, and went (excessit, evasit, erupit. Cic. 2 Cat. at the beginning). Ewald justly says: One of those rare days had come again when the truth which no hands could grasp, forced itself home to the conscience and conviction of the people. Nay, indeed, in the preceding long and weary distress and trial, as well as in the sudden deliverance, and in the convergence of all these things to enforce faith in the only true help, this time has a certain resemblance to the time of the foundation of the nation, just as, throughout all these centuries, few souls attained so nearly to the height of Moses as did Isaiah. What a deep impression the event made upon the neighboring peoples is shown by the words of Chronicles, where the history of it closes with the words: And many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from thenceforth (2Ch 32:23). So that came to pass which Hezekiah had prayed for in his prayer for Gods help, 2Ki 19:19.
4. The prophet Isaiah stands first and foremost among those who appear either speaking or acting in the foregoing history. He is the central figure of the story, so that it appears also in the book of his prophecies. All that constitutes the peculiarity of the Jewish institution of prophets, and its high significance in the history of redemption, by virtue of which it stands independent of, and even above, the priestly office and the throne, presents itself to us here in one person as it does not in any other case either earlier or later. Not only as a human counsellor in difficult political transactions (Kster, Die Propheten, s. 106), as the kings privy-councillor, but as the servant and minister of Jehovah, the God of Israel, Who, through him, makes known His will and His decrees, and guides the fortunes of His people, and as the messenger and intermediary of the divine dispensations, Isaiah stands before us. He fulfils his mission most completely. Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah were in peril such as had never before befallen them since they had existed. No one was prepared with advice or counsel. Anxiety, terror, and despair controlled all. In the midst of all this Isaiah stood firm and unshaken as a rock in the sea. With calmness and even joy, such as only a servant of Jehovah, who is conscious that he stands before his Lord, can feel (1Ki 17:1; 1Ki 18:15), he proclaims, in the name of his Master, deliverance to the covenant people, and destruction to the blasphemous foe, and as he says so it comes to pass. Where in the history of the ancient world is there anything at all resembling this? The oracle, 2Ki 18:21-34, belongs to the grandest which have been preserved, and is in the front rank even of those of Isaiah. All the things which we find to admire in the discourses of this prophet are here united. The language is clear and unambiguous, it is concise and rich, powerful and stirring, sharp in censure as well as consoling and encouraging. At the same time it is, in form and expression, poetical and rhetorical. The religious feeling on which it rests is the distinctively Israelitish, in all its depth and purity. The God, in whose name the prophet speaks, is the Holy One of Israel (see Isa 6:3), a character in which He has revealed Himself to this people alone, and in which no other people knows Him. At the same time He is a Being who is elevated absolutely above all creature limitations, and He governs all the nations of the earth according to His will. He has chosen Israel to be His own peculiar people, while it keeps His covenant. He is merciful and gracious, but He will not be scorned or blasphemed. The godless are an instrument in His hand, which He breaks and throws away when it has served His purpose. This discourse was indeed occasioned by the peculiar circumstances of the time, and it refers in the first place to them, nevertheless it does not lack that which is the deepest and inmost soul of all prophecy, the forecast of the distant future, the Messianic [the idea that out of all calamities a purified remnant shall still survive to carry on the office of the chosen people] (2Ki 18:30-31; cf. Isa 7:3; Isa 6:13; Isa 10:21). This deliverance is the type and pledge of the one which shall go forth from Zion (Isa 2:2-3).
5. The prophets prediction of the destruction of Sennacherib is a prophecy in the common use of the word [something foretold], and every attempt to rob it of this character is shown to be vain, first by the great definiteness of the prediction, and secondly, by its undeniable fulfilment. Modern criticism, starting from the assumption that a specific prophecy is impossible, has declared 2Ki 18:7, as well as the concluding verses of the oracle, 2Ki 18:32-34, on account of their suspicious definiteness, to be additions by the late redactor. This is indeed the easiest way to set aside any apparent prophecy. It is to be noticed, however, that the whole passage, from 2Ki 18:21 on, comes naturally and necessarily to this termination, and the tone and language are exactly the same as in the previous verses. [The artificial construction of the strophe and antistrophe make it impossible to regard 2Ki 18:32-34 as anything but an integral part of the original composition. See the arrangement in the translation.W. G. S.] To take these verses away from the oracle is to rob it of all its point. It is both arbitrary and violent.
The so-called naturalistic explanation, which Knobel maintains, is not much better. According to this, the pestilence had then already commenced, and it threatened to weaken the Assyrian army very materially. News had also come that Tirhakah was advancing (2Ki 18:9). These two things caused the prophet to hope that Sennacherib would not persevere, and, inspired by this hope, he sustains his courage and exhorts the king and nation to confidence. But the assumption that the pestilence had at this time already broken out in the Assyrian camp is unfounded, it is entirely arbitrary, and it even contradicts the statements of the text in 2Ki 18:35-36. With this assumption the factitious hope of the prophet falls to the ground. Moreover it is perfectly clear that the prophet is not giving expression to a mere hope. As Knobel himself admits, the tone is that of the utmost confidence, and the passage (2Ki 18:32-34) is perfectly definite.
Ewalds conception of it is much finer and more delicate. (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 634 [Ed. third s. 682]). He thus states his conception of the circumstances: In the first place, when Rab-shakeh uttered his threats, the prophet exhorted the king in general to courage and fearlessness (2Ki 18:6). Afterwards, when Sennacheribs letter arrived and Hezekiah was in great anxiety, Isaiah forth-with announced to him, if possible (!) yet more distinctly than before, the heaven-sent consolation. The bolder and more insolent the language of Sennacherib was, the more firm was the divine confidence against all his human vanity which Isaiah expressed in his mighty oracles. Thereby he powerfully influenced both the king and the people. He was the most unwavering support in this calamity, and the unswerving strength of his soul grew with the raging of the storm. However much this conception may contain which is grand and true, yet it does not rise above the idea that the prophet had a merely natural and human hope and foreboding. The prophet himself, however, means to have his words taken as something more than this. He could not possibly, with good conscience, say of something which he merely hoped for and foreboded: Thus saith the Lord!
[The question in dispute is: What did the prophets mean when they said: Thus saith the Lord! No one will assert that they meant that they had heard words with physical ears, or read words with physical eyes, which came to them from God. Their apprehension of the things which they thus announced must have been subjective, in so far that it was spiritual and conscientious. Then we come to a psychological analysis of the degrees of hope, expectation, faith, and foresight. If the process by which prophets apprehended divine oracles is utterly beyond the analogy of our experience, then, of course, it defies our analysis. But, in that case, it is a pure dogma which we cannot explain or state in words, and therefore cannot teach or transmit. We can repeat a formula, but we cannot form an idea. If, however, we have an analogy in our experience of faith and trust in God,in our knowledge and conception of His lawsand in our belief in His Providence, for the kind of activity which produced the prophecies, then we may indeed believe that the prophets acted upon a much greater measure of the same convictions. Certainly the prophets did not utter guesses, and pronounce them with a Thus saith the Lord! Any attentive reader of the prophecies will perceive that this formula has, in the mouths of the prophets, a truly awful meaning. They had intense convictions as to Gods will and Providence, and a profound faith in His truth and justice. When they spoke it was without faltering, and with complete faith that they were pronouncing the oracles of God. The definiteness of this prophecy, which is made a ground for believing it post eventum, may be questioned. It is grand, broad, and poetic. It is not specific in announcing the form of the deliverance, but has the features of O. T. predictions. The more detailed treatment of prophecy belongs to the exposition of the prophetical books.W. G. S.]
There was nothing in the circumstances to justify the expectation that the hitherto invincible conqueror, who was already in the neighborhood of Jerusalem with 185,000 men, would withdraw immediately. On the contrary nothing seemed more certain than that he would carry out his threats. Nevertheless Isaiah declared to the king and the people in regard to him, in the tone of an ambassador of God (Kster), with the greatest definiteness and confidence: He shall not come into this city, &c. If this was mere surmise and supposition, then it was, under these circumstances, pure insanity to exhort Jerusalem to scorn and defy the conqueror at the very moment when it was in the greatest jeopardy; nay, even the comparison of Sennacherib with a wild beast with a ring through its nose and a bridle in its mouth, would be a piece of bombast no way inferior to that of Rab-shakeh. What would have become of Isaiah? What would have become of the prophetic institution, if he had then been mistaken in his mere individual and subjective supposition and hope? It is useless to turn and twist the matter. We must either strike out the entire oracle, or we must recognize in it a genuine prediction and admit that the prophecy came not in old times by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21). The fact that this event, which was beyond the range of all human foresight and calculation, was definitely foretold by the prophet, gives it the character of an event determined beforehand of God for the deliverance of His people, that is, of an incident in the history of redemption, and takes away from it all appearance of an accidental, natural, occurrence.
[The question is: Were the prophets infallible? The authors argument seems to assume that they were. The assumption ought to be fairly stated and understood, and the issue involved ought to be fairly met. If the prophets, who were men, subject to like passions as we are (Jam 5:17), were infallible, why may not the Pope be so? If a distinction can be made, and if it be said that the prophets were infallible in their oracles, why may not the Pope be infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, though not otherwise? A fair criticism of this oracle will show it to be a prediction. The event which followed was a dispensation of Providence and an incident in the history of redemption (see bracketed addition to 9, below). It rested on very much more than a hope or suspicion. It was a confident expectation which was based on trust in God and faith in His Providence. This amounted to a certain conviction in the prophets mind, so that he did not hesitate to pronounce it in solemn form as Gods will that Sennacheribs plan against Judah should be frustrated. He was obliged to stake his prophetical authority on this prediction. His religious faith rose above all the appearances of improbability (humanly speaking), that Sennacheribs course could be arrested. He did not fear, relying on his faith in God, to threaten Sennacherib with the most shameful overthrow. Sennacherib lived and prospered for twenty years afterwards (see Supplem. Note after the Exeg. section). If we insist on the literal accuracy, or even specific reference, of 2Ki 18:28 we shall make a grievous error, but, as a poetic expression for a prediction of shame and disaster to Sennacherib, it was completely fulfilled. Thus the event justified Isaiahs faith, and ratified his authority as a man of God; i.e., a man endowed with power to see and understand the ways of God. The notion that the prophets had communications from heaven, which gave them infallible information as to what was to be, is a superstition. The idea that they were men whose faith and love towards God gave them communion with Him, knowledge of His ways, insight into His Providence, and, therefore, foresight of His dealings with men, is a sublime religious truth,one which deserves the study, as it will cultivate the religious powers, of every Christian man.W. G. S.]
6. Hezekiahs behavior during the peril from the Assyrians appears to be inconsistent with the general characterization which stands at the head of the narrative (18:57), inasmuch as he, who had the courage to declare his independence of the Assyrian supremacy, and who, according to 2Ch 32:5-8, at Sennacheribs approach, not only took all possible measures for a determined resistance, but also encouraged the people to trust in Jehovah, its God, and not to fear, nevertheless instructed his ambassadors to ask for mercy, and declared himself ready to submit to any sacrifice which might be demanded of him (2Ki 18:14). This one fact, however, does not justify us in regarding him as a weak and dependent man (see above 1). We do not even know whether he took the step on his own motion, or, as is very possible, was forced to it by those who were about him. It was not until the Assyrian army had advanced even beyond Jerusalem, had taken one city after another and devastated the country, so that it seemed to him that Jerusalem could not much longer be defended, that he determined to make this humiliating offer. He had a good intention, which was to save Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah from a fate like that of Samaria. Yet he did not send to the Assyrian such a message as his wretched father, Ahaz had once sent: I am thy servant and thy son (2Ki 16:7), but only went so far as necessity compelled him. Certainly he was not a hero in faith like Isaiah. When he had taken the first step (the revolt), trusting in his God, then he ought to have taken the second, also trusting in Him (Schlier), but that he did not do so does not prove that he had no faith. There are times in the life of every truly pious and believing man when the ground trembles under his feet, and he is wanting in firm and invincible faith. It was in such a moment that John the Baptist sent to ask the Saviour: Art thou He that should come? and yet the Saviour said of him that he was no reed shaken by the wind. Peter denied his master, and yet the master called him the rock on which the Church should be built. The time of peril from the Assyrians was, for Hezekiah, a time of trial and discipline. Soon after he had acted in faint-heartedness and despair he learned that help is not to be bought in distress by gold or silver. The treacherous foe only pressed him the harder, and then at last Hezekiah showed himself a true theocratic king. Recognizing a divine chastisement and discipline in this danger, he turns first to the prophet as the servant of Jehovah and the organ of the divine spirit, and sends an embassy of the chief royal officers and of the chief priests to him to beg his intercession. The solemn embassy was a physical recognition by the king of the prerogative of the prophet. It shows that where both were such as they ought to be there could be no question of independent powers over against each other (see 1 Kings 21. Hist. 4, and Pt. II. p. 104), but that both worked together, and had co-ordinate and complementary functions in carrying on the plan of redemption. The position which Hezekiah took up in his dealings with the prophetical institution, even when it was exercising its functions of warning and rebuke, may be seen from the incidental allusion in Jer 26:18 sq. (See Caspari ber Micha, den Morasthiten, s. 56.) In the case before us he did not rest content with the solemn embassy to the prophet, but went before the Lord, and poured out his heart to Him in prayer. Von Gerlach justly says: It is most clearly apparent that, in this prayer, the inmost faith of a genuine Israelite is expressed. In true humility and fervor he calls upon the only living God, who has made heaven and earth, and who is the king of all kings of earth; who had chosen Israel to be His people, and dwells and reigns amongst them as a sign and pledge of His covenant. To Him, the Almighty One, who alone can help and save, he cries for help and salvation. He is not so much alarmed for his throne and his own glory as he is that the name of this God shall not be blasphemed, but rather be revered by all the world. We have no such prayer from any other king sizce Solomon. Because the Lord is near to all who call upon Him, and does what the god-fearing ask of Him, and hears their cry (Psa 145:18 sq.), therefore this prayer was heard. The Lord helped wondrously and beyond all Hezekiahs prayer or hope.
7. The Assyrian king, Sennacherib, and his chief cup-bearer form the sharpest contrast to Hezekiah and the prophet. The pride and arrogance which, as a rule, animate all great conquerors, is expressed by them. Such men, insolently relying on their own human power and might, recognize nothing superior to themselves, shrink from no means of gratifying their ambition for territorial aggrandizement, and insult and scoff at Almighty God, until He finally sends His judgments upon them and brings them to shame. The language which this ancient conqueror used is that of a heathen, but the spirit which animated it has not perished from the earth; it appeared again in the words of the greatest conqueror of modern times. When Napoleon, during his expedition to Egypt, said to a Mufti: I can cause a fiery chariot to descend from heaven and to turn its course to earth;when, in his proclamation to the inhabitants of Cairo, he declared, denying the true God and putting fate in His place: Can there be any one who is blind enough not to see that fate itself guides all my undertakings? Inform the people that it is written from the foundation of the world that, after the destruction of all the enemies of Islam and the overthrow of the cross, I should come from the far west to fulfil the task which is set for me. Those who raise prayers against us to heaven pray for their own damnation. I could demand from each one of you an account of the secret thoughts of his heart, for I know all, even that which ye have told to no one. A day will come when all will see that I have been guided by commands from above, and that all the efforts of men can accomplish nothing against me (Leo, Universalgesch. V. s. 317. Baur, Geschichts- und Lebensbilder, I. s. 385, sq.)is that not the same thing as Sennacherib boasts 2Ki 18:25; 2Ki 18:35; 2Ki 19:1 sq. in regard to himself, though with different words? It is an entire misconception, on the part of Ewald, when he thus states Sennacheribs policy and intentions (l. c. s. 596): The wars between the numerous small kingdoms this side the Euphrates had, during the last centuries, assumed continually more and more the character of mere plundering expeditions. It was enough to merely rob and plunder a weaker neighbor. There was no conception of a fatherland, a great kingdom which was a power to restrain wrong by justice and unity. But the warlike [Ewalds interpretation of ] king, as the Assyrian king was now called before all others (Hos 5:13; Hos 10:6) desired a great, united, and powerful kingdom, in which petty national jealousies should disappear. The Scriptures do not contain any hint of any such noble and beneficent intentions on the part of the Assyrian king. On the contrary, Sennacherib himself boasts that he has devoted all the conquered lands to destruction, and has caused the nations to perish (2Ki 19:11-12). The Scriptures call Sennacherib especially a destroyer, plunderer, or robber (Isa 33:1), whose heart is set to destroy and uproot nations, and who does not know that he is only a hired razor, the rod of Gods wrath, and the staff of His anger (Isa 10:5-7). That this man, the greatest and mightiest of the kings of Assyria, before whom all nations trembled, should come to shame in his contest with the small and weak kingdom of Judah, this proclaimed to all the world the great and eternal truth: He can humiliate even the proud!
8. The speech of the ambassador, Rab-shakeh, is a remarkable specimen of ancient oriental rhetoric. It has, in form and expression, none of the smoothness and fineness of modern diplomacy, but it is, in the method which it pursues, by no means out of date, but as fresh as if it had been spoken but yesterday. In the first part, which is addressed to king Hezekiah and his high officers, the speaker utters undeniable truths. It was true that Egypt was like a broken reed on which a man could not rest or rely. It was true that Hezekiah had abolished the worship on the high places and centralized the cultus in Jerusalem. It was true that if he had ever so many horses he lacked riders for them, while the Assyrian army was richly provided with both. It was true, finally, that this army had not advanced to Jerusalem and beyond without the permission of God; but all these truths stand here in the service of arrogance, hypocrisy, and falsehood. The ancient diplomat understood the falsely celebrated art of convincing by sophistical arguments, and yet of cheating and deceiving. When the royal councillors did not at once yield to him, he became rude and insolent towards them, and began to harangue the common people. In the first place, he puts before them the distress and misery which await them if the city is not given up at once; then he makes promises, tempts them and sets prosperity, and good fortune, and wealth before them; then he makes them suspicious of their king, and calls them to disobedience to him; finally, he undermines their religious faith, represents to them their trust in God as foolish and vain, and appeals to the fall of Samaria which (he declares) this God was as little able to prevent as the gods of the other nations were to prevent their overthrow. Here again we must exclaim with Menken, as above in the case of Naaman: How true and faithful is the ancient picture! How fresh and new it is, as if men of to-day had sat for it!
9. The destruction of the Assyrian army, which impelled Sennacherib to retreat, is unquestioned as an historical fact; if has not been assailed even by modern critical science. Its character as an incident in the history of the redemptive plan (see 3) has, however, been taken from it by the assertion that it was due to one of the pestilences which were common in the Orient, and especially in Egypt; that the number of those who died is exaggerated, and that the destruction in a single night is a mythical detail. Appeal is made in proof to the frightful devastation which the pestilence accomplishes in a short time. Instances are cited such as that at Constantinople, in 1714, nearly 300,000 human beings perished, and at the same place, in 1778, 2,000 died daily (Winer, R.-W.-B., II. s. 232), and that the pestilence in Milan, in 1629, according to Tadino, carried off 160,000 persons; at Vienna, in 1679, 122, 849; and in Moscow, at the end of the last century, according to Martens, 670,000 (Delitsch on Isa 37:36). As for the number 185,000, the fact that it is not an exactly round number bears witness to its historical accuracy (Thenius). Both accounts have it. Moreover it occurs 1Ma 7:41, and 2Ma 15:22, and Jos. Antiq. x. 1, 5. It is arbitrary to throw aside a number which is supported by such testimony and has nothing against it. It would not be allowed in the case of a number supported by so many profane authors. As for the assumed mythical detail that they all perished in one night, that is not the statement of the text; but that the angel went out on that night and he smote, &c., that is, on that night the pestilence broke out in the Assyrian camp, so that in the morning very many already lay dead, and it raged until the whole army, 185,000 strong, was carried off. With that night the destruction of the entire army began. [That is hardly a fair reading of 2Ki 18:35. The angel went out that night and smote 185,000 men, and in the morning they were corpses. The navet of the remark, that they rose up and lo! they were all dead, belongs to the simplicity of the style of composition. Its meaning is clear that the 185,000 men did not comprise the whole Assyrian army. The intention of the history to declare that 185,000 men were smitten and perished in one night is undeniable.W. G. S.] In view of the conciseness of the record we may assume, with Hensler and others, that the pestilence raged in the Assyrian camp for some time, and that it carried off thousands by night (Psa 91:6) up to the number of 185,000 (Delitsch). If the words were what made of the incident a miraculous interposition of God, they could not be wanting from the narrative in Isaiah; also the Chronicler, who does not in other cases show any distrust of what is miraculous, and the three places in the book of Maccabees, and that in Sirach, all of which mention the event, would not be silent as to that which would form the distinctive feature of it. When Knobel remarks that the historian ascribes the event which brought about the deliverance of Judah to the God of Judah, we must ask, to whom else should he ascribe it? to Nature? to the climate? to accident? The God of Judah is the living God, who, as Hezekiah says (19:15, 19), made heaven and earth. He alone is God. If not a sparrow falls to the ground without Him (Mat 10:29), then 185,000 men were not carried off without His will. As in the case of Isaiahs prophecy ( 5), so here, all turning and twisting is useless. The incident was a dispensation of God which evades until this day all attempts to solve its causes. We may admit that it was produced by the pestilence; but, in the way of an attempt at a natural explanation, this amounts to nothing. No disease has ever, in its natural course, accomplished anything of the kind. All the extraordinary cases which are cited from history are only calculated to render the more prominent the fact that the incident here recorded is totally dissimilar from them all (Drechsler).
[The miraculousness of the incident consists neither in the number of the slain, nor in the short space of time in which they perished. It consists in the fact that this extraordinary calamity befell the Assyrian army, by a dispensation of Providence, at a great crisis in the history of Judah. The ravages of pestilence in various historical instances are, therefore, no parallels. They are entirely aside from the point. The destruction of the Spanish armada by a storm is a far closer parallel than any one of these. We may hesitate to interpret these dispensations of Providence in modern times. The prophetic author of the Jewish history had no such scruples. He saw and plainly declared the hand of God in this event. It is not without reason that in the churches of Moscow the exultation over the fall of Sennacherib is still read on the anniversary of the retreat of the French from Russia; or that Arnold, in his Lectures on Modern History, in the impressive passage (p. 177) in which he dwells on that great catastrophe, declared that for the memorable night of frost in which 20,000 horses perished, and the strength of the French army was utterly broken, he knew of no language so well fitted to describe it as the words in which Isaiah described the advance and destruction of the hosts of Sennacherib. (Stanley, II. 534.) Our best means of arriving at a strictly historical conception of such providential interpositions as the one here recorded, is that of comparing them with other similar events nearer and more familiar to ourselves.W. G. S.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki 18:1-8. The noble Testimony which the Holy Scriptures bear to King Hezekiah. (a) He abolished the false worship in his kingdom and reestablished that which was in accordance with the word of God (2Ki 18:3-4). (b) He trusted the Lord, clung to him, and departed not from Him (2Ki 18:5-6). (c) What he did prospered, for the Lord was with him (2Ki 18:7-8).
2Ki 18:3-6. Lange: It is sad when godly parents have godless children and must see that all their pains are spent upon them in vain. On the contrary, where godless parents, especially a godless father, have pious children, we must look upon it as a direct fruit of the grace of God. The testimony to Hezekiah is, therefore, the more excellent the more depraved his father was. Cramer: Virtue and godliness are not inherited from ones parents.
2Ki 18:4. Hezekiah succeeded in uprooting ancient abuses, because he was moved not merely by political or other human considerations, but only by love to the Lord, and zeal for His honor. He was anxious not only to root up, destroy, and deny, but also to set up in the place of what was evil that which was right and good.The brazen serpent. The purpose for which Moses made it (Joh 3:14 sq.); why Hezekiah destroyed it (worship of images and destruction of images. Use and abuse of images).Cramer: If the cross on which Christ hung were preserved by the papists it would certainly be a relic of remarkable antiquarian interest, but to keep a feast in its honor, make pilgrimages to it, and grant indulgences by virtue of it, would be pure idolatry.
2Ki 18:5-6. True piety consists of (a) a faith which is at once trust and confidence, Heb 11:1; (b) clinging to the Lord in adversity and in prosperity, without departing from Him, Psa 73:25 sq.; (c) keeping the commandments of God, Jam 2:17; 1Jn 5:3.
2Ki 18:7-8. Osiander: God rewards godliness even in this life, Mat 6:33; 1Ti 4:8.Starke: Only the faithful and pious can console themselves with Gods favor, and boast that God is with them, Psa 118:6-7; Psa 1:3.To throw off a disgraceful foreign yoke, and to take back what one has been robbed of, is not a breach of fidelity, but it is the right and duty of every ruler who wears a crown lawfully.
2Ki 18:9-12. See notes on chap. 17. Hoshea and Hezekiah. The former came to the throne by conspiracy and murder, and he did not do what was pleasing to the Lord, therefore he perished with his people. The latter trusted in the Lord and clung to Him, and therefore he came out with his people victoriously from the peril.
2Ki 18:13-16. Hezekiah enjoyed peace and rest for fourteen years. His reign was a prosperous one; then, however, came the time of trial and danger, which does not fail to come even to those who have faith and trust.Berleb. Bibel: No one can belong to God unless he passes through trial and discipline. The harder the trial is, the more must we increase our faith and dependence, for God chastises us only that He may make more clear His mercy and care for those who trust in Him.The gold of faith can only be made to appear through the fires of adversity, Sir 2:5. If thy faith is not a mere notion, or opinion, or feeling, or sensation, then it will not diminish in the time of trial, but grow and become stronger and purer. Whence should we have had Davids psalms, if he had not been tried? Therefore St. Paul says, Rom 5:3 sq.
2Ki 18:14. There is nothing harder for any one who holds a high position than to humble himself, yet there is nothing more beneficial. The king finds himself compelled, in order to save his kingdom, to beg forgiveness of the monarch from whom he had revolted. That was the first consequence of his chastisement.Cramer: An oppressive peace is better than the most just war, and it is better to purchase peace than to risk kingdom and people, life and liberty.When we see that we have done wrong we ought to confess it not only before God but also before men.Do thou say to God what Hezekiah sent his ambassadors to say to Sennacherib. Thou wilt find Him not faithless, but always good and faithful, and He will lay upon thee no burden which thou canst not carry.
2Ki 18:11. We can never rely upon the fidelity of a man who is simply bought with money.Want of courage in ones self invites an enemy to arrogance. The more humbly one approaches an enemy the more insolent he becomes.Peace and quiet which are bought with money have no duration. [This ought to be taken to modify the doctrine quoted above (on 2Ki 18:14) from Cramer, that it is better to buy peace than to risk war.]
2Ki 18:17-35. Rab-shakehs speech (a) to Hezekiahs messengers, 2Ki 18:19-27; (b) to the people, 2Ki 18:28-33. See Histor. 8. That is always the way of the devil; he mixes up truth and falsehood, that he may inoculate us with the falsehood.Rabshakeh, the wolf in sheeps clothing. (a) He appears to warn against Egypt as a power which neither can nor will help, just as Isaiah himself does, while he himself comes to destroy and devour (Mat 7:15; 1Jn 4:1). (b) He represents what had been ordained by Hezekiah according to the Law of the Lord and for His honor as a sin and a breach of religion, while he himself cared nothing whatever for the Law of the Lord or the true and right worship. Beware of those who represent as weakness and folly that which is divine wisdom and strength (1Co 1:18 sq.). (c) He claims that the Lord is with him and has commanded him to do what he is doing (2Ki 18:25), whereas, in fact, he is only the rod of Gods wrath, the staff of His anger, a hired razor, and ambition, lust for gold and land, desire for glory and plunder are his only motives (Mat 7:22 sq.). Be not deceived by the prosperity and the victory of the godless. They are like chaff which the wind scatters and their way disappears (Psa 1:3; Psa 1:6).
2Ki 18:20. In what dost thou trust? Ask thyself this every day. Dost thou trust in other men who have rank, wealth, and influence
(Psa 60:12; Psa 146:3-4; Jer 17:5); upon thyself, thine own power, wisdom, and judgment (Pro 3:5; Pro 3:7; 1Co 1:19-20); or on the Lord alone (Psa 118:8-9; Psa 146:5; Jer 17:1; Jer 17:8)?
2Ki 18:21. J. Lange: How often it happens that when a man abandons God and seeks another reliance, he finds but a broken reed!Umbreit: So weak and faithless men often prepare for those who are not satisfied with Gods grace, but seek help from them, the deepest misfortunes. He who trusts only in God stands high and free even above the ruins of his earthly happiness; he who takes refuge in men becomes the slave of men.
2Ki 18:22. Kyburz: It is the most deadly temptation of the adversary that he throws suspicion upon all which one has done for God, or upon all the spiritual good which one has wrought. This is the way of the devil and of the blinded world. They praise that for which one deserves punishment and make a threat of that by virtue of which one might hope for the favor of God. He who does not mean to fall under this trial must strive for the testing spirit that it may teach him to distinguish false and true, light and darkness, according to the divine standards (Joh 12:4 sq.).Starke: When the world wishes to give pain to the pious it calls their trust in God obstinacy, and their constancy, arrogance.Wrt. Summ.: Perverse and depraved men often consider true religion the origin of all misfortune.
2Ki 18:23-24. The boastful cannot stand before the eyes of the Lord (Psa 5:6-7). He says to them: Speak not with a stiff neck, &c. (Psa 75:5-8. cf. Jer 9:23-24). There is no king saved by the multitude of an host, &c. (Psa 33:16-17).
2Ki 18:25. Starke: The godless do not want to have the appearance of making their undertakings under and with God; they boast that they do not do so, yet wrongly.Menken: God uses the bad for purposes for which he cannot use the good. The prosperity of the wicked destroys them (Pro 1:32).How often a man puts his own wishes or thoughts in the place of the will of God and says or thinks: The Lord commanded me! It is crime, however, for a man to ascribe to the will of God that which sprang from his own evil lusts (Jam 1:13 sq.).
2Ki 18:26-28. The just Request of the Kings Councillors to Rab-shakeh and his insolent Reply.Cramer: A Christian ought to be careful in all things and to try to avert harm wherever he can (Eph 5:15).Simple and uneducated people lend an ear far too easily to boasters, to those who distort truth, and allow themselves to be cajoled, because they lack insight to distinguish between appearance and reality, error and truth. Therefore not all subjects should be discussed before the multitude, in whose minds one distorted expression will often do more harm than the most reasonable discourse can cure. A faithful government ought to protect its subjects from hypocritical and lying teachers as much as from thieves and robbers. 2Ki 18:27. He who cannot endure any contradiction, however moderate and just it may be, without becoming violent and angry, shows thereby that he is not aiming at truth and right, but that he has a selfish and insincere purpose.Rab-shakeh was an official of the court and a man in high station, who did not lack wisdom and information; nevertheless his words show rudeness and vulgarity. High rank and position, even when united with wisdom and information, do not insure against rudeness and vulgarity. These only disappear where the life has its springs in God, and there is a purified heart and a sanctified disposition (Luk 6:45).
2Ki 18:28-35. The ways and means of demagogues and those who stir up sedition. (a) 2Ki 18:29-30. They cast suspicion upon the lawful authority, however righteous its intentions may be. They scatter abroad distrust of its power and of its good disposition, and strive to make the people discontented with all its ordinances. (b) 2Ki 18:31-32. They promise to the people peace and prosperity and good fortune, deliverance from tyranny and slavery, in order that they may then lay upon it their yoke, which is far heavier and more disgraceful (Psa 140:5). (c) 2Ki 18:33 sq. They undermine the faith of the people under the pretence of enlightening it, while they themselves walk in darkness and are enemies of the cross of Christ. Therefore: Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong (1Co 16:13).
2Ki 18:28. Starke: When Satan wants attentive listeners he talks Gods language; therefore believe not every spirit (1Jn 4:1).
2Ki 18:30. The Lord will save us! (a) A noble saying in the mouth of a king speaking to his people. He thereby admits that his own power is insufficient and vain. He leads his people in that faith which is a confidence in what is hoped for, and which admits no doubt of what is not seen. How well it would be for all princes and peoples if they had such faith. (b) In this saying all the hope of the Christian life is expressed: With God we overcome the world, for the Lord will at length save and deliver us from all evil, and bring us to his heavenly kingdom. The blasphemer and boaster wanted to remove these words of the king from the heart of the people, because he knew that he should then have won. Nowadays also these words are laughed at and scorned. Let them not be torn from your heart! Happy is he whose trust is in the Lord his God (Psa 146:5).
2Ki 18:31 sq. Cramer: When Satan cannot accomplish anything by resistance and force, he strikes the softer strings and promises luxury, riches, splendor (Mat 4:9).
2Ki 18:33 sq. Pride and arrogance go so far that man, who is but dust and ashes, exalts himself in his folly above Almighty God.Pfaff. Bibel: The Lord punishes with especial severity the crime of scoffing at the Living God and doubting of his might and majesty (2Ma 9:28; Isa 14:13-15).
2Ki 18:36 sq. The Impression which Rab-shakehs Speech made. (a) The people kept silence and did not answer. (Silence is an answeroften a more emphatic one than speech. Happy is the people which is deaf to the words of seducers and those who stir up insurrection.) (b) The ambassadors of the king tear their clothes as a sign of grief and of horror at the blasphemous words which they had been forced to hear. Rab-shakeh was obliged to depart with his mission unaccomplished (1Pe 5:8-9).
2Ki 18:36. We ought not to enter into any dispute with those who do not care to arrive at the truth, but only to accomplish their own selfish ends, and who are versed in the art of mixing truth and falsehood, but we should punish them by silence.
2Ki 18:37. Starke: We ought not to laugh at blasphemous speeches, but to be heartily saddened by them.Wrt. Summ.: We ought not to get angry at a blasphemer, lest we also do some wrong, but we ought to wait patiently for the Lord (Isa 30:15).Cramer: Cast not your pearls before swine, nor give what is holy unto the dogs (Mat 7:6). It is not always wise to answer a fool. There is a time for silence (Ecc 3:7).
2Ki 19:1-7. Hezekiah in great Distress. (a) He rends his clothes (as a sign of horror at Rab-shakehs blasphemous speech). He puts on sack-cloth (as a sign of repentance), and goes to the house of the Lord (to humble himself before God, for he recognizes in his need and distress a consequence of sin and apostasy, and a call to repentance). (b) He sends the chiefs and representatives of the people to the prophet, from whom he hopes to hear the best counsel. He orders them to make known his request, and he is encouraged by him to stand fast in faith.
2Ki 19:1. The words in Psa 1:1 apply to Hezekiah. A man who truly fears God cannot endure that unbelief should open its insolent mouth; his heart is torn when he hears the living God scoffed at. Woe to the people and country in which the speeches of the godless are listened to in silence and with indifference, without pain or grief, and where jests at God and divine things are regarded as enlightenment and wisdom (Luk 19:40).
2Ki 19:2-3. In anxiety and perplexity our only consolation is to call upon God (Psa 34:19; Psa 46:1).Hall: The more we hear the name of God despised and abused the more we ought to love and honor it.Starke: It is of great importance that, in time of need, one should have a faithful friend, to whom one can confide all, and find counsel and help.
2Ki 19:4. Cramer: We should not doubt in prayer, nor prescribe methods of action to God, but wait in patience and humility for the help of the Lord (Jam 5:10).We should apply to others in our need that they may intercede for us. When a man like the Apostle Paul exhorts the believers to pray for him (Rom 15:30; Eph 6:18-19), how much more does it become us to beg this service of love of others, and to console ourselves with the strength of the intercession of those who have intercourse of prayer with the Lord. He, however, who desires that others should pray for him ought not to have given up the habit of prayer himself. Hezekiah went first himself into the house of the Lord to pray, and then he sent to the prophet.
2Ki 19:5. What happiness and what a blessing it is in times of distress and perplexity to have a faithful servant of God at hand, who stands firm in the storm.
2Ki 19:6-7. Isaiahs Answer (a) as a word of encouragement (2Ki 19:6), (b) as a word of promising and threatening (2Ki 19:7). The prophet calls the emissaries of the Assyrian king: servants [see Exeg. on the verse], a contemptuous name, because they had blasphemed the God of Israel. It is not manly to assume airs of superiority and to pretend to scorn the word of God, but it is boyish. However high in rank a man may be, if he speaks and acts as these men did he is a low fellow (Psa 37:12-13).
2Ki 19:7. God punishes those who have no fear of Him by making them fear men, and flee at the mere rumor of a danger which is not yet at hand. Pray God, therefore, that He may give thee the right spirit, not a spirit of fear, but of power and love and self-control (2Ti 1:7).We think that danger threatens the Kingdom of God and Christianity when people write and declaim against it, but fear not: all these adversaries have perished like Herod who sought the young childs life (Mat 2:20), and only forfeited their own salvation, for Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken (Mat 21:44).Osiander: God has many means whereby he can bring the rage of His adversaries to naught.Hall: Proud and self-confident men of the world think little of the future consequences, and even while they are spinning their plots they come to shame.
2Ki 19:8-19. The two Contrasted Kings, Sennacherib and Hezekiahthe Godless and the Just. (a) Sennacherib, who sees himself in peril and obliged to retreat by the approach of Tirhakah, does not on that account become more modest or more humble, but only more obstinate and arrogant. That is the way with godless and depraved men. In distress and peril, instead of bending their will and yielding to the will of God, they only become more stubborn, insolent, and assuming. (Osiander: The less ground the impious have to hope for victory over the righteous, the more cruel do they attempt to be.) Hezekiah, on the contrary, who was in unprecedented trouble and peril, was thereby drawn into more earnest prayer. He humbled himself under the hand of God, and sought refuge in the Lord alone. He went into the house of God and poured out his soul in prayer, Psa 5:5-7. (Calw. Bibel: Learn from this to pray earnestly and faithfully, when thou art in distress; also learn from this what is the best weapon in war, and when the fatherland is in the dangers of battle.) (b) Sennacherib rejects faith in the God of Israel as folly, and boasts that all the gods of the heathen were powerless before him. He lives without God in the world and knows no God but himself. But it is the fool who hath said in his heart: There is no God (Psa 14:1). He asks: Where is? &c., but where is now Sennacherib who talked so proudly? (Berl. Bib.) He is gone like chaff before the wind, for the way of the godless shall perish (Psa 1:4; Psa 1:6; Psa 35:5; Zep 2:2). But Hezekiah will not let himself be drawn away from his God. His faith becomes only so much warmer and deeper. He prays and seeks not his own honor, but that of the Lord in whom he puts his confidence (Psa 1:3). The greater the cross the greater the faith. The palm grows under weight. Sweetness flows from the grape when it is well trodden (Psa 1:1-2).
2Ki 19:14-19. Hezekiahs Prayer. (a) The appeal for hearing (2Ki 19:15-16); (b) the Confession (2Ki 19:17-18); (c) the request (2Ki 19:19) (see Histor. 6).Distress and misfortune are the school in which a man learns to pray aright. How many a one repeats prayers every day and yet never prays aright. Every one knows from his own experience that he has never talked so directly with God as in the time of need.Starke: Earthly kings ought not to be ashamed to pray, but rather go before others with a good example.Arndt: Who is a true man? He who can pray, and who trusts in God.
2Ki 19:15. Under the old covenant God dwelt above the cherubim of the ark; under the new one, He dwells in Christ amongst us, therefore He demands to be addressed by us as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2Ki 19:16. He that planted the ear, &c. (Psa 94:9). Though men do not hear or see, He hears and sees all, even that which is said and done in secret (Psa 139:1 sq.). It often seems as if He did not see or hear, but he will some time bring to light what was done in darkness, and will make known the secret counsel of the heart. We must give an account of every vain word which we have spoken.
2Ki 19:17-18. Gods which are the work of mans hands, or the invention of mans brain, can be thrown into the fire and destroyed. They are good for nothing more, but the Holy, Living God cannot be thus done away with or destroyed. He is himself a consuming fire which shall consume all the adversaries (Heb 10:27; Heb 12:29).
2Ki 19:19. When we pray to God for relief from distress, or for anything else which we earnestly desire, we must not have our own honor, or fortune, or prosperity altogether or principally at heart, but we must try to bring it about that, by the fulfilment of our prayer, Gods name may be glorified and hallowed. Therefore this petition stands first in the Lords Prayer.
2Ki 19:21-34. Isaiahs Prophecy (a) against Sennacherib, 2Ki 19:21-28; (b) on behalf of Jerusalem, 2Ki 19:29-34.
2Ki 19:21. There is no more fitting punishment for a proud and arrogant man, than to be laughed at and derided without being able to take revenge. The derision of the daughter, Zion, at the blasphemous boaster, Sennacherib, is not due to sinful malice; it is rather a joyful recognition and a praise of the power and faithfulness of God, who reigns in heaven and laughs at those who scoff at him (Psa 2:4; Psa 37:12-13).
2Ki 19:22. When sinful man, who is dust and ashes, ascribes to himself that which he can only do by Gods help, or which God alone can do, that is a denial and an insult of God.
2Ki 19:23. Here we see the mode of thought and of speech of all the proud. All this have I done by my wisdom and courage and skill. The Apostle, who had labored more than any other, responds to them all: What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1Co 4:7; cf. 1Co 15:10).Cramer: When we remember that the affair is not ours but Gods, then we see that the enemies are not ours but Gods. When we see the pride and arrogance of our enemies, then we may look for their fall very soon (Pro 16:18).
2Ki 19:25. If no hair of our heads can fall without the will of God, how much less can a land or a city perish unless He has so ordained it? Therefore, humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God that He may exalt you in His good time (1Pe 5:6).
2Ki 19:26. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him (Psa 33:8), for they are like the grass of the field before Him; He causes the wind to blow upon them and they are gone.
2Ki 19:27-28. Be not deceived by the victory and good fortune of the enemies of the kingdom of God, to think that God is with them. He knows their going out and their coming in, their rage and their arrogance. They are in His hand and He uses them without their knowledge for His own purposes. They cannot take a step beyond the limits which He has set for them. When they have done what He intended them to do, He puts His bridle in their mouths and leads them back by the way by which they came. (As Sennacherib came to Jerusalem, so came Napoleon to Moscow. Then the Lord called to him: So far and no farther! and led him back by the way by which he came.) Isa 14:5-6; Isa 10:12-15.
2Ki 19:29. All sowing and reaping should be to us a sign of what God does for us and what we ought to do for Him (Gal 6:7-9; 2Co 9:6; Jer 4:3; Hos 8:7; Jam 3:18; Sir 7:3; Ecc 11:4; Ecc 11:6). God does not always give full harvests in order that we may learn to be satisfied with little, and may not forget that His blessing is not tied to our labor, but that He gives it where and when He will.
2Ki 19:30-31. Starke: In the midst of all calamities God preserves a faithful remnant for Himself which shall praise and spread abroad His name (Psa 46:3-5; Psa 22:30).The Same: The Church of Christ is invincible. However much it may be oppressed at times, yet God preserves a secret seed for Himself (Mat 16:18; 1Ki 19:18).The deliverance goes forth from Zion (Isa 2:2-3); salvation comes from the Jews (Joh 4:22).The saved form the holy seed (Isa 6:13), which takes root below and bears fruit above. The ground in which they take root and stand firm is Christ (Eph 3:17; Col 2:7). The fruit which they bear is love, joy, peace, &c. (Gal 5:22). They never perish. They continue from generation to generation. However small their number, and however fiercely the world may rage against them, they nevertheless endure, for the Lord is their confidence, His truth is their shield (Psa 91:4). Therefore, Fear not, little flock, &c. (Luk 12:32).
2Ki 19:32-34. Jerusalem, the earthly City of God, a Type of the Eternal City, the Church of Christ. If God protected the former so that no arrow could come into it, how much more will He protect the latter, break in pieces the bows of its enemies, and burn their chariots in fire. Cf. Psalms 46, and Luthers hymn: Ein feste Burg, &c.
2Ki 19:35-37. Sennacheribs Fall. (a) A miracle of the saving power and faithfulness of God; (b) a terrible judgment of the Holy and Just God (see Histor. 9).Cf. Psalms 46, 75, , 76. Von Gerlach: When such times recur, similar psalms and hymns are given to the Church, as in 1530 the hymn: Ein, feste Burg ist unser Gott, which is founded on Psalms 46, was composed. (Compare the noble hymn of Joh. Heermann: Herr, unser Gott, lass nicht zu Schanden werden.)Gods judgments are often delayed for a long time, but then they come all the more suddenly and mightily (Psa 73:19). A single night may change the whole face of the matter. Where is now the boaster? Where is the multitude of his chariots? Luk 12:20.Sennacheribs calamity and his retreat proclaim to all the world that God resisteth the proud, and they are a testimony to the truth of 1Sa 2:6-10.He who had smitten whole kingdoms and peoples fell under the blows of his own sons. With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again (Luk 6:38).Osiander: When God has sufficiently chastised His Church, He throws the rod of His wrath into the fire, Isa 33:1.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki 18:4.[ is singular, but with the indefinite subject, equivalent to an English indefinite plural.
[2]2Ki 18:4.[, the thing of brass.
[3]2Ki 18:13.[;The masculine suffix is used (though the feminine would be correct) as the more general. and universal. This is not rare. Cf. Gen 31:9; Amo 3:2; Jer 9:19; 2Sa 20:3; Ew. 184, c.In the classical passages (Prose of the priests) such irregularities do not occur, but in the prose of less cultivated writers (laymen), in popular poetry, and in the later language, they are frequent. See 2Ki 18:16, and 2Ki 19:11 (Bttcher, 877, 3).
[4]2Ki 18:16.[:Elsewhere we find for door-posts. Bhr says that the words are synonymous, but Thenius explanation is better. He thinks that refers, not only to the door-posts, but also the door-frame, sill, and lintel; i.e., all which gives stability, strength, and shape, (), to the door-opening.On the suffix in , see Gramm. note 3, above.The patach in is due to the guttural which follows. Cf. 2Ki 21:3 : (Bttcher, 378. 1.)W. G. S.]
[5]2Ki 18:29.Instead of , which is wanting in the text of Isaiah, we must read, with all the old versions, .Bhr.
[6]2Ki 18:30.[The before is wanting in Isa 36:15. It is important as bearing on the question whether ever stands with a proper nominative. Ewald admits that, if the in this place were properly in the text, we should have one instance. He adopts the reading in Isaiah, erases the , and says that this particle never become unfaithful to its primary force so far as to designate a simple nominative (Lehrb. 277, d, note 2). Bttcher ( 516. ) affirms that occurs with the nominative. Cf. Gen 9:28; Deu 20:8; 2Sa 21:22; Jer 36:22. These are cases where it occurs with the passive. It is used with the active, also, in the sense of self, or even, or very (this very one). Cf. 2Ki 6:5; 2Ki 8:28, Gramm. notes. The instances are certainly sufficiently strong to support the reading with which our text offers us:=This very city, or, This city here.
[7]2Ki 19:3.[: orificium uteri.
[8]2Ki 19:11.[On the suffix in , see Gramm. note on 2Ki 18:13 (note 3, above).
[9]2Ki 19:15.[In Isaiah we find instead of . The suffix refers to as a singular object,=the message (Thenius), so also Ewald and Keil.
[10]2Ki 19:23.[I prefer the chetib. Bhr adopts the keri (see Exeg. on the verse). However, as he says, the sense is the same. The idiom in the chetib is similar to the one by which it is rendered in the translation.W. G. S.]
[11]2Ki 19:25. is shortened from the keri , which is found in Isa 37:2.Bhr.
[12]2Ki 19:27.[It is impossible to reproduce in English the pregnant brevity of this line. Whether thou abidest at home (abstainest from any interference with other nations), or goest forth (with plans of attack and conquest), or returnest (victorious), all takes place under my cognizance (by my ordinance, and under my permission). It is folly, therefore, for thee to boast of thy deeds, as against me; it is false for thee to cite my approval; and I will punish thine arrogance which rages against my controlling hand, and only claims my approval to serve its own purpose.W. G. S.]
[13]2Ki 19:31.The words of Hosts are furnished by the keri, which inserts here the word: , as in Isa 37:32; Isa 9:6.Bhr.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter contains the account of Hezekiah, and his good reign. His destruction of idolatry. A further account of the captivity of the people of Israel. The chapter, after this, returns to the relation of the history of Hezekiah. Jerusalem is besieged by Sennacherib.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Reader should carefully keep in view, in order to have a clear apprehension of those historical parts of the Bible, that the history of the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, is so incorporated in one and the same chapter, that, unless properly attended to, an ordinary Reader will find himself frequently at a loss to distinguish. In the preceding chapter we were called upon to notice the history of Israel, and there we read the end of it, as a kingdom, in Samaria being taken, and the people carried away captive. We are now led to the history of Judah, and Hezekiah, the good king, is brought before us in the account of his reign. One of the most interesting remarks in the opening of his history is, that notwithstanding the worthlessness of his fathers, Ahaz, and Urijah, the piety of Hezekiah felt no check. The Holy Ghost places him in the highest rank. No king in Judah ever equaled him. But while we pay all due respect to so illustrious a character, let us not fail to keep in view the cause. Is it not God that worketh in his people, both to will and to do of his good pleasure? Holy Spirit! to thee, would I look, as the first predisposing cause of all grace. We bless thee, Lord, for the gift. And we bless thee that thou hast given us to discover thy gracious hand in it. And we desire that all the glory may he thine. The destruction of the brazen serpent, may perhaps need some little explanation. It was Moses that erected it: it was of divine appointment: and it had a blessed reference to Jesus. See Num 21:7-9 . compared with Joh 3:14-15 . But I refer the Reader for observations on this to the Commentary on Num 21 . In process of time, the children of Israel, forgetting that it was only typical, and as a commemoration of mercies, made it an idol of worship. Hezekiah, therefore, brake it in pieces, proving thereby, that it was Nehushtan, that is nothing but brass. – How delightful an account that is; the Lord was with Hezekiah, and prospered him. Blessed Jesus! remember thy sweet promise of being always with thy people. Oh! what a cluster of promises to this effect, hast thou given in those words. Reader, pray turn to them: Mat 28:20 ; Joh 14:26Joh 14:26 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 18:4
I. Turning to Hezekiah’s mode of dealing with the brazen serpent, we see that he acted on the principle, common to all genuine reformers, that idolatry is a disease which requires heroic treatment. The only effectual way of getting rid of the superstition was to cut the roots of it. Without hesitation, therefore, he broke the image in pieces.
Something would have been wanting to the thoroughness of his action if he had simply destroyed the serpent without giving any reason for doing so. To call things what they really are is the most convincing way of exposing error. ‘It is a piece of brass,’ said the king, as he broke the serpent in pieces. And when, quite obviously, it had no power to resent the deed, no skill to protect itself from outrage, or to punish the doer of it, then the people could not but allow that the king was right.
II. Images of brass or wood, no doubt, have lost very much of the fascination that they once exercised over rude minds in semi-barbarous ages. But ‘the essence of idolatry consists in the mind worshipping its own fancies and notions,’ or (to express the same thing in another form) in interposing between the soul and God a false, inadequate, partial image or representation of the Divine nature.
In the Divine Son of God we have given us the highest image of the Invisible God the human embodiment of His moral perfections. There is no idolatry in worshipping Him, for conscience owns Him, and the reasonable soul claims Him as its rightful Lord.
III. Has idolatry, then, become an impossible sin for a Christian? Are we in no danger of framing for ourselves false and partial images of the truth and tenderness of God?
Alas, no! for human nature remains pretty much the same in all ages. Man never knows how idolatrous he is. The same tendencies which impelled the Israelites of old to worship the brazen serpent and the golden calves the same which led the leaders of the Jewish nation to reject the word spoken by Christ for the sake of their own tradition are alive among us, though in a more subtle and dangerous form. The Jews of our Lord’s day had their idols, and it was part of Christ’s mission on earth to destroy them. Like Hezekiah, He, too, appeared among men as a reformer and an image-breaker.
And still the need exists for clearing away the false in order to disengage the true. Still it is the struggle of earnest men to extricate the Divine figure of the Gospels from the encumbrances of human systems, and to set Him clearly before us in the light of His own revelation of the Father.
J. W. Shepard, Light and Life, p. 166.
References. XVIII. 4. R. H. Fisher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxiv. 1903, p. 346. C. Simeon, Works, vol. iii. p. 537. Joseph Milner, Sermons, vol. iii. p. 454. Charles Marriott, Sermons, vol. i. p. 125. T. R. Stevenson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi. p. 236. W. Walters, ‘The Fiery Serpents and the Serpent of Brass’ (with Num 21:9 and Joh 3:14 ; Joh 3:16 ), Christian World Pulpit, xx. p. 237. Hall’s Contemplations, Book xx. ‘Contemplation ix.’ Stanley’s Jewish Church, vol. ii. p. 395. XVIII. 4, 5. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi. No. 960.
Hezekiah’s Confidence
2Ki 18:5
First note some of the grounds upon which this confidence in God is based; and, secondly, mark some of its features.
I. Some Grounds upon which Trust in God is Based.
1. The first is the Goodness of God. Moral theology places trust in God in connexion with hope, and not directly with faith. Of course, faith must be at the root of all virtues. A belief in a Personal God is necessary; and further, a belief in His Providence, that He has not let the strings of His government out of His hands, and is not the captive of what we call natural law that He continues to preside over the world which He has made, and the men who are in it. All this belongs to faith; but above and beyond it reaches the grace of hope, for it lays hold of the Divine goodness. Confidence in the Divine goodness is, according to Aquinas and many others, principium impetrandi , giving special force to prayer.
2. Another ground of trust in God is His faithfulness to His promises. Goodness, when combined with almightiness and fidelity, affords a triple basis upon which to rest.
3. Experience may be added to the former. Hezekiah had experienced the Divine help in effecting the difficult religious reforms in which he had been engaged, and he feared not now that the ‘Lord God of Israel’ would forsake His people in the hour of extreme need.
II. Some Features of this Confidence. 1. To be confidence in God, it must be entire. In foul weather as well as fair, in the storm, when Christ is asleep, as well as on the land when He is awake. Christ tested this confidence in the case of His disciples, and He does so still. This confidence in Divine help must extend both to temporal as well as spiritual things. Such trust, it need hardly be said, must not be a cause of idleness, “but a stimulant to effort: ‘God helps those who help themselves’. Hezekiah knew that; and so went into the house of the Lord, and spread ‘the letter before the Lord’ which the Assyrian foe had sent him, and prayed earnestly to the Lord.
2. Trust, too, must be prompt. To ask for Divine help when all things have been tried in vain savours rather of despair than of confidence.
III. Lessons.
1. All must have some object in which to confide. Our trust must be, not in self, not in others, but in God. It was to Him Hezekiah at once turned in his terrible need.
2. To kindle this spirit of confidence let us meditate upon the Divine goodness, the fidelity of God to His promises, and call up remembrances of His past mercies.
3. Let this trust extend to all circumstances and difficulties whether of soul or body; and we shall find, like the good king, that ‘the salvation of the righteous is of the Lord,’ and that ‘He is their strength in the time of trouble’.
W. H. Hutchings, Sermon-Sketches, p. 246.
References. XVIII. 5. A. G. Mortimer, The Church’s Lessons for the Christian Year, part iv. p. 219. XVIII. 6, 6. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Kings from chap. viii. p. 47. XVIII. 19. H. P. Liddon, Sermons on Old Testament Subjects, p. 335; see also Outlines of Sermons on the Old Testament, p. 80.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
2Ki 18
1. Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah [the name in this form means, “My strength is Jah” ( Psa 18:2 ), and its special appropriateness is exemplified in Hezekiah’s history] the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
2. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Abi [should probably be Abijah], the daughter of Zachariah.
3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did.
4. He [it was he who] removed the high places, and brake the images, [shattered the pillars (1Ki 14:23 ; Hos 3:4 ; 2Ch 14:2 )] 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 [the popular name of the serpent-idol].
5. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel [Hezekiah is thus contrasted with the idolatrous kings, such as those who trusted in Nehushtan]; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him.
6. For he clave [And he held fast] to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses.
7. And the Lord was with him; and he prospered [comp. 1Ki 2:3 ; Pro 17:8 . Going forth denotes any external undertaking or enterprise, especially going forth to war. (Comp. the phrase “going out and coming in”)] whithersoever he went forth; and he rebelled against the king of Assyria [refused the tribute his father had paid], and served him not.
8. He [it was who] smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.
9. If And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it.
10. And at the end of three years they [the Assyrians] took it: even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken.
11. And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes:
12. Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and [omit “and”] all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them [literally, and hearkened not, and did not],
13. Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.
14. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish saying, I have offended [sinned]; return from me: that which thou puttest on me [in the way of tribute] will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold [the sum mentioned is about a seventh less than that exacted by Pul from Menahem (chap. 2Ki 15:19 )].
15. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver [the money] that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house.
16. At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold [literally, trimmed or stripped] from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it [Heb., them] to the king of Assyria.
17. And the king of Assyria sent [apparently in careless violation of his word] Tartan [the commander-in-chief] and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field.
18. And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe [secretary], and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder.
19. And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Speak ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest?
20. Thou sayest [talkest], (but they are but vain words,) [literally, thou hast said a mere lip-word it was, i.e., insincere language] I have counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me?
21. Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised [cracked or flawed] reed, even upon Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it; so is Pharaoh king of Egypt unto all that trust on him.
22. But if ye say [the address seems to turn abruptly from Hezekiah to his ministers, and to the garrison of Jerusalem in general] unto me, We trust in the Lord our God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away [this is just the construction which a heathen would naturally put on Hezekiah’s abolition of the local sanctuaries ( 2Ki 18:4 ; 2Ch 31:1 )], and hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?
23. Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges [make a compact with] to my lord the king of Assyria, and I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.
24. How then [literally, And how] wilt thou turn away the face of [repulse; reject the demand of ( 1Ki 2:16 )] one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?
25. Am I now come up without the Lord against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.
26. Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews’ language [in Jewish; an expression only found in Neh 13:24 besides the present narrative] in the ears of the people that are on the wall.
27. But Rab-shakeh said unto them, Hath my master [Is it to thy lord and to thee that my lord hath sent me to speak these words] sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall [the soldiers on guard], that they may eat their own dung [these coarse words are meant to express the consequence of their resistance: it will bring them to such dire straits that they will be fain to appease the cravings of hunger and thirst with the vilest garbage (comp. chap. 2Ki 6:25 , seq. )], and drink their own piss [Heb., the water of their feet] with you?
28. Then Rab-shakeh stood [came forward] and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spake, saying, Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria:
29. Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you out of his [my] hand:
30. Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord [Hezekiah cannot save you himself ( 2Ki 18:29 ); Jehovah will not do so ( 2Ki 18:25 )] saying, The Lord will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.
31. Hearken not to Hezekiah; for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present [literally, make with me a blessing: i.e., make peace with me] and come out to me [from behind your walls: surrender (1Sa 11:3 ; Jer 21:9 )], and then [omit “then”] eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern [or pit]:
32. Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil-olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die”: and hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadeth [or deceiveth] you, saying, The Lord will deliver us.
33. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?
34. Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad [the question may imply that they had been annihilated along with their temples and statues (comp. Job 14:10 )]? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand?
35. Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand?
36. But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word: for the king’s commandment was, saying, Answer him not.
37. Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rab-shakeh.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
2Ki 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, [that] Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.
Ver. 1. Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea. ] Reckoning as 2Ki 17:1 . See Trapp on “ 2Ki 17:1 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
third year of Hoshea. Hoshea began in the twelfth year of Ahaz. Therefore Hezekiah began in the fifteenth year of Ahaz. Ahaz reigned sixteen years, but was deposed by Shalmaneser (2Ki 17:3, 2Ki 17:4), who set up Hezekiah. Hezekiah rebelled (2Ki 18:7), which shows he was under Assyria till then. See App-50.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 18
In chapter eighteen we now move back to the southern kingdom of Judah. Inasmuch as the northern kingdom has now been destroyed from the rest of the… from the rest of Second Kings on we’ll be dealing actually with now the southern kingdom of Judah which still remains. And as we move south, we find that Hezekiah is coming to reign over Judah.
He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned for twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to the Lord and all that David his father did. And thus he removed the high places, he broke the images, he cut down the groves, he broke in pieces the brass serpent that Moses had made: for in those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan ( 2Ki 18:2-4 ).
So as he took over as king, the first thing he did was to start removing the false idols and gods and worship centers that the people had created in Judah. Destroying them, getting rid of them in order that he might turn the people back to the true worship of the true and living God. And one of the interesting things, one of the things that the people had made an idol out of and were burning incense to was this brass serpent that Moses had made in the wilderness.
You remember when the children of Israel had murmured against the Lord, the Lord sent serpents into the land. And the serpents began to bite the people and they began to die from the result of the bites of these serpents. And Moses cried unto the Lord and the Lord told him to make a brass serpent and to put it on the pole in the midst of the camp. And whoever was bitten by the serpent, if he would look on the brass serpent, he would be healed of the bite and live.
Now Jesus uses that as a remarkable illustration to answer the question of an earnest Jewish leader who said to Him, “How can I be born again when I am old? Can I return the second time to my mother’s womb?” And Jesus in answering the question, “How can I be born again?” said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” ( Joh 3:14 , Joh 3:15 ). So Jesus made reference to this brazen serpent in the wilderness, that it was going to be sort of like Him actually. Even as Moses raised up the serpent.
Now of course, brass is always a symbol of God’s judgment, and the serpent was a symbol for sin. The people sinned against the Lord in murmuring against the Lord. So the brass serpent there on the pole in the wilderness was a symbol that their sin had been judged. And if they would just look at the provision that God made, the brass serpent on the pole, and believe in that provision, they would be healed of the bites of the serpents and live. Even so, Jesus Christ on the cross is a symbol of God’s judgment against our sins. And if we’ll just but look to Jesus Christ, the crucified Lord, we will be forgiven our sins and we will live. So I’m born again by believing on Christ, the fact that He bore my sins upon the cross.
But the people had taken now this brass serpent, and they made a little shrine and an altar, and they have began to worship it and burn incense to it. Now, whenever a man sets up an idol and begins to worship an idol, it tells that a couple of things about that man. Number one, it tells us that he has lost the consciousness of the presence of God. Whenever I have to have an idol, a worship center, that means I have lost the consciousness of God’s presence. And I need something to remind me of God’s presence. That’s a sign of spiritual dullness.
Paul the apostle said, “I know that you men of Athens are very religious people. I’ve seen all of your gods that you have through town and all of the altars that you built, and I saw this one altar I was interested in it because it had the inscription, ‘To the unknown God.'” He said, “That’s the God I want to talk to you about. For He is the God who made the heaven and the earth and everything that is in them. And in Him we live, we move, we have our being” ( Act 17:28 ). Paul didn’t need any idol. He was so conscious of God’s presence that he realized that he was totally surrounded by God. I live in Him. I move in Him. I have my being in Him. I cannot escape Him. He surrounds me all the time. That kind of consciousness you don’t need a reminder. You don’t need some little idol, some little trinket to remind you of His presence.
Man is so prone to want something to worship. Something I can see. Some object. And it is a sign that he has lost the consciousness. Something vital in his relationship with God. The consciousness of God’s presence. But the second thing that an idol tells us is that somehow that man is longing to regain that which he lost. I want to be conscious of God’s presence, and so I need this as a reminder because I’m longing for something that I have lost, the consciousness and the awareness of God.
And so the children of Israel have made an idol out of this brass serpent. They have made it an object of worship. They were burning incense to it. Again, that folly of “worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forevermore” ( Rom 1:25 ).
Hezekiah, when he came into the throne as the king, as he began to destroy all of the false worship centers, he took this brass serpent and he broke the thing in pieces and he said, “Nehushtan.” Now the word Nehushtan means a thing of brass. It’s no God; it’s a thing of brass.
Oh, how we get attached to things. “Oh, I always like to sit in that particular portion of the church because there one night I felt the presence of God. Don’t ever remove that pew, you know.” And I’m only letting you know that the first of the month the pews are to be removed. We’ll sell it to you if you want. But it’s Nehushtan. It’s a thing of wood and cloth. It’s not of God. It’s a thing of brass. It’s no God. Nehushtan, a thing of brass.
It is interesting if you go to St. Andrews Cathedral in Milan, Italy today, you’ll find in a beautiful case what they claim to be the glued together portion of that brass serpent. That’s right. And again, prayers are being offered before it. But it’s Nehushtan, a thing of brass. It’s important that we recognize these things for what we are, that we don’t put some kind of a magical, you know, spiritual aura around the thing. That’s the place. That’s the pulpit. That’s the spot.
So Hezekiah initiated a tremendous religious reform.
And he trusted in the LORD the God of Israel; so that after him there was none among all of the kings of Judah that were like him. For he clave to the LORD, he stuck with the Lord and departed not from following him, but he kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses. And the LORD was with him ( 2Ki 18:5-7 );
When we get into Second Chronicles when Asa had come back from his victory over the huge force of the Ethiopian, the prophet met him and said, “The Lord is with you while you’ll be with Him; and if you seek Him, He will be found of you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you” ( 2Ch 15:2 ).
Now Hezekiah was committed to the Lord. He obeyed the commandments of the Lord. He clave unto the Lord, and thus the Lord was with him. The inevitable consequence of commitment to the Lord. Not only was the Lord with him, but the Lord,
prospered him wherever he went: and he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and would not serve him ( 2Ki 18:7 ).
Now the king of Assyria had come down to the area of the Philistines and he had actually smitten the city of Gaza and all of the little intermediary cities around there.
And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, that Shalmaneser the king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it: which was the sixth year of Hezekiah. And the king of Assyria did carry away Israel [as we’ve already covered] into the captivity because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD their God, but transgressed his covenant. And in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah Sennacherib the king of Assyria came against the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah the king sent to the king of Assyria and saying, I have offended; return from me: that which you put on me I will bear ( 2Ki 18:9-14 ).
In other words, he was offering to surrender unto Sennacherib. And so he laid upon Hezekiah a tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.
And Hezekiah gave him the silver that was there in the house of the LORD, the treasures of the king’s house. And at that time he cut the gold from the doors of the temple and from the pillars which had been overlaid, he gave it to the king of Assyria. And the king of Assyria then sent a couple of fellows, emissaries, Tartan, Rabsaris and Rabshakeh to the king Hezekiah and they came with threats from the king of Assyria ( 2Ki 18:15-17 ).
They came to the wall and Hezekiah’s prime minister went out and these guys began to call up unto them and he said, they said to the…
Rabshakeh said unto them, Speak unto Hezekiah and say to him, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What is this confidence wherein you’re trusting? You say, (but they are vain words), I have counsel and strength for the war. Now on whom do you trust, that you’re rebelling against me? Now, behold, you’re trusting upon the staff of the bruised reed, upon Egypt, which if even a man will lean upon it in his hand, it will pierce his hand: so Pharaoh the king of Egypt and all of those who trust in him. But if you say to me, We trust in Jehovah our God: is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said unto Judah and Jerusalem, You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem ( 2Ki 18:19-22 )?
Now that shows how, of course, little the people understood Jehovah God. He thought that all these high places and altars that were actually pagan altars that were built throughout the land were built unto Jehovah. How much people outside really misunderstand often our devotion of Jesus Christ, our worship of Him. And this guy is saying, you know, “You say you trust in Jehovah, but Hezekiah tore down all of His altars and all, and said you should worship only at this altar in Jerusalem.” Wrong, he did not tear down the altars of Jehovah, but only the false pagan altars that were there in the land.
Now, he said, “I’ll tell you what we’ll do, pay us some money and we’ll give you two thousand horses and see if you can find enough riders to put on them and we’ll send the weakest captain that we have and he’ll wipe you out.” I mean, you know, really boasting and really threatening these people. And he said, “Tell you what, I’m come up against this place to destroy it because Jehovah told me to come.” And so the guy is there blaspheming God and threatening the people, and these two guys on the wall said, “Hey fellows, don’t talk to us in Hebrew. We understand the Assyrian language. Talk to us in Assyrian language and we will relay the message to Hezekiah.”
And Rabshakeh said, No, king didn’t send me to talk to the king but to these men who sit on the wall ( 2Ki 18:27 ),
And he continued to talk in Hebrew. Now threatening all these guys that were sitting up there on the wall in their Hebrew tongue and saying, “Hey, don’t listen to Hezekiah. He tells you the Lord can help you, don’t believe it. You think that God can deliver you out of our hands? Where are the gods, you know, all of these nations, we’ve conquered all of them. Their gods were no value to them and your God will be no value to you.” And really began to threaten the people there that were on the wall. And yet the people did not answer them because Hezekiah the king had commanded, “Don’t answer them anything.” So Hezekiah sent a message to Isaiah the prophet.
Now at this point in the King, it will be well if you want a good side assignment to read the book of Isaiah in conjunction with these new chapters, because Isaiah was an influential prophet at the time that Hezekiah was king. And thus, to really put it together, you need now to really get background on this period of history by reading Isaiah. And you’ll understand better the prophecies of Isaiah with this particular background, realizing that Hezekiah was a good king and he was reigning at the time that Isaiah was a prophet. And Isaiah had a great influence, and Isaiah was really the prophet to whom Hezekiah sought for advice. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 18:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
We now begin the third section of this Book, which includes the story of the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, with a period of reaction and sin between the two. It is remarkable that such a man as Hezekiah could be the son of Ahaz. Yet we must remember that all his life he was under the influence of Isaiah. Coming to the throne, he personally did right in the sight of the Lord, and immediately instituted reforms more widespread and drastic than had been attempted by any of his predecessors.
One illustration is given of how these reforms operated. So low had the people sunk that the serpent of brass, which Moses had made long before in the wilderness, and which had been carefully preserved, had positively been made an object of worship. Hezekiah called it by its right name, Nehushtan, a piece of brass, and broke it in pieces.
It was in the sixth year of his reign that Israel was carried away into captivity. This in itself, we can readily understand, would have an influence on Judah for a time at least, as there is hardly any doubt that the prophets would carefully point out the real reason of this judgment on the aforesaid tribes.
When Hezekiah had occupied the throne for fourteen years, a most formidable foe appeared in the person of Sennacherib, in the presence of whom Hezekiah manifested a weakness unworthy of him and of the God who had so wonderfully sustained him in his internal reforms. The arrogance of the Assyrian was indeed terrible. By Rab-shakeh he did far more than challenge Hezekiah. He deliberately, and with every evidence of contempt, challenged the God in whom the nation had professed to put its trust. It was impossible that such a challenge should go unanswered. And yet is not Sennacherib the supreme illustration of the fact that the infidelity of the chosen people caused the blasphemy of the heathen? Can we do other than believe that the weakness and failure, to say nothing of the sin of the ancient people, created in the mind of the Assyrians unbelief in the God whom the chosen people professed to believe? Judging the matter wholly by what the chosen people had come to be, one is not surprised at the blasphemy of Sennacherib.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
a Resolute Religious Reformer
2Ki 18:1-12
It is wonderful that such a man as Ahaz should have had so good a son, but it is likely that Hezekiah had a good mother. See 2Ch 29:1; 2Ch 26:5. No doubt the fall of Samaria was a great incentive with the king and his advisers to root out idolatry. There is no better way of neutralizing evil than by accentuating good, and Hezekiah was wise to reopen and purify the Temple at the very beginning of his reign. See 2Ch 29:3; 2Ch 29:19; 2Ch 29:21-35. It has been supposed that the prophecy of Mic 3:12 and Jer 26:18 was made effective by the power of the Holy Spirit.
When a soul is all for God, God is all to it. The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward Him. See 2Ki 18:7. Let us see to it that we follow the suggestion of Psa 1:1-6, and strike our roots deep into the Word of God, pondering it carefully and obeying it reverently; then our leaf shall not fade, and whatsoever we do shall prosper. It is a good thing to cleave to God and keep His commandments. Compare 2Ki 18:6 with Deu 10:20.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Hezekiah
(Strength of Jehovah)
2 Kings 18-21; 2 Chron. 29-32; Isa. 38, 39.
Contemporary Prophets: Isaiah; Micah; Nahum; Hosea.
The king by judgment establisheth the land: but he that receiveth gifts overthroweth it.-Pro 29:4
Hezekiah began to reign when he was five and twenty years old, and he reigned nine and twenty years in Jerusalem. We are confronted here with what has been considered one of the greatest chronological difficulties of the Bible. In few words, it is this: Ahaz, Hezekiahs father, began his reign, Scripture says, when he was twenty years of age, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And Hezekiah, it says, was twenty-five years old when he ascended the throne. This seems to teach that Ahaz was but eleven years old when Hezekiah his son was born, which is altogether unlikely, if not impossible. Josephus does not touch upon the difficulty; he possibly felt there was none. Modern commentators have suggested various solutions of the problem, none of which is satisfactory. Fausset says twenty in 2Ki 16:2 is a transcribers error for twenty-five; citing the LXX, Syriac and Arabic of 2Ch 28:1. But, in reply to this, one pertinently writes: We may observe, that it is never advisable to find any fault with the text except where there is no other tolerable solution, which is not the case here. The LXX and other versions reading twenty-five for twenty in 2Ch 28:1 prove nothing, except, it may be, a tampering with the original text in order to get rid of a seemingly inexplicable difficulty.
Two legitimate explanations offer themselves. 1st, it is quite possible a break of some years may have occurred in king Ahaz reign, either when he went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser (2Ki 16:10); or, which seems more likely, when the king of Assyria came himself to Jerusalem (2Ki 16:18; 2Ch 28:20, 21), and distressed him. It would not be at all unlike these Assyrian kings for Tiglath-pileser to temporarily depose the king of Judah during his sojourn in those parts. 2nd, Scripture does not say that Hezekiah began to reign immediately after the death of his father. True, the usual form of words is used-Ahaz slept with his fathersand Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead (2Ch 28:27). But similar words are used in 2Ki 15:30: And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead when, in point of fact, he did not actually begin to reign until at least nine years later, as Scripture chronologists are generally agreed. (Compare 2Ki 16:1 and 17:1.) So a number of years, Scripture permits us to believe, may have elapsed between the death of Ahaz (owing to the unsettled state of his kingdom) and the accession of Hezekiah. This would entirely do away with any difficulty as to Ahaz immature age at the birth of his first-born.
In support of the first explanation it must be borne in mind that it is nothing unusual in Scripture to take no note of interruptions or breaks in chronology (compare 1Ki 6:1 and Act 13:18-22; the first, 480 years; the second, 573-a difference of ninety-three years, just the number of years of Israels five servitudes of 8, 18, 20, 7, and 40, under Mesopotamia, Moab, Canaan, Midian, and Philistia, respectively. See Jdg 3:8; 3:14; 4:3; 6:1; 13:1. The Ammonite oppression must be omitted, not being truly in the land, but on the other side Jordan (see Jdg 10:8); just as several generations are frequently omitted in the genealogies. If it is urged against either of these solutions that it would interfere with the harmony of the table of dates in this volume, it is replied that there is absolutely no positive proof that the interregnum between the reigns of Pekah and Hoshea was of nine years duration. The calculation is based wholly on the figures used in reference to Ahaz and Hezekiah. As to any interference with late Old Testament chronology as a whole, it needs only to be said that chronologists are by no means agreed here, as in other portions of the Old Testament. Nor are the Hebrew, Septuagint and Samaritan texts in harmony as to dates. God seems purposely to have left the matter of dates somewhat undecided; nor is it for us to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.
But we proceed with Hezekiah: His mothers name was Abia, the daughter of Zechariah. Her father was perhaps one of the two faithful witnesses of Isa 8:2. Or, she may have been a descendant of the Zechariah who guided Uzziah during the earlier portion of his reign; or even of the martyr Zechariah, slain by order of king Joash. Anyway, she must have been a true mother in Israel to have raised so godly a son, with such a wicked fathers example before him. O ye mothers, what a responsibility is yours, and what a privilege as well, to have God, as it were, say to you, Take this child, and nurse it for Me, and I will give thee thy wages. Abia had her wages, surely, when she saw her son renew and reform the desolated kingdom of his father David. Frequently, in truth, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the empire, whether it be for weal or for woe.
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. If, as has been remarked, Ahaz was an extraordinarily bad man to have come of so good a father, so here the reverse is true: Hezekiah was a remarkably good man, with so notably wicked a father. How truly, and widely, does the wise Preachers reflection as to ones successors apply, whether it be in a kingdom or the narrower circle of the household, Who knoweth whether he shall be a wise man or a fool? (Ecc 2:19.)
Hezekiah began to manifest immediately what manner of king he should be. He in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the doors of the house of the Lord (which Ahaz his father had shut up), and repaired them. And he brought in the priests and the Levites, and gathered them together into the east street, and said unto them, Hear me, ye Levites; sanctify now yourselves, and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place. For our fathers have trespassed, and done that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord our God, and have forsaken Him, and have turned away their faces from the habitation of the Lord, and turned their backs. Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the God of Israel. Wherefore the wrath of the Lord was upon Judah and Jerusalem, and He hath delivered them to trouble, to astonishment, and to hissing, as ye see with your eyes. For, lo, our fathers have fallen by the sword, and our sons and our daughters and our wives are in captivity for this. Now it is in my heart to make a covenant with the Lord God of Israel, that His fierce wrath may turn away from us. My sons, be not now negligent; for the Lord hath chosen you to stand before Him, to serve Him, and that ye should minister unto Him, and burn incense. He begins at the only right place-the sanctuary; and at the right time-immediately-without delay, in the first month of the first year; and it was the first day (2Ch 29:17)-New-year, in fact. Whatever reforms were needed elsewhere in the kingdom, this must have precedence of them all. Other things could not be really right if this were wrong. Revival, with God, is like His judgment; it must begin at His house. See Eze 9:6; 1Pe 4:17. Let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them, was Jehovahs gracious command to them at the very beginning of their existence as a nation. Solomon said in his prayer, That Thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which Thou hast said, My name shall be there. The temple was to the kingdom as the heart to the body-when it ceased to pulsate with activity and life, the body politic, or nation, could not but languish, stagnate, and die. If God had chosen them as His own peculiar nation out of all the rest, He must have the central place among them; His authority and claims must be recognized if they wished to be prospered by Him. So is it in this day of Church dispensation.
My sons, he calls the priests and Levites, in true fatherly love to them, as every king should have toward his people. The father of the coming [millennial] age, is one of the titles of our Lord Christ, who, as Gods model King, shall reign over the happy inhabitants of the millennial earth in the glorious day now not far off. See Isa 9:6, N. Tr.
Then the Levites arose;and they gathered their brethren, and sanctified themselves, and came, according to the commandment of the king, by the words of the Lord, to cleanse the house of the Lord. And the priests went into the inner part of the house of the Lord to cleanse it, and brought out all the un-cleanness that they found in the temple of the Lord into the court of the house of the Lord. And the Levites took it, to carry it out abroad into the brook Kidron. On the eighth day the work was finished, the Sabbath, probably; and on the sixteenth day they made an end. They began at the inner sanctuary, and ended at the porch. God always works from within-not like man, from the outside. God looks on the heart, and is not, like man, satisfied with a fair external appearance.
Moreover all the vessels, which king Ahaz in his reign did cast away in his transgressions, they re-sanctified, and set them before the altar of burnt-offering, which they had also cleansed, with the shewbread table. Then Hezekiah the king rose up early, and gathered the rulers of the city, and went up to the house of the Lord. There they offered a sin-offering for the kingdom, and for the sanctuary, and for Judah. Then an atonement was made for all Israel: for the king commanded that the burnt-offering and the sin-offering should be made for all Israel. His fatherly heart went out toward all the tribes. He loved and thought of them all, even though the bulk of them were divided from him, and subjects of the murderous conspirator Hoshea. He set Levites in the temple with cymbals, and psalteries, and with harps, and the priests stood with the trumpets. And when the burnt-offering began, the song of the Lord began also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained by David king of Israel. It was a wonderful day for Jerusalem; the number of offerings brought by the people was so large that the priests could not flay them all, and had to be assisted by the Levites. So, we read, the service of the house of God was set in order. And Hezekiah rejoiced, and all the people, that God had prepared the people:for the thing was done suddenly.
And now comes what may be considered the crowning act of this excellent kings life. And Hezekiah sent to all Israel and Judah, and wrote letters also to Ephraim and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at Jerusalem, to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel. For the king had taken counsel, and his princes, and all the congregation in Jerusalem, to keep the passover in the second month. For they could not keep it at that time, because the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently, neither had the people gathered themselves together to Jerusalem. And the thing pleased the king and all the congregation. There was beautiful harmony between king and people. All was done willingly by every one. It was not as with Abijah, who commanded Judah to seek the Lord God of their fathers (2Ch 14:4). Instead of commanding, the king consults with the people here. So they not he, the king only, established a decree to make proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beer-sheba even to Dan, that they should come to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel at Jerusalem. Because, the New Translation reads, they had not held it for a long time, as it was written (2Ch 30:5). This may mean that before this the passover had been entirely neglected, or that it had been a long time since it was kept in the second month, as it was written, in Num 9:10, 11.
If the first suggested meaning be the true one, what a condition the nation must have been in to have discontinued for a long time, this, the primary and most significant of all their yearly feasts.8 This revival in the very beginning of Hezekiahs reign is all the more remarkable in that it immediately succeeded what was probably the darkest period the kingdom of Judah had ever known. Mans extremity is Gods opportunity, certainly; and it is very frequently, if not always, darkest just before dawn.
Posts carry these circular letters of invitation throughout all Judah and Israel, saying, Ye children of Israel, turn again to the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and He will return to the remnant of you, that are escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria. And be ye not like your fathers, and like your brethren, which trespassed against the Lord God of their fathers, who therefore gave them up to desolation, as ye see. Now be ye not stiff-necked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the Lord, and enter into His sanctuary, which He hath sanctified forever: and serve the Lord your God, that the fierceness of His wrath may turn away from you. For if ye turn again unto the Lord, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that led them captive,9 so that they shall come again into this land: for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away His face from you, if ye return unto Him. It was a beautiful message, holding out comfort and hope to the sorrowing remnant of Israel, who had seen so many of their loved ones led away in bondage to the land of the Assyrian.
So the posts passed from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh even unto Zebulun: but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. Nevertheless divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves, and came to Jerusalem. Also in Judah the hand of the Lord was to give them one heart to do the commandment of the king and of the princes, by the word of the Lord. Some, as we see, were glad of the exhortation (those who had suffered most from the Assyrian, probably); Ephraim, the cake not turned, with others, impiously and impudently mocked, and made light of the messengers and their message. It is not the only occasion on which Gods message received this opposite treatment. Seven hundred years later, and seven hundred miles away, at Mars Hill in Athens, Paul delivered a more solemn message from his God but with like result: some mocked, while certain clave unto him and believed(Acts 17). And it is the same to-day. Hast thou, my reader, believed Gods gospel message, and, like some of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun, humbled thyself, and come to Jesus?- hast thou?
And there assembled at Jerusalem much people to keep the feast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great congregation. They removed the unlawful altars found in the city and cast them into the brook Kidron. They killed and ate the passover according to the law, as nearly as could be done under the circumstances. For a multitude of the people, even many of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet did they eat the passover otherwise than it was written. But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, The good Lord pardon every one that prepareth his heart to seek God, the Lord God of his fathers, though he be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary. He makes intercession for the people in the spirit of the future King who shall sit a priest upon His throne.(Zec 6:13.) And the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed the people.
The feast was kept with great gladness, with praise to God day by day on instruments of praise. And Hezekiah spake comfortably unto all the Levites that taught the good knowledge of the Lord. As in all true revivals, the Scriptures had their place. And how much the poor recovered people needed the instruction given them by these Levites. Everyone rejoiced (as well they might) and it was unanimously agreed to keep other seven days. So there was great joy in Jerusalem: for since the time of Solomon the son of David king of Jerusalem there was not the like in Jerusalem. Then the priests the Levites arose and blessed the people (see Numb. 6:23-26): and their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to His holy dwelling-place, even unto heaven.
And then appears the practical result of this wonderful fourteen days general meeting. Now when all this was finished, all Israel that were present went out to the cities of Judah, and brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had utterly destroyed them all. Then all the children of Israel returned every man to his possession, into their own cities. Hezekiah then restores to order the priestly and Levitical services of the temple, as it is written in the law of the Lord (2Ch 31:3). Moreover he commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord. There was an immediate and generous response to this thoughtful call of the king. The children of Israel brought in abundance the first-fruits of corn, wine, and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field; and the tithe of all things brought they in abundantly. This awakening to their responsibilities towards those who ministered in holy things was not confined to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; it extended itself to all the kingdom. And concerning the children of Israel and Judah, that dwelt in the cities of Judah, they also brought in the tithe of oxen and sheep, and the tithe of holy things. The offering continued from the third to the seventh month-all through their harvest and vintage-and were stored in heaps. And when Hezekiah and the princes came and saw the heaps, they blessed the Lord and His people Israel. And it was meet that they should do so; for here in these material fruits of the land they beheld the fruit of Gods Spirit in His people. When the king questioned the priests and Levites concerning the heaps, the chief priest answered him and said, Since the people began to bring in the offerings into the house of the Lord, we have had enough to eat-alas, that it should ever have been otherwise with them-and have left plenty: for the Lord hath blessed His people; and that which is left is this great store. Chambers were prepared in the temple, by Hezekiahs command, to house this superabundant store. And they brought in the offerings and the tithes and the dedicated things faithfully. Arrangements were made and officers appointed for the proper distribution of this store. Everything was done in systematic order, according to the kings commandment. And thus did Hezekiah throughout all Judah, and wrought that which was good and right and truth before the Lord his God. And in every work that he began in the service of the house of God, and in the law, and in the commandments, to seek his God, he did it with all his heart-the only way to do anything-and prospered. He was like the happy man of Psalm 1, of whom it is said, Whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. This was Johns highest wish for the beloved and hospitable Gaius (3 Jno. 2, N. Tr.) And it is written of the best Beloved of all, The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
So, having set in order the spiritual matters of the kingdom, Hezekiah turned to the more material things in his dominion. He smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchman to the fenced city (2Ki 18:8). Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, in the year that king Ahaz died: Rejoice not thou, Philistia, all of thee, because the rod that smote thee [Uzziah] is broken [in Ahaz death]; for out of the serpents root [as they regarded him] shall come forth a viper [Hezekiah], and his root shall be a fiery flying serpent, etc. (Isa 14:29, N. Tr.)
And he rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not. It would seem that this attempt to throw off the yoke of Assyria was premature; or, perhaps, the good king went beyond his faith; for when Sennacherib invaded his kingdom, we are pained to read that he took all the fortified cities. And Hezekiah weakened and sent to him at Lachish his submission, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. This was humiliating, though he does not grovel, like his worthless father saying, I am thy son. His desire was right, but he may, in his zeal for the prosperity and glory of his kingdom, have anticipated Gods time. Because of their former sins, Israel had become subject to the Assyrian, whom God had called the rod of His anger, and even though restored to righteousness under Hezekiah, God in His wise, yet gracious, government may have seen fit to allow them to suffer awhile for their past, that they might fully realize by bitter and humiliating experience what a serious thing it is for a people to turn from the living God to idols. So, poor Hezekiah (how we feel for the dear man!) pays the heavy fine imposed upon him-three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. To obtain this enormous amount, he had to almost strip bare the recently restored house of God and his palace of their treasures and utensils of silver and gold. He even had to strip from the temple doors and its pillars the gold that his own loving hand had but recently laid there. How it must have hurt his great and righteous heart to thus denude Gods dwelling place of its wealth of glory! And all because of his own hasty action, he might think.
This was in the fourteenth year of his reign (2Ki 18:13). Fausset says fourteenth is a copyists error for twenty-seventh. But we hear too much about these copyists errors. Fourteenth agrees with Isa 36:1; and it is the only number that will harmonize with Isa 38:5. It may be for lack of faith that men try hard to make Scripture square with profane history, or what purports to be history. Just because a date in the Bible does not come out even with Babylonian or Assyrian chronology, or disagrees with some untrustworthy heathen inscription, commentators cry Transcribers error; as if imperfectly deciphered monuments and clay tablets must correct the word of God! Fourteen agrees with other portions and dates contained in Scripture; so, to faith, it is perfectly satisfactory, whatever Assyriologists, or commentators influenced by them, may say.
Sennacherib for some reason or other, did not depart from Hezekiah, as he had hoped. Perhaps it was impossible for Hezekiah to obtain the sum demanded by the king of Assyria; or that villainous plunderer, after receiving the required amount, may have changed his mind (if he ever really meant to let the king of Jerusalem buy him off), and determined, before he quitted the country, to possess himself of Hezekiahs capital. His intention became known to Hezekiah, and he took counsel with his princes and mighty men. They were agreed to resist his capture of the city, and extensive preparations were made for the threatened siege. When all had been done that man could do, Hezekiah gathered the people together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and addressed them with words of faith and courage: Be strong and courageous, he said, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him. With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles. Fine words, these, and very different from his saying a short time before to Sennacherib, I have offended, etc. His faith, though faint, had not altogether failed; and here it rises to its full height, and, like the restored Simon Peter, he is able, by his words and example, to strengthen his brethren. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah.
After this did Sennacherib king of Assyria send his servants to Jerusalem,unto Hezekiah king of Judah, and unto all Judah that were at Jerusalem, saying, etc.: then follows a harangue that for insolence and craftiness has never been exceeded. Rab-shakeh (a title, not a name), Sennacheribs commander-in-chief, was the speaker. He was an accomplished diplomat, evidently, and delivered his artful speech in the Jews language. He, with his fellow-officers, stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fullers field-on an eminence, probably. Hezekiahs cabinet ministers interrupt him in his discourse, saying, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews language in the ears of the people that are on the wall. They little knew the wily Rab-shakeh, who, gaining an advantage by their fear, answers: Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall?Then Rab-shakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews language, and spake, saying, etc. He does his best to frighten the populace, shut up like a bird in a cage, as Sennacheribs own inscription states. He hoped to incite sedition in the city, in order to get possession without laying siege to it. But he labored in vain; the people held their peace, and answered him not a word: for the kings commandment was, saying, Answer him not.
His speech produced distress, however, and the kings officers came to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rab-shakeh. And Hezekiah rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the Lord. He turns to the true source of comfort in the dark hour; and also sent to Isaiah the prophet, saying, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy (for Sennacheribs servants had spoken against the Lord God, against the God of Jerusalem, as against the gods of the people of the earth, which were the work of mens hands); for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth. It may be the Lord thy God will hear all the words of Rab-shakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God; and will reprove the words which the Lord thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left.
The prophets reply is brief and decisive: And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a. rumor, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.
Sennacherib, anxious to leave the country, yet unwilling to let such a stronghold as Jerusalem remain untaken, despatched a letter to the king, hoping against hope to frighten him into capitulation. And Hezekiah received the letter of the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. How beautiful his childlike trust in the God of Israel! And there in the temple he prays as only a saint in his hour of distress can pray. (Read 2Ki 19:15-19.) God answers him through a message from Isaiah, in which full deliverance is assured him. Therefore, it concludes, thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the Lord. For I will defend this city, to save it, for Mine own sake, and for My servant Davids sake. And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they [or, men] arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia.
So let all Thine enemies perish, O Lord; But let them that love Him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.
Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all other, and guided [lit., protected] them on every side. And many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah: so that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from thenceforth.
In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. Those days must refer to the time of the Assyrian invasion, or immediately after Sennacherib came up, in the fourteenth year of Hezekiahs reign; as fifteen years, the prophet said, should be added to his life. As he reigned twenty-nine years, there is no difficulty whatever in fixing the exact time of his sickness. Men make difficulties for themselves (where there really are none) by giving heed to uncertain monumental records, instead of abiding by the simple and sure statements of Holy Scripture.
And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thy house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. Isaiah came to him, it says. He had not gone personally to him, but sent word by a messenger, at the time of Sennacheribs investment of the city. Some have thought from this, and from certain passages in his prophecy, that there was a coolness, or even estrangement, between the prophet and the king, over his rebellion against Assyria. More likely it was the prophets age (he must have been near eighty) that prevented him from going to the king. We can understand too how, when Hezekiah lay at the point of death, he would make a special effort to see him face to face. He was sent with heavy tidings to the childless king; and little wonder it was that the announcement of his death distressed him. True to his habit and faith in God, Hezekiah turns to Him in distress; and almost before he called, God answered. The prophet had not yet reached the middle court when God said to him, Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of My people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for Mine own sake, and for My servant Davids sake. His full recovery was on the third day. It is the day of resurrection (see Hos 6:2); and on that day Judah received her king as it were, in figure, from the dead. His cure was in answer to prayer, though means were used-a lump of figs. It is often more humble, and more according to God, to use means than not to use them. If the incident is typical, and the kings recovery on the third day (answering to the passage in Hosea) foreshadows Israels national restoration, or resurrection, as in Dan 12:2, we would naturally connect the lump of figs with Mat 21:19-21 and 24:32-figure of Israel, now under death and the curse of God, but yet to revive and bear fruit. This is not pressed, but only suggested. But as Gods commandment is exceeding broad, so is His blessed Word very full; and it is not of any private (or separate) interpretation.
Hezekiah quite properly asks for a sign to assure himself of his recovery. His hypocritical father, in mock modesty, refused to ask for a sign. He used a pious phrase in his refusal, saying, I will not tempt the Lord. But he was not asked to tempt God. God Himself had told him to ask for a sign. Unbelief and self-will were at the bottom of his blank refusal, though covered under this pious phrase. And he was not the last of religious unbelievers to use the same expression, and for a like purpose. (See Isa. 7.)
God gives the anxious king a sign; and a wonderful sign it was. The shadow turned back on the dial of Ahaz ten degrees, in answer to the prophets prayer. It was a miracle, whatever way we take it. God could have reversed the revolution of the earth, had He seen fit to do so-for he is a poor clockmaker even, who cannot turn the hands of his own workmanship backward; or He could have caused the phenomenon by the ordinary law of refraction, or even by volcanic pressure from beneath have altered the inclination of the dials gnomon for the time being. In any case it was a miracle, whatever the rationalist or skeptical astronomer may say to the contrary.
The news of this miracle reached Chaldea, and a deputation was sent from Babylon to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land. And it was in the business of these ambassadors that the recovered king was ensnared with pride. The letter and the present from the king of Babylon were too much for his latent vanity-native to us all. What Sennacheribs letter and deputation of offensive diplomats could not effect (for they drove him to his knees), the letter and friendly commission from Merodach-baladan accomplished-to his ruin almost, and that of his kingdom. How like the Christian and this world! Its frown is comparatively powerless; it is its subtle favor that we have most to fear. Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him; for his heart was lifted up-not, as with Jehoshaphat, in the ways of the Lord (see 2Ch 17:6): therefore there was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem. Notwithstanding Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah. t was not spiritual pride, as with his great-grandfather Uzziah; but worldly pride-the pride of life, he might say. It was his precious things, his armor, his treasures, his house, his dominion, etc., that he showed the ambassadors from Babylon. When the prophet came to reprove him, he significantly asked, What have they seen in thy house? All that is in my house have they seen, Hezekiah answered; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them. Why did he not show these learned heathen Gods house? every whit of which showeth His glory(Psa 29:9, marg.). There he could have explained to them the meaning of the brazen altar, and the sacrifices offered thereon; and who can tell what the result might not have been in the souls of these idolaters? They were brought to Hezekiahs very doors by one of Gods wonders in creation; why did he not embrace the opportunity of showing them of His higher wonders of redemption? But no; they were shown what displayed the glory of the poor pride-filled king. The benefit done to him was apparently forgotten. He did not ask, like his great father David, What shall I render unto the Lord for all His benefits toward me? and who also said, Forget not all His benefits. And we Christians, in a very much higher sense, have been made partakers of the benefit. May we, in return, render unto God the glory due unto His name.
God left him, it is said of Hezekiah, to try him, that he might know what was in his heart. (See Deu 8:2.) He learned, to his shame and sorrow, that there was a vast amount of ego there. It was well to know it, that it might be judged and put away before he should be betrayed by it into deeper and more serious sin. But when he hears the judgment pronounced by the prophet on his posterity, he meekly submits, and says, Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken. He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days. Of this last, one aptly remarks: Not the language of mere selfishness, but of one feeling that the national corruption must at last lead to the threatened judgment; and thanking God for the stroke being deferred yet for a time.
And Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honor. God had given him substance very much. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works. His scribes copied out a selection of Solomons proverbs (Pro 25:1). Isaiah and other chroniclers recorded the rest of his acts and goodness (Heb., good works).
And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem did him honor at his death. And Manasseh his son reigned in his stead.
Of all the kings of Judah since the days of Solomon, Hezekiah is the burning and shining light. It was left to him to break in pieces the brazen serpent made by Moses in the wilderness. It had become a snare to the nation; for up to Hezekiahs day they had burned incense unto it. And he called it Nehushtan- a piece of brass (2Ki 18:4). His reforming predecessors had lacked either the discernment to see the element of idolatry in the superstitious reverence shown it, or lacked the holy courage to destroy it in the face of popular opposition, probably. It had been used by God in the wilderness as a type of Christ made sin for our salvation, but the nation h ad degraded it (and themselves) by regarding it with a semi-idolatrous spirit, like Rome and its pretended relics of the true cross, the holy sepulchre, and what not. Hezekiah, to his honor be it said, did not hesitate to remove this occasion of offence, calling it what it really was-a [mere] piece of brass.
And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might, and how he made a pool, and a conduit, and brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
8 It is not likely that the Passover-feast, in which Jehovahs claims were especially remembered, would be kept during the reign of the apostate king Ahaz, at least. And has the characteristic Christian institution, the Lords supper, fared any better? In a large part of Christendom-that which arrogantly calls itself The Church-this precious remembrance of our Lord in His sufferings and death, has been prostituted to the Mass, in which a little dough baked as a wafer is, by a Romish priests magic words, turned into the very flesh and blood of the Lord; and this little wafer is worshiped as the Host!! [Ed.
9 A large part of Israel (from the ten tribes) had already been carried away captive by the king of Assyria. (See 2 Kings chap. 17.) [Ed.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
2Ki 18:4
Nehushtan: a mere “piece of brass.” So Hezekiah named the brazen serpent. He was bent on the work of national reformation. He saw that incense was being burnt to this brazen serpent; that was enough for him. Whatever it might have been to the people in the past, it was clearly a curse now, and had better be destroyed at once.
Observe:-
I. A blind veneration for the past is always an obstacle in the path of progress. There are multitudes who cling with unintelligent grasp to institutions and customs simply because they have come down to them from their fathers. If there be a tendency to worship the brazen serpent instead of the living God, then the truest wisdom is to grind it to powder.
II. Even that which has been ordained by God Himself for a blessing may be so misused as to become a curse. We see this in the case (1) of art and science; (2) of the weekly day of rest; (3) of the Bible; (4) of our sanctuaries.
III. Every symbol loses its significance and value in proportion as it is converted into an idol. The brazen serpent was a material token of the pitying mercy of God, a symbol of the Divine power, a reminder of the Divine holiness. But when the Jews began to worship it, its worth departed. And so it always is. (1) Every creed is a symbol, an attempt to express the truth of God in the words of man. Such words are valuable only as pointing to that which is more valuable than themselves. The claim of God is that we honour Him and truth, and burn no incense to mere confessions of faith. (2) The Sacraments also are symbols. Whenever they begin to be idolised, they lose much of their significance and value. (3) The Cross is the grandest symbol in all history. But it is not intended that we should rest in the outward circumstances of the Crucifixion. The looking to the Cross which brings salvation is a looking through the Cross to that which it reveals.
T. C. Finlayson, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 160.
References: 2Ki 18:4.-W. Lindsay Alexander, Sermons, p. 260; T. R. Stevenson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 236; W. Walters, Ibid., vol. xx., p. 237. 2Ki 18:4, 2Ki 18:5.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xvi., No. 960. 2Ki 18:5.-Weekly Pulpit, vol. i., p. 3.
2Ki 18:9-12
I. In the time of David and Solomon, the small people of the Jews became a very powerful nation, respected and feared by all the kingdoms round. But when they fell into idolatry and forsook the true God and His law, all was changed. Idolatry brought sin; and sin brought bad passions, hatred, divisions, weakness, ruin. Elijah’s warnings had been in vain, and Elisha’s warnings also. At heart the Israelites liked Ahab’s and Jezebel’s idolatries better than the worship of the true God. And why? Because if they worshipped God and kept His laws, they must needs have been more or less good men, upright, just, merciful, cleanly and chaste livers; while, on the other hand, they might worship their idols and yet be as bad as they chose. They chose the worse part, and refused the better; and they were filled with the fruit of their own devices, as every unrepenting sinner surely will be.
II. The king of Assyria, we read, brought heathens from Assyria and settled them in the Holy Land, instead of the Israelites. From the Jewish priest that they asked for these poor people got some confused notion of the one true God, and they went on for several hundred years worshipping idols and the true God at the same time. But as time went on the Samaritans seem to have got rid of their old idolatry, and built themselves a temple on Mount Gerizim, and there worshipped they knew not what. But still they did their best, and their reward came at last.
III. When Jesus rested by Jacob’s well, His heart yearned over these poor ignorant Samaritans and over the sinful woman who came to draw water at the well. For hundreds of years the Samaritans had felt after God, and in due time they found Him, for He came to them, and found them, and spoke with them face to face.
IV. All Christ asks of you is to receive Him when He comes to you, and to love, and thank, and try to be like Him, while for the rest, to whom little is given, of him shall little be required; and to him who uses what he has, be it little or much, more shall be given, and he shall have abundance.
C. Kingsley, Town and Country Sermons, p. 362.
Reference: 2Ki 18:13-16.-H. B. Tristram, Sunday Magazine, 1873, p. 795.
2Ki 18:36
I. How strong must have been the temptation to answer the apostate Rabshakeh. And what rendered silence more difficult was the easiness of the answer which might have been given by reference to the mighty hand and to the outstretched arm by which Jehovah had rescued His people from the house of bondage. But the king’s commandment was wise. No good could possibly have arisen from the verbal controversy which the apostate Rabshakeh tried to provoke. Angry passions might have been excited and inflamed, but Hezekiah knew that “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.” Let us learn wisdom from Hezekiah. When we find a man arguing, not for truth, but for victory; when, instead of approaching high and holy subjects with meekness and reverence, instead of showing kindness and tender-heartedness towards those whom he may think in error, he evinces bitterness, and wrath, and clamour, and evil-speaking, our wisdom is, though sorrowful, still to be silent.
II. We have the same instruction from still higher authority, even the example of Hezekiah’s Lord. “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth.” Instead of answering, He silenced His opponents, and in His reply, instead of entering into a discussion with them, exposed either their ignorance or their malice, and so in effect answered them not.
III. In all our religious investigations and inquiries the essential thing is to have an honest and good heart. When we seek for spiritual improvement, we must have recourse to self-examination and prayer. We must pray to God to give us an honest heart before we venture to inquire into the things of God.
W. F. Hook, Parish Sermons, p. 140.
References: 2Ki 18:37.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 199. 2Ki 18-Parker, vol. viii., p. 279. 2Ki 18-19-E. H. Plumptre, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 437.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
IV. THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH, MANASSEH AND AMON
1. Hezekiah and Sennacheribs Invasion
CHAPTER 18
1. Hezekiah, King of Judah (2Ki 18:1-3; 2 Chron. 29-32)
2. The Revival (2Ki 18:4-7)
3. Victory over the Philistines (2Ki 18:8)
4. Israels captivity (2Ki 18:9-12)
5. Sennacheribs invasion (2Ki 18:13-16)
6. Sennacheribs messengers and message (2Ki 18:17-25; 2Ch 32:9-19)
7. The request of Hilkiah, Shebna and Joah (2Ki 18:26)
8. Rabshakehs insulting answer (2Ki 18:27-37)
Hezekiah (strength of Jehovah) was the pious son of a very wicked father. It is refreshing to read now after the long list of kings who did evil in Gods sight that Hezekiah did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father David did. According to the book of Chronicles, the first thing he did was to open the doors of the house of the LORD (which Ahaz his father had closed) and repair them (2Ch 29:3). This was a true beginning. We shall find in Chronicles the details of the great revival and the restoration of the temple-worship, the keeping of the Passover, as well as the other reforms which took place under his reign. All these will be considered in the annotations on Second Chronicles. He destroyed also all forms of idolatry. Especially mentioned is the brazen serpent which Moses had made. This interesting object had been preserved since the days when Moses had lifted it up in the wilderness, the wonderful type of Him who knew no sin and who was made sin for us on the cross. The children of Israel in their apostasy had made the brazen serpent an object of worship. He broke it in pieces and called it Nehushtan, which means brazen. Thus negatively and positively a great reformation was accomplished. The secret of it all we find tersely stated in one sentence. He trusted in the LORD God of Israel. Because he trusted Jehovah, Jehovah was with him. And the LORD was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth. This is the way of A true recovery and the way to blessing.
The evil alliance with the king of Assyria, which his father had made, the God-fearing king refused to own. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and served him not. Immediately after he smote the ancient enemy of Gods people, the Philistine. (The fate of Samaria, the Kingdom of Israel, is once more mentioned in verses 9-12 obviously because chronologically it followed Hezekiahs victory over the Philistines.) In annotations of Judges we learned the typical significance of the Philistines. They represent ritualistic Christendom. After Hezekiahs restoration of the true worship of Jehovah and after the breaking down of all false altars and idol worship, a complete victory over the Philistines has a special meaning, Ritualism, the deadly foe of true worship, can only be overcome by a return to that true worship and trust in the Lord. Protestantism attempted this, but it has failed.
The rebellion of Hezekiah against Assyria may have been under the reign of Shalmaneser. Then followed Sargon, who was succeeded by his son Sennacherib. In all probability Sennacherib was co-regent with his father Sargon. The Assyrian inscriptions concerning Sennacherib covering this period are very interesting though not always correct and often mixed and confusing. In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib came against the fenced cities of Judah and they fell before him. Isaiah 10 gives us additional information on this invasion. True, Hezekiahs faith was severely tested. Sennacherib had not yet come near to Jerusalem and Hezekiah sent to him at Lachish, saying I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me will I bear. It was not according to faith, but the godly king had acted in fear and unbelief. No mention is made by Isaiah of this occurrence, nor do we find a record of it in the Chronicles. The tribute was very heavy, amounting to over one million and a half dollars. Hezekiah had to use the silver and the gold of the Temple and the palace to meet this obligation.
Then Sennacherib decided to attack Jerusalem. Here we have three accounts of what took place: 2 Kings 18-19; 2 Chron. 32 and Isaiah 36-37. These Scriptures should be carefully read and compared. From 2Ch 32:1-8 we learn the wise preparations Hezekiah made in anticipation of the coming attack. The water supply for the invading army was cut off; he made strong fortifications; he reorganized the army. But the best of all are the words he addressed to the people. Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor discouraged for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him; for there be more with us than with him. With him is an arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles. These were noble words. No wonder the people leaned upon them in that hour of trial. We hear in them an echo of Isaiahs faithful ministry. The head of the expedition and negotiations for the surrender of Jerusalem were entrusted to the Tartan, the commander-in-chief of the army: Rabsaris, which has been explained to mean chief of the eunuchs and Rabshakeh, the Assyrian title of chief captain. The message which Rabshakeh brought was delivered from the same spot where Isaiah stood when he gave his message to Ahaz (Isa 7:3). The words of the emissary of Sennacherib were coarse; they reveal the blindness of a heathen, who thought of Jehovah having been offended by Hezekiahs great reformation (verse 22). Politically and religiously it was misrepresentation. He ended up with a lie, The LORD said to me, Go up against this land and destroy it.
When the representatives of Hezekiah requested for the sake of the populace not to speak in Hebrew, but in Aramean, which the common people did not understand, Rabshakeh became very abusive and shouted a vulgar appeal to the people. It needs no further commentations. The people were obedient to the king. They answered not a word. And the kings representatives return to the king with clothes rent.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
feared
(See Scofield “Psa 19:9”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
am 3278, bc 726
in the third: 2Ki 18:9, 2Ki 15:30, 2Ki 17:1
Hezekiah: 2Ki 16:20, 1Ch 3:13, 2Ch 28:27, 2Ch 29:1, Mat 1:9, Mat 1:10, Ezekias
Reciprocal: 2Ch 32:32 – in the book Psa 80:13 – The boar Isa 7:17 – bring upon Jer 3:12 – toward the north Hos 1:1 – Uzziah
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
JUDAH UNDER HEZEKIAH
A SUMMARY OF THE REIGN (2Ki 18:1-8)
For a more extensive history of this good reign compare 2 Chronicles 29-32, and also Isaiah 36-39. In the first eight verses we have the usual summary like that of Ahaz (16:1-4), after which follows in detail the chief events of the reign. The summary contains the age and period of the king (2Ki 18:1-2); his attitude toward the true worship (2Ki 18:3-4); a reference to the spirit animating his life and conduct (2Ki 18:5-6); and in consequence the successes attained over foreign enemies (2Ki 18:7-8).
Note his enviable distinction (2Ki 18:5) and the cause of it (2Ki 18:4).
SENNACHERIBS INVASION (2Ki 18:13-35)
The intervening verses (2Ki 18:9-12) recapitulating Israels captivity are probably inserted for the sake of contrast. Had the kings of Israel been as faithful to Jehovah as this king of Judah was, that calamity would not have overtaken them as it did not overtake him.
Sennacherib is on a tour of conquest against Egypt, Assyrias great rival for world dominion, and takes Jerusalem en route. At first Hezekiah tries to make terms (2Ki 18:13-16), which Sennacherib accepts and then wantonly disregards. While he proceeds on Egypt he detaches a force to attack Jerusalem (2Ki 18:17).
The language of Rabshakeh is insulting throughout. His claim to be acting for Jehovah (2Ki 18:25) is pure assumption as the event shows. Eliakims protest (2Ki 18:26) was a blunder in that it encouraged him to greater boldness in seeking to influence the rank and file (2Ki 18:28-35).
THE APPEAL TO JEHOVAH (2Ki 19:1-37)
Rabshakeh did not commence the siege immediately, but joined the main army again at Libnah (2Ki 19:18), to which place Sennacherib retired on the approach of the Egyptian king (2Ki 19:9). Another attempt is made to move Hezekiah, this time by a letter, but as before he appealed to Jehovah through the prophet, he now does so directly through his own prayer (2Ki 19:14-19), and is answered through the prophet (2Ki 19:20-34).
This answer contains (1) a rebuke of Sennacheribs boast (2Ki 19:21-24); (2) a refutation of his self-assertion (2Ki 19:25-28); (3) an encouragement to Judah and Hezekiah (2Ki 19:29-31); and (4) the divine decree in regard to the crisis (2Ki 19:32-34).
The execution of the decree brings to mind such modern parallels as the destruction of the Spanish Armada by the storm, and the breaking up of the French army before Moscow when in one memorable night, twenty thousand horses perished of frost.
HEZEKIAHS SICKNESS AND RECOVERY (2Ki 20:1-11)
It seemed to the king that he must have displeased God to be cut off in early manhood (see Pro 10:27), hence his words (2Ki 20:3).
Figs were the ordinary remedy for boils (2Ki 20:7) but the prophet did not order their application until he was assured of the divine help. It was God, and not the figs that healed, just as is always the case in every remedy for bodily ills.
It does not seem wrong for Hezekiah to ask a sign in view of Isaiahs words to Ahaz (Isa 7:11).
The reversal of the shadow on the sundial (2Ki 20:11) only can be regarded either as a miracle or myth, and as far as the true believer in the Bible is concerned, the former is accepted without seeking impossible explanations.
AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE (2Ki 20:12-21)
Babylon at this time was trying to free herself from Assyrian supremacy, and when Sennacherib suffered so serious a calamity seemed an opportune moment for a forward movement. This doubtless reveals the reason for this embassy to Hezekiah with whom it was hoped to form an alliance. It also explains the latters object in showing them his riches and strength (2Ki 20:13), which was not only a political blunder but an act of unbelief towards God. Hence the rebuke (2Ki 20:16-18). Instead of help from Babylon that nation would at length prove Judahs ruin. This would not be on account of Hezekiahs fault alone, but because the whole nation had incurred guilt similar to his, and would continue to do so even in a greater degree.
QUESTIONS
1. Have you read the parallel Scriptures in this case?
2. Rehearse the four outline facts constituting the summary of this reign.
3. What special form of idolatry is here mentioned?
4. What two strong nations were rivals for world dominion at this time?
5. Analyze Jehovahs answer to Sennacheribs boast.
6. What practical lessons are here taught about divine healing?
7. Give what appears to be the true reason for the Babylonian embassy.
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
2Ki 18:1-2. In the third year of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign Namely, in the third of those nine years, mentioned 2Ki 17:1; of which see the note there, and below, 2Ki 18:10. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign To this it is objected, that Ahaz his father lived only thirty-six years, and therefore, according to this account, begat Hezekiah when he was but eleven years old, which seems incredible. Various explications of this difficulty have been given; but the most probable are, either, 1st, That some error in regard to the numerals has crept into the text, and that Hezekiah was not so old when he began to reign: or, 2d, That the sixteen years which Ahaz reigned are to be computed, not from the first beginning of his reign, when he reigned with his father, (as it is probable he did,) which was at the twentieth year of his age, but from the beginning of his reigning alone, in which case Ahaz would be as many years of age more than thirty-six when he died, as he had reigned with his father, before he came into the sole possession of the kingdom.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 18:4. Nehushtan; that is, their brass, or mere brass, or parvum s, corrupted brass, by way of contempt. In the Chronicum of Alexander, cited by Eusebius out of Anestasio Niceno, we are told that the people resorted to this serpent to be healed of their diseases, instead of having recourse to herbs, and seeking a cure from God.
2Ki 18:7. He rebelled. This was prudent, because he had confidence in the Lord. Let us not serve the enemy while God is on our side.
2Ki 18:13. Sennacherib, son of Salmaneser, and called Sargon, in Isa 20:1. This young prince, smitten and fired with the mania of conquest, had left Babylon or Nineveh with an army, probably not less than three hundred thousand men, few of whom ever saw their country again. He had taken the five capital cities mentioned in 2Ki 18:34, and pushed his conquests, as Herodotus relates, to the frontiers of Egypt.
2Ki 18:19. Rabshakeh said, in a speech which shows the style of generals, tyrants, and conquerors in those days. The whole is an insult to heaven, contempt of foes, and pride insupportable in character. It has however one word of meanness: Now therefore I pray thee give pledges. Certainly a man who talked of conquering the gods, ought not to have degraded himself as a suppliant to a mortal. See on 2Ch 29:32.; and on Isaiah 37., where this invasion is more copiously related.
2Ki 18:34. Hamath, the old name of a kingdom, of which Amesa was the capital.Arphad lay north of Damascus.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 Kings 18-20. The Reign of Hezekiah.These three chapters give an account of the reign of the best king of Judah, and a parallel but somewhat less full account is found in Isaiah 36-39. There is another account in 2 Chronicles 29 f. The annalistic tablets, etc., of the Assyrian kings give us more information about Hezekiah than about any other king. They confirm the good impression given in the Bible; but the chronology, if we follow them, has to be completely modified. To understand the history contained in 2 Kings 18-20 the following facts and dates should be borne in mind: (a) Samaria fell in the reign of Sargon, in 722 B.C. (b) Merodachbaladan (2Ki 20:12) established himself as king in Babylon (721), and held his own against Sargon till 710. (c) Sargons army overran Judah about 711 (Isa 20:1). (d) Sargon died 706 and his son Sennacherib invaded Judah 701. (e) Sennacherib died 681. Consequently (i.) the illness of Hezekiah and the mission of Merodach-baladan took place before 711, so that 2 Kings 20 really comes earlier than 2Ki 18:13; (ii.) Sennacheribs invasion was near the end of the reign of Hezekiah; and (iii.), despite 2Ki 19:37, Sennacherib lived nearly twenty years after the loss of his army. See further, p. 59.
2Ki 18:1-12. Accession of Hezekiah. Fall of Samaria.Hezekiahs reforms were in full accord with the commands in Dt. It is frequently stated in Kings that no king of Judah, however good he had otherwise been, dared to do this. It gave much offence (cf. 2Ki 18:22), and provoked a reaction under Manasseh.the brazen serpent: cf. Num 21:8 f.* The serpent which Moses made was a fiery serpent, Heb. saraph (cf. the seraphim in the Temple, Isa 6:2*).Nehushtan: the word is obscure. If Hezekiah called the serpent this name it would be reproachful, a thing of brass (cf. mg.). If it was the popular name by which it was worshipped, it may be connected with nahash, a serpent.
2Ki 18:9. Shalmaneser: see on 2Ki 17:3.
2Ki 18:10. they took it: perhaps the writer knew that the king who besieged Samaria (2Ki 18:9) was not the captor of the city.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH IN JUDAH
(vv.1-16)
In Judah the reign of Hezekiah provided a refreshing relief to the tendency of departure from God. It was during his reign that Assyria took Samaria into captivity, but Hezekiah’s faith and obedience to God preserved Judah from the same fate at that time. Jotham had been a good king, but Ahaz his son was just the opposite. Hezekiah was the son of Ahaz, but he stands in beautiful contrast to his father. He was 25 years old when taking the throne of Judah, and he reigned 29 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name is told us also (v.2).
How good to see that he removed the high places (v.4). Other kings before him had nor done this. But even though Solomon had introduced the worship in high places, Hezekiah by his judgment of the high places plainly declared his disagreement with Solomon. Solomon’s reign was illustrious, but this gives no right to others to follow him in his acts of disobedience to God. Hezekiah destroyed every vestige of idolatry from Judah, breaking down the sacred pillars, cutting down the wooden image, and breaking to pieces the bronze serpent Moses had made (v.4). Why did he do this? Was it not right for Moses to make that serpent? Yes, Moses was right in making it, but he did not make it as an object of worship, and Judah had debased it to this end, burning incense to it. He called it “Nehushtan,” meaning merely “a bit of bronze.”
The simplicity of Hezekiah’s faith in the Lord God of Israel was such that no king, either before or after him, was to be compared to him (v.5). He held fast to the Lord, putting His interests first, keeping His commandments as declared in the law of Moses (v.6). Therefore of course the Lord was with him, making him prosper in every undertaking. Also by the power of God he was able to do what the king of Israel could not do. He rebelled against the king of Assyria rather than serving him (v.7). He also subdued the Philistines as far as their city of Gaza (v.8).
Verses 9-11 refer to what we have already read in connection with Hoshea, king of Israel. It was in the fourth year of Hezekiah that the king of Assyria began his siege of Samaria, taking the city captive in Hezekiah’s sixth year. Thus the larger part of the nation Israel was taken into captivity while Judah and Benjamin were preserved by having the most faithful king reigning over them at the time. Verse 12 repeats the reason for the captivity of the ten tribes. They did not obey the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed His covenant conveyed to them through Moses. Not only did they not do what was commanded them: would not listen.
Eight years later, however, the king of Assyria attacked and captured the fortified cities of Judah, though not including Jerusalem (v.13). We do not read that Hezekiah appealed to the Lord at this time, so this may have been a time when his faith wavered, for he told the king of Assyria, “I have done wrong.” At least he showed a submissive spirit and was willing to pay tribute to Assyria. He was assessed 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold. In order to pay this he took all the silver from the house of the Lord and from his own house and stripped the gold from the doors of the temple and from the pillars. This would be humiliating to him, and we cannot but wonder if this might not have been avoided if he had earnestly sought the Lord’s intervention, as he did later, when the Lord miraculously intervened to deliver Jerusalem and send the king of Assyria away in humiliating defeat (ch.19:35).
JERUSALEM BESIEGED
(vv.17-37).
The tribute Hezekiah sent to the king of Assyria was, he found, no guarantee of his protection from attack. Hezekiah might have kept the gold and silver and still not be defeated by Assyria, as he found by experience in trusting the Lord. The king of Assyria proved himself treacherous in sending a great army against Jerusalem (v.17).
If we compare verse 2 with verse 13, it becomes evident that it was at about this time that Hezekiah’s sickness threatened his death, for he reigned 29 years, and 15 of those years were added to his life after his illness. But it was in the 14th year of his reign that Sennacherib came against Judah.
The leader of the Assyrian army (called the Rabshakeh) called from outside Jerusalem for a consultation with Hezekiah, who sent three of his trusted men to hear what the Rabshakeh had to say. Of course the city was protected by walls and barred gates. The Rabshakeh then declared that “the great king, the king, of Assyria” demanded to know where the confidence of Judah was placed, accusing Judah of speaking “mere words” in saying they had plans and power for war. It may be a question whether Judah had actually said this or not, but he asked, “in whom do you trust, that you rebel against me?” He assumed Judah might have enlisted Egypt for help, as Israel had done before (ch.17:4). But Hezekiah had not expressed any confidence in Egypt.
Rather, as the king of Assyria considered likely, Hezekiah’s trust was in the Lord God. But he says that Hezekiah had acted in opposition to the Lord, for he had taken away the high places which the king of Assyria considered necessary in the worship of the God of Israel (v.22). He did not realise that the very fact of Hezekiah’s removal of the high places was evidence of his trust in the living God.
The Rabshakeh offered then a bribe of 2000 horses if Judah would pledge allegiance to the king of Assyria (v.23). He adds to this the warning that they would not be able to repel one captain of the Assyrians, though they put their trust in Egypt. Thus, he knew how to appeal to both their greed and to their fear. More than this, he wanted them to think that even the Lord was against them, for he tells them that the Lord told him to go against the land and destroy it (v.25). Thus, in common with many religious men today, he did not hesitate to use the Lord’s name deceitfully.
The three servants of Hezekiah asked the Rabshakeh to speak in the Aramean language, rather than expose the common people to his words in Hebrew (v.26). They should have realised their request would be futile, and indeed it only encouraged the Rabshakeh to speak more loudly to all the people on the wall, urging them to hear the words of the great king of Assyria (v 28). If he could not persuade the leaders of the people, he would do his utmost to weaken the people themselves. Did he think he would persuade them not to trust in the Lord?
Rabshakeh, in speaking to the men of Judah, accused Hezekiah of deceiving his own people by his confidence that the Lord would deliver them. Would the Lord deliver Jerusalem? Yes! Assyria found very soon that the Lord whom they claimed sent them against Jerusalem was a God of awesome power and judgment and would judge them for their deceitful claim of representing Him, though He delayed His intervention for a time as a test to Hezekiah’s faith (ch.19:35).
Thus, the Rabshakeh urged the people, “Do not listen to Hezekiah” (v.31). Rather, he wants them to listen to the king of Assyria, who demanded a present from them to make peace, and bow to his authority, so that for a time they could remain in their own places, eating every one from his own vine and his own fig tree, and drinking from his own cistern. But for how long? “Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land” (v.32). He was telling them they would be just as well off in his land as they would be in Jerusalem. If this was so, why take them away? People may tell us we would be just as well off if we left the Assembly of God and went to a denomination, as though the denomination was like God’s assembly. Can we depend on the Lord or not? The Rabshakeh urged them not to listen to Hezekiah’s word that the Lord would deliver them. How many arguments there are to undermine faith!
He tried hard to direct their minds away from the Lord to other things, such as the gods of the nations (v.37). Had any of them been able to deliver a nation from the hand of the king of Assyria? What of the gods of Hamath, Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah? And what of Samaria? (vv.33-34). All of these had fallen to the bondage of Assyria. The answer is simple. None of those nations was depending an the only true God. But Hezekiah honestly sought the grace and guidance of the God of all the earth. The Rabshakeh argued that since none among all the gods of the nations had been able to deliver those nations from Assyria, how could Hezekiah expect the Lord to deliver him? (v.35).
However, the people did not question him or argue with him. They answered nothing, for Hezekiah had so instructed them (v.36). Thus the whole matter was left in God’s hand. They could wait His time to intervene as He saw fit. Eliakim, Shebna and Joah brought to Hezekiah the report of what the Rabshakeh had said. They did so in a spirit of self-judgment, with their clothes torn, not in bitter animosity, nor in any spirit of self-confidence, but rather in the lowly humility that realised they had no power of their own, and were instead concerned that God Himself would intervene on their behalf.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
1. Hezekiah’s goodness 18:1-12
Hezekiah began reigning as his father Ahaz’s vice-regent in 729 B.C. and ruled as such for 14 years. In 715 B.C. he began his sole rule over Judah that lasted until 697 B.C. (18 years). He then reigned with his son Manasseh who served as his vice-regent for 11 more years (697-686 B.C.). His 29-year reign (2Ki 18:2) was from 715-686 B.C. [Note: See J. Barton Payne, "The Relationship of the Reign of Ahaz to the Accession of Hezekiah," Bibliotheca Sacra 125:501 (1969):40-52; and Andrew Steinmann, "The Chronology of 2 Kings 15-18," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:4 (December 1987):391-97.]
The writer recorded that only three other kings did right as David had done: Asa (1Ki 15:11), Jehoshaphat (2Ch 17:3), and Josiah (2Ki 22:1-2). These were the other three of Judah’s four reforming kings. The only other king, beside Hezekiah, that the writer said removed the high places (2Ki 18:4), was Jehoshaphat (2Ch 17:6). Someone must have rebuilt them after Hezekiah removed them. Nehushtan (2Ki 18:4) was the name that someone had given to Moses’ bronze serpent. This word in Hebrew sounds similar to the Hebrew words for bronze, snake, and unclean thing. The Israelites had come to worship the object that had been a symbol of Yahweh’s healing grace.
Regarding his faith, Hezekiah was the greatest Judahite king (2Ki 18:5). He did not depart from Yahweh later in life (2Ki 18:6). Consequently God’s blessing rested on him (2Ki 18:7; cf. 2 Chronicles 29-31). His rebellion against Sennacherib (2Ki 18:7) precipitated Assyria’s invasion of Judah (2Ki 18:3 to 2Ki 19:36). This was a reversal of his father Ahaz’s policy of allying with Assyria (2Ki 16:7-9). God gave him consistent victory over the Philistines (2Ki 18:8).
2Ki 18:9-12 serve a double purpose. They relate the Assyrian defeat of Samaria to Hezekiah’s reign, and they explain again the spiritual reason for that defeat (2Ki 18:12). Hezekiah’s fourth year (2Ki 18:9) was 725 B.C., the fourth year of his coregency with Ahaz.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
HEZEKIAH
B.C. 715-686
2Ki 18:1-37
“For Ezekias had done the thing that pleased the Lord, and was strong in the ways of David his father, as Esay the prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision, had commanded him.”
– Sir 48:22
THE reign of Hezekiah was epoch-making in many respects, but especially for its religious reformation, and the relations of Judah with Assyria and with Babylon. It is also most closely interwoven with the annals of Hebrew prophecy, and acquires unwonted luster from the magnificent activity and impassioned: eloquence of the great prophet Isaiah, who merits in many ways the title of “the Evangelical Prophet,” and who was the greatest of the prophets of the Old Dispensation.
According to the notice in 2Ki 18:2, Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign in the third year of Hoshea of Israel. This, however, is practically impossible consistently with the dates that Ahaz reigned sixteen years and became king at the age of twenty, for it would then follow that Hezekiah was born when his father was a mere boy-and this although Hezekiah does not seem to have been the eldest son; for Ahaz had burnt “his son,” and, according to the Chronicler, more than one son, to propitiate Moloch. Probably Hezekiah was a boy of fifteen when he began to reign. The chronology of his reign of twenty-nine years is, unhappily, much confused.
The historian of the Kings agrees with the Chronicler, and the son of Sirach, in pronouncing upon him a high eulogy, and making him equal even to David in faithfulness. There is, however, much difference in the method of their descriptions of his doings. The historian devotes but one verse to his reformation-which probably began early in his reign, though it occupied many years. The Chronicler, on the other hand, in his three chapters manages to overlook, if not to suppress, the one incident of the reformation which is of the deepest interest. It is exactly one of those suppressions which help to create the deep misgiving as to the historic exactness of this biased and late historian. It must be regarded as doubtful whether many of the Levitic details in which he revels are or are not intended to be literally historic. Imaginative additions to literal history became common among the Jews after the Exile, and leaders of that day instinctively drew the line between moral homiletics and literal history. It may be perfectly historical that, as the Chronicler says, Hezekiah opened and repaired the Temple; gathered the priests and the Levites together, and made them cleanse themselves; offered a solemn sacrifice; reappointed the musical services; and-though this can hardly have been till after the Fall of Samaria in 722-invited all the Israelites to a solemn, but in some respects irregular, passover of fourteen days. It may be true also that he broke up the idolatrous altars in Jerusalem, and tossed their debris into the Kidron; and (again after the deportation of Israel) destroyed some of the bamoth in Israel as well as in Judah. If he re-instituted the courses of the priests, the collection of tithes, and all else that he is said to have done, {2Ch 31:2-21} he accomplished quite as much as was effected in the reign of his great-grandson Josiah. But while the Chronicler dwells on all this at such length, what induces him to omit the most significant fact of all-the destruction of the brazen serpent?
The historian tells us that Hezekiah “removed the bamoth”-the chapels on the high places, with their ephods and teraphim-whether dedicated to the worship of Jehovah or profaned by alien idolatry. That he did, or attempted, something of this kind seems certain; for the Rabshakeh, if we regard his speech as historical in its details, actually taunted him with impiety, and threatened him with the wrath of Jehovah on this very account. Yet here we are at once met with the many difficulties with which the history of Israel abounds, and which remind us at every turn that we know much less about the inner life and religious conditions of the Hebrews than we might infer from a superficial study of the historians who wrote so many centuries after the events which they describe. Over and over again their incidental notices reveal a condition of society and worship which violently collides with what seems to be their general estimate. Who, for instance, would not infer from this notice that in Judah, at any rate, the kings suppression of the “high places,” and above all of those which were idolatrous, had been tolerably thorough? How much, then, are we amazed to find that Hezekiah had not effectually desecrated even the old shrines which Solomon had erected to Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom “at the right hand of the mount of corruption”-in other words, on one of the peaks of the Mount of Olives, in full view of the walls of Jerusalem and of the Temple Hill!
“And he brake the images,” or, as the R.V more correctly renders it, “the pillars,” the matstseboth. Originally-that is, before the appearance of the Deuteronomic and the Priestly Codes-no objection seems to have been felt to the erection of a matstsebah. Jacob erected one of these baitulia or anointed stones at Bethel, with every sign of Divine approval. Moses erected twelve round his altar at Sinai. Joshua erected them in Shechem and on Mount Ebal. Hosea, in one passage, {Hos 3:4} seems to mention pillars, ephods, and teraphim as legitimate objects of desire. Whether they have any relation to obelisks, and what is their exact significance, is uncertain; but they had become objects of just suspicion in the universal tendency to idolatry, and in the deepening conviction that the second commandment required a far more rigid adherence than it had hitherto received.
“And cut down the groves”-or rather the Asherim, the wooden, and probably in some instances phallic, emblems of the nature-goddess Asherah, the goddess of fertility. She is sometimes identified with Astarte, the goddess of the moon and of love; but there is no sufficient ground for the identification. Some, indeed, doubt whether Asherah is the name of a goddess at all. They suppose that the word only means a consecrated pole or pillar, emblematic of the sacred tree.
Then comes the startling addition, “And brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it.” This addition is all the more singular because the Hebrew tense implies habitual worship. The story of the brazen serpent of the wilderness is told in Num 21:9; but not an allusion to it occurs anywhere, till now-some eight centuries later-we are told that up to this time the Children of Israel bad been in the habit of burning incense to it! Comparing Num 21:4, with Num 33:42, we find that the scene of the serpent-plague of the Exodus was either Zal-monah (“the place of the image”) or Punon, which Bochart connects with Phainoi, a place mentioned as famous for copper-mines. Moses, for unknown reasons, chose it as an innocent and potent symbol; but obviously in later days it subserved, or was mingled with, the tendency to ophiolatry, which has been fatally common in all ages in many heathen lands. It is indeed most difficult to understand a state of things in which the children of Israel habitually burned incense to this venerable relic, nor can we imagine that this was done without the cognizance and connivance of the priests. Ewald makes the conjecture that the brazen Saraph had been left at Zalmonah, and was an occasional object of Israelite adoration in pilgrimage for the purpose. There is, however, nothing more extraordinary in the prevalence of serpent-worship among the Jews than in the fact that, “in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, we (the Jews), and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, burnt incense unto the Queen of Heaven.” If this were the case, the serpent may have been brought to Jerusalem in the idolatrous reign of Ahaz. It shows an intensity of reforming zeal, and an inspired insight into the reality of things, that Hezekiah should not have hesitated to smash to pieces so interesting a relic of the oldest history of his people, rather than see it abused to idolatrous purposes. Certainly, in conduct so heroic, and hatred of idolatry so strong, the Puritans might well find sufficient authority for removing from Westminster Abbey the images of the Virgin, which, in their opinion, had been worshipped, and before which lamps had had been perpetually burned. If we can imagine an English king breaking to pieces the shrine of the Confessor in the Abbey, or a French king destroying the sacred ampulla of Rheims or the goupillon of St. Eligius, on the ground that many regarded them with superstitious reverence, we may measure the effect produced by this startling act of Puritan zeal on the part of Hezekiah.
“And he called it Nehushtan.” If this rendering-in which our A.V and R.V follow the LXX and the Vulgate-be correct, Hezekiah justified the iconoclasm by a brilliant play of words. The Hebrew words for “a serpent” (nachash) and for brass (nedwsheth) are closely akin to each other; and the king showed his just estimate of the relic which had been so shamefully abused by contemptuously designating it-as it was in itself and apart from its sacred historic associations “nehushtan,” a thing of brass. The rendering, however, is uncertain, for the phrase may be impersonal-“one” or “they” called it Nehushtan-in which case the assonance had lost any ironic connotation.
For this act of purity of worship, and for other reasons, the historian calls Hezekiah the best of all the kings of Judah, superior alike to all his predecessors and all his successors. He regarded him as coming up to the Deuteronomic ideal, and says that therefore “the Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth.”
The date of this great reformation is rendered uncertain by the impossibility of ascertaining the exact order of Isaiahs prophecies. The most probable view is that it was gradual, and some of the kings most effective measures may not have been carried out till after the deliverance from Assyria. It is clear, however, that the wisdom of Hezekiah and his counselors began from the first to uplift Judah from the degradation and decrepitude to which it had sunk under the reign of Ahaz. The boy-king found a wretched state of affairs at his accession. His father had bequeathed to him “an empty treasury, a ruined peasantry, an unprotected frontier, and a shattered army”; but although he was still the vassal of Assyria, he reverted to the ideas of his great-grandfather Uzziah. He strengthened the city, and enabled it to stand a siege by improving the water supply. Of these labors we have, in all probability, a most interesting confirmation in the inscription by Hezekiahs engineers, discovered in 1880, on the rocky walls of the subterranean tunnel (siloh) between the spring of Gihon and the Pool of Siloam. He encouraged agriculture, the storage of produce, and the proper tendance of flocks and herds, so that he acquired wealth which dimly reminded men of the days of Solomon.
There is little doubt that he early meditated revolt from Assyria; for renewed faithfulness to Jehovah had elevated the moral tone, and therefore the courage and hopefulness, of the whole people. The Forty-Sixth Psalm, whatever may be its date, expresses the invincible spirit of a nation which in its penitence and self-purification began to feel itself irresistible, and could sing:-
“God is our hope and strength,
A very present help in trouble.
Therefore will we not fear, though the earth be moved,
Though the hills be carried into the midst of the sea,
There is a river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God,
The Holy City where dwells the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; therefore shall she not be shaken;
God shall help her, and that right early.
Heathens raged and kingdoms trembled:
He lifted His voice-the earth melted away.
Jehovah of Hosts is with us;
Elohim of Jacob is our refuge.” {Psa 46:1-11}
It was no doubt the spirit of renewed confidence which led Hezekiah to undertake his one military enterprise-the chastisement of the long-troublesome Philistines. He was entirely successful. He not only won back the cities which his father had lost, {2Ch 28:18} but he also dispossessed them of their own cities, even unto Gaza, which was their southernmost possession-“from the tower of the watchman to the fenced city.” There can be no doubt that this act involved an almost open defiance of the Assyrian King; but if Hezekiah dreamed of independence, it was essential for him to be free from the raids and the menace of a neighbor so dangerous as Philistia, and so inveterately hostile. It is not improbable that he may have devoted to this war the money which would otherwise have gone to pay the tribute to Shalmaneser or Sargon, which had been continued since the date of the appeal of Ahaz to Tiglath-Pileser II. When Sargon applied for the tribute Hezekiah refused it, and even omitted to send the customary present.
It is clear that in this line of conduct the king was following the exhortations of Isaiah. It showed no small firmness of character that he was able to choose a decided course amid the chaos of contending counsels. Nothing but a most heroic courage could have enabled him at any period of his reign to defy that dark cloud of Assyrian war which ever loomed on the horizon, and from which but little sufficed to elicit the destructive lightning-flash.
There were three permanent parties in the Court of Hezekiah, each incessantly trying to sway the king to its own counsels, and each representing those counsels as indispensable to the happiness, and even to the existence, of the State.
I. There was the Assyrian party, urging with natural vehemence that the fierce northern king was as irresistible in power as he was terrible in vengeance. The fearful cruelties which had been committed at Beth-Arbel, the devastation and misery of the Trans-Jordanic tribes, the obliteration and deportation of the heavily afflicted districts of Zebulon, Naphtali, and the way of the sea in Galilee of the nations, the already inevitable and imminent destruction of Samaria and her king and the whole Northern Kingdom, together with that certain deportation of its inhabitants of which the fatal policy had been established by Tiglath-Pileser, would constitute weighty arguments against resistance. Such considerations would appeal powerfully to the panic of the despondent section of the community, which was only actuated, as most men are, by considerations of ordinary political expediency. The foul apparition of the Ninevites, which for five centuries afflicted the nations, is now only visible to us in the bas-reliefs and inscriptions unearthed from their burnt palaces. There they live before us in their own sculptures, with their “thickset, sensual figures,” and the expression of calm and settled ferocity on their faces, exhibiting a frightful nonchalance as they look on at the infliction of diabolical atrocities upon their vanquished enemies. But in the eighth century before Christ they were visible to all the eastern world in the exuberance of the most brutal parts of the nature of man. Men had heard how, a century earlier, Assurnazipal boasted that he had “dyed the mountains of the Nairi with blood like wool”; how he had flayed captive kings alive, and dressed pillars with their skins; how he had walled up others alive, or impaled them on stakes; how he had burnt boys and girls alive, put out eyes, cut off hands, feet, ears, and noses, pulled out the tongues of his enemies, and “at the command of Assur his god” had flung their limbs to vultures and eagles, to dogs and bears. The Jews, too, must have realized with a vividness which is to us impossible the cruel nature of the usurper Sargon. He is represented on his monuments as putting out with his own hands the eyes of his miserable captives; while, to prevent them from flinching when the spear which he holds in his hand is plunged into their eye-sockets, a hook is inserted through their nose and lips and held fast with a bridle. Can we not imagine the pathos with which this party would depict such horrors to the tremblers of Judah? Would they not bewail the fanaticism which led the prophets to seduce their king into the suicidal policy of defying such a power? To these men the sole path of national safety lay in continuing to be quiet vassals and faithful tributaries of these destroyers of cities and treaders-down of foes.
II. Then there was the Egyptian party, headed probably by the powerful Shebna, the chancellor. His foreign name, the fact that his father is not mentioned, and the question of Isaiah-“What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a sepulcher here?”-seem to indicate that he was by birth a foreigner, perhaps a Syrian. The prophet, indignant at his powerful interference with domestic politics, threatens him, in words of tremendous energy, with exile and degradation. He lost his place of chancellor, and we next find him in the inferior, though still honorable, office of secretary, {sopher, 2Ki 18:18} while Eliakim had been promoted to his vacant place (Isa 22:21). Perhaps he may have afterwards repented, and the doom have been lightened. Circumstances at any rate reduced him from the scornful spirit which seems to have marked his earlier opposition to the prophetic counsels, and perhaps the powerful warning and menace of Isaiah may have exercised an influence on his mind.
III. The third party, if it could even be called a party, was that of Isaiah and a few of the faithful, aided no doubt by the influence of the prophecies of Micah. Their attitude to both the other parties was antagonistic.
1. As regards the Assyrian, they did not attempt to minimize the danger. They represented the peril from the kingdom of Nineveh as Gods appointed scourge for the transgressions of Judah, as it had been for the transgressions of Israel.
Thus Micah sees in imagination the terrible march of the invader by Gath, Akko, Beth-le-Aphrah, Maroth, Lachish, and Lamentations. He plays with bitter anguish on the name of each town as an omen of humiliation and ruin, and calls on Zion to make herself bald for the children of her delight, and to enlarge her baldness as the vultures, because they are gone into captivity. He turns fiercely on the greedy grandees, the false prophets, the blood-stained princes, the hireling priests, the bribe-taking soothsayers, who were responsible for the guilt which should draw down the vengeance. He ends with the fearful prophecy-which struck a chill into mens hearts a century later, and had an important influence on Jewish history-“Therefore, because of you shall Zion be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem become ruins, and the hill of the Temple as heights in the wood”; -though there should be an ultimate deliverance from Migdal-Eder, and a remnant should be saved.
Similar to Micahs, and possibly not uninfluenced by it, is Isaiahs imaginary picture of the march of Assyria, which must have been full of terror to the poor inhabitants of Jerusalem.
“He is come to Aiath!
He is passed through Migron!
At Michmash he layeth up his baggage:
They are gone over the pass:
Geba, they cry, is our lodging.
Ramah trembleth:
Gibeah of Saul is fled!
Raise thy shrill cries O daughter of Gallim!
Hearken, O Laishah! Answer her, O Anathoth!
Madmenah is in wild flight (?).
The inhabitants of Gebim gather their stuff to flee.
This very day shall he halt at Nob.
He shaketh hishand at the mount of the daughter of Zion,
The hill of Jerusalem.”
Yet Isaiah, and the little band of prophets, in spite of their perils, did not share the views of the Assyrian party or counsel submission. On the contrary, even as they contemplate in imagination this terrific march of Sargon, they threaten Assyria. The Assyrian might smite Judah, but God should smite the Assyrians. He boasts that he will rifle the riches of the people as one robs the eggs of a trembling bird, which does not dare to cheep or move the wing. But Isaiah tells him that he is but the axe boasting against the hewer, and the wooden staff lifting itself up against its wielder. Burning should be scattered over his glory. The Lord of hosts should lop his boughs with terror, and a mighty one should hew down the crashing forest of his haughty Lebanon.
2. Still more indignant were the true prophets against those who trusted in an alliance with Egypt. From first to last Isaiah warned Ahaz, and warned Hezekiah, that no reliance was to be placed on Egyptian promises-that Egypt was but like the reed of his own Nile. He mocked the hopes placed on Egyptian intervention as being no less sure of disannulment than a covenant with death and an agreement with Sheol. This rebellious reliance on the shadow of Egypt was but the weaving of an unrighteous web, and the adding of sin to sin. It should lead to nothing but shame and confusion, and the Jewish ambassadors to Zoan and Egypt should only have to blush for a people that could neither help nor profit. And then branding Egypt with the old insulting name of Rahab, or “Blusterer,” he says, –
“Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose.
Therefore have I called her Rahab, that sitteth still.”
Indolent braggart-that was the only designation which she deserved! Intrigue and braggadocio-smoke and lukewarm water, -this was all which could be expected from her!
Such teaching was eminently distasteful to the worldly politicians, who regarded faith in Jehovahs intervention as no better than ridiculous fanaticism, and forgot Gods Wisdom in the inflated self-satisfaction of their own. The priests-luxurious, drunken, scornful-were naturally with them. Men were fine and stylish, and in their religious criticisms could not express too lofty a contempt for any one who, like Isaiah, was too sincere to care for the mere polishing of phrases, and too much in earnest to shrink from reiteration. In their self-indulgent banquets these sleek, smug euphemists made themselves very merry over Isaiahs simplicity, reiteration, and directness of expression. With hiccoughing insolence they asked whether they were to be treated like weaned babes; and then wagging their heads, as their successors did at Christ upon the cross, they indulged themselves in a mimicry, which they regarded as witty, of Isaiahs style and manner. With him they said it is all, – which may be imitated thus:-With him it is always “Bit and bit, bid and bid, forbid and forbid, forbid and forbid, a little bit here, a little bit there.” Monosyllable is heaped on monosyllable; and no doubt the speakers tipsily adopted the tones of fond mothers addressing their babes and weanlings. Using the Hebrew words, one of these shameless roysterers would say, “Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav, quav-la-quav, quav-la-quav, Zeir sham, Zeir sham, -that is how that simpleton Isaiah speaks.” And then doubtless a drunken laugh would go round the table, and half a dozen of them would be saying thus, “Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav, ” at once. They derided Isaiah just as the philosophers of Athens derided St. Paul-as a mere spermologos, ” a seed-pecker!” {Act 17:18} or “picker-up of learnings crumbs.” Is all this petty monosyllabism fit teaching for persons like us? Are we to be taught by copybooks? Do we need the censorship of this Old Morality?
On whom, full of the fire of God, Isaiah turned, and told these scornful tipplers, who lorded it over Gods heritage in Jerusalem, that, since they disdained his stammerings, God would teach them by men of strange lips and alien tongue. They might mimic the style of the Assyrians also if they liked; but they should fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. {Isa 28:7-22}
It must not be forgotten that the struggle of the prophets against these parties was far more severe than we might suppose. The politicians of expediency had supporters among the leading princes. The priests-whom the prophets so constantly and sternly denounce-adhered to them; and, as usual, the women were all of the priestly party. {comp. Isa 32:9-20} The king indeed was inclined to side with his prophet, but the king was terribly overshadowed by a powerful and worldly aristocracy, of which the influence was almost always on the side of luxury, idolatry, and oppression.
3. But what had Isaiah to offer in the place of the policy of these worldly and sacerdotal advisers of the king? It was the simple command “Trust in the Lord.” It was the threefold message “God is high; God is near; God is Love.” Had he not told Ahaz not to fear the “stumps of two smouldering torches,” when Rezin and Pekah seemed awfully dangerous to Judah? So he tells them now that, though their sins had necessitated the rushing stroke of Assyrian judgment, Zion should not be utterly destroyed. In Isaiah “the calmness requisite for sagacity rose from faith.” Mr. Bagehot might have appealed to Isaiahs whole policy in illustration of what he has so well described as the military and political benefits of religion. Monotheism is of advantage to men not only “by reason of the high concentration of steady feeling which it produces, but also for the mental calmness and sagacity which surely spring from a pure and vivid conviction that the Lord reigneth.” Isaiahs whole conviction might have been summed up in the name of the king himself: “Jehovah maketh strong.”
King Hezekiah, apparently not a man of much personal force, though of sincere piety, was naturally distracted by the counsels of these three parties: and who can judge him severely if, beset with such terrific dangers, he occasionally wavered, now to one side, now to the other? On the whole, it is clear that he was wise and faithful, and deserves the high eulogy that his faith failed not. Naturally he had not within his soul that burning light of inspiration which made Isaiah so sure that, even though clouds and darkness might lower on every side, God was an eternal Sun, which flamed forever in the zenith, even when not visible to any eye save that of Faith.