Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 19:1
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.
Ch. 2Ki 19:1-7. Hezekiah sends messengers to Isaiah. Isaiah’s answer in the name of the Lord. (Not in Chronicles. Isa 37:1-7)
1. Hezekiah covered himself with sackcloth ] No doubt the words which his messengers reported were such as to tell upon the king, especially that saying of Rab-shakeh ‘The Lord said unto me, Go up against this place and destroy it’. The king was struck with horror as much as his counsellors. But he feels that he has in his council one who has long been known as God’s messenger to Judah. So while he himself falls to humiliation and prayer, going for that purpose into the house of the Lord, he sends his servants to enquire of the prophet what hope there is amid the terrible attack which may very soon be upon them.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Hezekiah, like his officers, probably rent his clothes on account of Rab-shakehs blasphemies: and he put on sackcloth in self-humiliation and in grief. The only hope left was in Yahweh, for Egypt could not be trusted to effect anything of importance. Rab-shakehs boldness had told upon Hezekiah. He was dispirited and dejected. He perhaps began to doubt whether he had done right in yielding to the bolder counsels of Eliakim and Isaiah. He had not lost his faith in God; but his faith was being severely tried. He wisely went and strove by prayer to strengthen it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 19:1-37
And it came to pass when King Hezekiah heard it, he rent his clothes.
A nations calamities, counsellor, and God
I. The exposure of a nation to an overwhelming calamity.
1. The nature of the threatened calamity. It was the invasion of the king of Assyria. This was announced in startling terms and in a haughty and ruthless spirit by Rab-shakeh.
2. The influence of the threatened calamity.
(1) It struck the kingdom with a crushing terror.
(2) It struck the kingdom with a helpless feebleness.
II. The blessing to a nation of a ruler who looks to heaven for help. What, in the wretched condition of his country, does King Hezekiah do? He invokes the merciful interposition of heaven. In this wonderful prayer
(1) He adores the God whom Sennacherib had blasphemed.
(2) He implores the Almighty for His own sake to deliver the country.
III. The advantage to a nation of a truly wise counsellor. Whether Isaiah was a Divinely inspired man, and had a right in any especial sense to say, Thus saith the Lord, or not, he may be fairly taken in this ease as the representative of a wise counsellor, and that for two reasons:–
1. He looked to heaven rather than to earth for his wisdom.
2. What he received from heaven he communicated to men. In the communication
(1) Sennacherib is apostrophised in a highly poetic strain admirably descriptive of the turgid vanity, haughty pretensions, and heartless impiety of this despot.
(2) Hezekiah himself is personally addressed, and a sign given him of coming deliverance.
(3) The issue of Sennacheribs invasion is announced. Such was the communication which in language passionate, poetic, and powerful, Isaiah made to this perplexed and terrified nation. It involves two things: The deliverance of his country; the ruin of the despot.
IV. The strength of a nation that has God on its side. Who delivered the imperilled nation? Who overwhelmed the despot? The zeal of the Lord of hosts.
1. How swiftly was the deliverance effected. That night.
2. How terrible the ruin which that deliverance effected–An hundred fourscore and five thousand men destroyed. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XIX
Hezekiah is greatly distressed, and sends to Isaiah to pray for
him, 1-4.
Isaiah returns a comfortable answer, and predicts the
destruction of the king of Assyria and his army, 5-8.
Sennacherib, hearing that his kingdom was invaded by the
Ethiopians, sends a terrible letter to Hezekiah, to induce
him to surrender, 9-13.
Hezekiah goes to the temple, spreads the letter before the
Lord, and makes a most affecting prayer, 14-19.
Isaiah is sent to him to assure him that his prayer is heard;
that Jerusalem shall be delivered; and that the Assyrians
shall be destroyed, 20-34.
That very night a messenger of God slays one hundred and
eighty-five thousand Assyrians, 35.
Sennacherib returns to Nineveh, and is slain by his own sons,
36, 37.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIX
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1-3. when king Hezekiah heard it, herent his clothesThe rending of his clothes was a mode ofexpressing horror at the daring blasphemythe assumption ofsackcloth a sign of his mental distresshis entrance into thetemple to pray the refuge of a pious man in afflictionand theforwarding an account of the Assyrian’s speech to Isaiah was toobtain the prophet’s counsel and comfort. The expression in which themessage was conveyed described, by a strong figure, the desperatecondition of the kingdom, together with their own inability to helpthemselves; and it intimated also a hope, that the blasphemousdefiance of Jehovah’s power by the impious Assyrian might lead tosome direct interposition for the vindication of His honor andsupremacy to all heathen gods.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it,…. The report of Rabshakeh’s speech, recorded in the preceding chapter,
that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth; rent his clothes because of the blasphemy in the speech; and he put on sackcloth, in token of mourning, for the calamities he feared were coming on him and his people: and he went into the house of the Lord; the temple, to pray unto him. The message he sent to Isaiah, with his answer, and the threatening letter of the king of Assyria, Hezekiah’s prayer upon it, and the encouraging answer he had from the Lord, with the account of the destruction of the Assyrian army, and the death of Sennacherib, are the same “verbatim” as in Isa 37:1 throughout; and therefore the reader is referred thither for the exposition of them; only would add what Rauwolff t observes, that still to this day (1575) there are two great holes to be seen, wherein they flung the dead bodies (of the Assyrian army), one whereof is close by the road towards Bethlehem, the other towards the right hand against old Bethel.
t Travels, par. 3. ch. 22. p. 317.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
When Hezekiah had heard from his counsellors the report of Rabshakeh’s words, he rent his clothes with horror at his daring mockery of the living God (2Ki 19:4), put on mourning clothes as a sign of the trouble of his soul and went into the temple, and at the same time sent Eliakim and Shebna with the oldest of the priests in mourning costume to the prophet Isaiah, to entreat him to intercede with the Lord in these desperate circumstances.
(Note: “ But the most wise king did not meet his blasphemies with weapons, but with prayer, and tears, and sackcloth, and entreated the prophet Isaiah to be his ambassador. ” – Theodoret.)
The order of the words: Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, is unusual (cf. 2Ki 14:25; 2Ki 20:1; 1Ki 16:7, etc.), and is therefore altered in Isaiah into Isaiah the son of Amoz, the prophet.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Hezekiah’s Sends to Isaiah. | B. C. 710. |
1 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. 2 And 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. 3 And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth. 4 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. 5 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 of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. 7 Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.
The contents of Rabshakeh’s speech being brought to Hezekiah, one would have expected (and it is likely Rabshakeh did expect) that he would call a council of war and it would be debated whether it was best to capitulate or no. Before the siege, he had taken counsel with his princes and his mighty men, 2 Chron. xxxii. 3. But that would not do now; his greatest relief is that he has a God to go to, and what passed between him and his God on this occasion we have here an account of.
I. Hezekiah discovered a deep concern at the dishonour done to God by Rabshakeh’s blasphemy. When he heard it, though at second hand, he rent his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth, v. 1. Good men were wont to do so when they heard of any reproach cast on God’s name; and great men must not think it any disparagement to them to sympathize with the injured honour of the great God. Royal robes are not too good to be rent, nor royal flesh too good to be clothed with sackcloth, in humiliation for indignities done to God and for the perils and terrors of his Jerusalem. To this God now called, and was displeased with those who were not thus affected. Isa. xxii. 12-14, Behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen and killing sheep, though it was a day of trouble and perplexity in the valley of vision (v. 5), which refers to this very event. The king was in sackcloth, but many of his subjects were in soft clothing.
II. He went up to the house of the Lord, according to the example of the psalmist, who, when he was grieved at the pride and prosperity of the wicked, went into the sanctuary of God and there understood their end, Ps. lxxiii. 17. He went to the house of God, to meditate and pray, and get his spirit into a sedate composed frame, after this agitation. He was not considering what answer to return to Rabshakeh, but refers the matter to God. “Thou shalt answer, Lord, for me.“–Herbert. In the house of the Lord he found a place both of rest and refuge, a treasury, a magazine, a council-chamber, and all he needed, all in God. Note, When the church’s enemies are very daring and threatening it is the wisdom and duty of the church’s friends to apply to God, appeal to him, and leave their cause with him.
III. He sent to the prophet Isaiah, by honourable messengers, in token of the great respect he had for him, to desire his prayers, v. 2-4. Eliakim and Shebna were two of those that had heard the words of Rabshakeh and were the better able both to acquaint and to affect Isaiah with the case. The elders of the priests were themselves to pray for the people in time of trouble (Joel ii. 17); but they must go to engage Isaiah’s prayers, because he could pray better and had a better interest in heaven. The messengers were to go in sackcloth, because they were to represent the king, who was so clothed.
1. Their errand to Isaiah was, “Lift up thy prayer for the remnant that is left, that is, for Judah, which is but a remnant now that the ten tribes are gone–for Jerusalem, which is but a remnant now that the defenced cities of Judah are taken.” Note, (1.) It is very desirable, and what we should be desirous of when we are in trouble, to have the prayers of our friends for us. In begging to have them we honour God, we honour prayer, and we honour our brethren. (2.) When we desire the prayers of others for us we must not think we are excused from praying for ourselves. When Hezekiah sent to Isaiah to pray for him he himself went into the house of the Lord to offer up his own prayers. (3.) Those who speak from God to us we should in a particular manner desire to speak to God for us. He is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, Gen. xx. 7. The great prophet is the great intercessor. (4.) Those are likely to prevail with God that lift up their prayers, that is, that lift up their hearts in prayer. (5.) When the interests of God’s church are brought very low, so that there is but a remnant left, few friends, and those weak and at a loss, then it is time to lift up our prayer for that remnant.
2. Two things are urged to Isaiah, to engage his prayers for them:– (1.) Their fears of the enemy (v. 3): “He is insolent and haughty; it is a day of rebuke and blasphemy. We are despised. God is dishonoured. Upon this account it is a day of trouble. Never were such a king and kingdom so trampled on and abused as we are: our soul is exceedingly filled with the contempt of the proud, and it is a sword in our bones to hear them reproach our confidence in God, and say, Where is now your God? and, which is worst of all, we see not which way we can help ourselves and get clear of the reproach. Our cause is good, our people are faithful; but we are quite overpowered with numbers. The children are brought to the birth; now is the time, the critical moment, when, if ever, we must be relieved. One successful blow given to the enemy would accomplish our wishes. But, alas! we are not able to give it: There is not strength to bring forth. Our case is as deplorable, and calls for as speedy help, as that of a woman in travail, that is quite spent with her throes, so that she has not strength to bear the child. Compare with this Hos. xiii. 13. We are ready to perish; if thou canst do any thing, have compassion upon us and help us.” (2.) Their hopes in God. To him they look, on him they depend, to appear for them. One word from him will turn the scale, and save the sinking remnant. If he but reprove the words of Rabshakeh (that is, disprove them, v. 4)– if he undertake to convince and confound the blasphemer–all will be well. And this they trust he will do, not for their merit’s sake, but for his own honour’s sake, because he has reproached the living God, by levelling him with deaf and dumb idols. They have reason to think the issue will be good, for they can interest God in the quarrel. Ps. lxxiv. 22, Arise O God! plead thy own cause. “He is the Lord thy God,” say they to Isaiah–“thine, whose glory thou art concerned for, and whose favour thou art interested in. He has heard and known the blasphemous words of Rabshakeh, and therefore, it may be, he will hear and rebuke them. We hope he will. Help us with thy prayers to bring the cause before him, and then we are content to leave it with him.”
IV. God, by Isaiah, sent to Hezekiah, to assure him that he would glorify himself in the ruin of the Assyrians. Hezekiah sent to Isaiah, not to enquire concerning the event, as many did that sent to the prophets (Shall I recover? or the like), but to desire his assistance in his duty. It was this that he was solicitous about; and therefore God let him know what the event should be, in recompence of his care to do his duty, 2Ki 19:6; 2Ki 19:7. 1. God interested himself in the cause: They have blasphemed me. 2. He encouraged Hezekiah, who was much dismayed: Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard; they are but words (though swelling and fiery words), and words are but wind. 3. He promised to frighten the king of Assyria worse than Rabshakeh had frightened him: “I will send a blast upon him (that pestilential breath which killed his army), upon which terrors shall seize him and drive him into his own country, where death shall meet him.” This short threatening from the mouth of God would do execution, when all the impotent menaces that came from Rabshakeh’s mouth would vanish into air.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 19
Verbal Exchanges – Verses 1-13
The report from his messengers of the words of Sennacherib’s servants had a distressing effect on King Hezekiah. Like them he rent his clothes and put on sackcloth, the symbol of sorrow and repentance. He then went to the house of the Lord to pray. Meanwhile he sent Eliakim and Shebna to Isaiah to appeal to him to intercede with the Lord for Judah. The elders, dressed in sackcloth, were also sent to Isaiah. They were to carry him a message from the king which began with a characterization of the time as “a day of trouble, rebuke and blasphemy.” Judah was in deep trouble, suffering the rebuke of the Lord for her sins, and undergoing blasphemous mockery of their God on the cart of the pagan invaders.
Hezekiah’s proverb is very meaningful, “The children are come to birth, and there is not strength to bang forth.” The figure is of a woman in long labor of childbirth. Her baby has come to the moment of birth, and she is too weakened and exhausted to bear it. Judah had defied Sennacherib, built up her resources, placed full confidence in God. Her effort is exhausted, and she cannot do more to resist Sennacherib. King, officers, elders, and prophet must have the strength of the Lord to be delivered. They hope the Lord, having heard the blasphemous reproach of Sennacherib’s men, would reprove them by delivering Jerusalem. for they had said He could not do it. They implored Isaiah.to lift up his prayer to God on their behalf.
Isaiah sent them back with a message of reassurance. They were to tell Hezekiah not to fear the blasphemy of the king of Assyria. The Lord would blow on Sennacherib with His blast, he would hear a rumor which would cause him to return to his own country, and there he would fall by the sword in his own country.
Immediately the Lord’s prediction began to be worked out. When Rab-shakeh got back to Lachish he found Sennacherib had moved on to Libnah, another of the larger Judaean cities a few miles northwest of Lachish. The rumor was that Tirhakah, the king of Ethiopia, was coming to fight against Sennacherib. Therefore, Sennacherib, anxious to secure the capitulation of Jerusalem before the expected arrival of the Ethiopians, sent further threats to Hezekiah. He rightly surmised that Hezekiah would give his God credit for this change of affairs. He reminded the king that all of the countries attacked by the Assyrians had found them irresistible, and had been utterly destroyed. Hezekiah must not believe that his God was about to deliver Judah. Some of these nations were much stronger than Judah, and their gods were supposedly more powerful, yet they had all fallen. Sennacherib names off nine which have fallen to him. To him it is preposterous that Hezekiah thinks he will escape. But read Isaiah’s prophecy of what is about to befall this proud pagan king (Isa 28:5-6).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
JERUSALEM SUPERNATURALLY DELIVERED
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 19:2. Sent to the prophet IsaiahThe prophet, in that Jewish age, was regarded as the messenger and representative of Jehovah. While the king was entrusted to witness of the Royalty and Majesty of God, the prophet was recognized as the oracle of Divine Wisdom and Truth. Here was a crisis of eminent peril to the nation, in which the people and the Name of Jehovah were alike contemptuously menaced. It was a moment for the Word of God to come forth; so Isaiah was sought by the king.
2Ki. 19:6. And Isaiah said unto them, Be not afraidTerror met by cheerfulness; deliverance assured to Judah, destruction threatened to Assyria. The servants of the king of Assyria are called contemptuously , the young men of the king, i.e., his boastful and blasphemous generals. The literal fulfilment of these predictions proves so keen a difficulty to modern naturalism (as opposed to the supernatural) that critics are intent on discrediting these 2Ki. 19:6-7 as an interpolation. But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever.
2Ki. 19:9. He heard of Tirhakah, king of EthiopiaThis was the rumour (2Ki. 19:7). The name of Tirhakah. king of Upper Egypt, a monarch of mighty conquests, lingers still in the inscriptions in the Egyptian temple of Medinet Abon. Apprehending the arrival of this Egyptian warrior, the Assyrian king sent Hezekiah a terrifying letter urging immediate surrender.
2Ki. 19:12. The children of Eden in ThelasarNot the Eden of Amos (2Ki. 1:5), situate amid the beauties of Lebanon, but the Assyrian Eden mentioned by Ezekiel (Eze. 27:33).
2Ki. 19:14. Hezekiah spread the letter before the LordThis act has been charmingly. described by Delitsch as a prayer without words, a prayer in action, which then passes into a spoken prayer.
2Ki. 19:20. Then Isaiah sent to HezekiahWhile the king prayed, the prophet was receiving the answer. The simultaneousness of prayer and answer is emphasized. The message from God through Isaiah is a rhetorical outpouring of scorn upon the Assyrian kings pretensions, followed by direct and withering denunciations, which are sealed by minute prophecies, whose fulfilment should indicate to Hezekiah that the Lord Himself would effect the boastful blasphemers overthrow. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this (2Ki. 19:31).
2Ki. 19:29. This shall be a sign unto theeAn address to Hezekiah. The sign was that for two years the peaceful labours of husbandry would be impracticable in consequence of the enemys presence near at hand but that agriculture would proceed in quiet in the third year, labour being crowned with bounty.
2Ki. 19:32. Nor come before it with shieldPerhaps an assault, advancing with shield held in front; or, more probably, Not occupy any position before the city defended by a fence or breastworks. None of the processes of seige or war should be permitted against Jerusalem. Rawlinsons readings of the Assyrian slabs discovers extended and minute records of this expedition of Sennacherib, graphically reproducing the Scripture story of events. No account of the catastrophe is there given; the Assyrians only recounted their victories.
2Ki. 19:35. That night the angel of the Lord went out, &c.Two years interposed, during which the invasion of the land by Sennacherib went forward. That night therefore, refers to the ultimate concentration of the Assyrian army upon Jerusalem, with the intention of commencing the seige next day. The angel of the Lord, even as the destroying angel (Exo. 12:23), went forth against the first born of Egypt; and 185,000 perished. How was this effected? By the scorching simoom, which still destroys entire caravans? or, as Josephus records (Antiq. x. i. 5), ? God had sent a pestilential distemper upon his army.
2Ki. 19:37. Sennacherib slainHis reverses in battle rendered him furious; his rage and tyranny grew intolerable. Judgment fell upon him from the hands of his own sons. And a third son, Esarhaddon, came to the Assyrian throne. Berosus informs as that this Asordanus was first viceroy of Babylon, and afterwards eight years king of Assyria.W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 19:1-37
THE RESOURCES OF THE GOOD MAN IN TIME OF TROUBLE
THIS was a day of sore trouble to Hezekiah. The veteran hosts of Sennacherib, flushed with victory, invested Jerusalem, and threatened it with destruction. The expected help from Egypt was not forthcoming. The defensive resources of Hezekiah were circumscribed, and it seemed hopeless to offer resistance. He had but one refugea refuge the proud Assyrian despised: but it proved all-sufficient in the day of his calamity. The whole chapter is a striking illustration of the resources of the good man in time of trouble.
I. He seeks counsel from those who are most competent to advise him. (2Ki. 19:1-7). It is not every prince who has an Isaiah at his elbow to advise in difficulty and comfort in distress. Gods way of helping in trouble is often in directing us to the best human counsellors.
1. The good man, like Hezekiah, recognizes the need of Divine intervention (2Ki. 19:1-5). While the supercilious Assyrian trusted in his arms, Hezekiah trusted in his God. There are times when we are reduced to such straits that none but God can help us. No one sees these times with a keener eye than the good man. His common sense teaches him to exhaust all natural, human means, and not to stand wringing his hands in despair, or folding his arms in indifference; but he is aware a point is reached where all he can do is to trust: God must do the rest. It is wise to recognize this. It honours God and saves us from presumption.
2. The good man, like Hezekiah, recognizes the utility and power of prayer by a true servant of Jehovah. Wherefore lift up thy prayer, &c. (2Ki. 19:4). The heritage of Gods people is a heritage of prayers. It is a strength to us in trouble to know that our own prayers are reinforced and supplemented by the prayers of others. Every praying agency we can set in operation is a positive gain. Even the prayerless are benefited by the supplications of praying souls on their behalf. We may be receiving blessings to-day in answer to the anxious prayers of parents who are no longer with us.
3. The good man, like Hezekiah, is encouraged with the promise of Divine help (2Ki. 19:6-7). The message of Isaiah must have convinced the king of the wisdom of the course he adopted in seeking the advice and help of the prophet. Jehovah will punish the insolence of the blasphemous Assyrian, and deliver the distressed monarch from his fangs. How tenaciously we cling to the most indefinite promise of help when we are in trouble; it is the silvery rift in the cloud, the distant gleam of the squadrons rapidly hurrying to our relief. But with what calm confidence should we rest on the slightest word of the living God!
II. He is reminded of the nearness and reality of his peril (2Ki. 19:8-13). There are plenty of real dangers in life without unduly harassing ourselves with imaginary ones. If Hezekiah, with the powerful Assyrian forces encircling his only stronghold, had been tempted to regard the peril as but trifling, he would be undeceived when he received the fierce, war-breathing message of Sennacherib. The wildest threats of Rabshakeh were reiterated, and Jehovah again insulted and blasphemed. Well did Hezekiah know the terrible might of the Assyrian arms; and yet, while he trembled, he was undismayed. It is fanaticism to treat danger with indifference. It is to court defeat and ruin.
III. He resorts to God in earnest prayer (2Ki. 19:14-19). The prayer is short, but it is sublime in its style and comprehensive in its range, and burns throughout with incandescent earnestness. Its salient features are worthy of study. It is a model prayer for a distressed soul.
(1) The petitioner acknowledges the supreme Rulership of Jehovah (2Ki. 19:15).
(2) He traces the ruin of nations to their idolatry (2Ki. 19:17-18).
(3) He calls upon Jehovah to vindicate His supreme Lordship by delivering him from the threatened peril (2Ki. 19:19). Prayer is the grand refuge of the distressed; it is the passionate outcry of conscious need. The more vividly we realise our peril, the more sincere and earnest will be our prayer. In prayer, says Bunyan, it is better to have a heart without words, than words without a heart.
IV. He is assured of a signal answer to his prayer (2Ki. 19:20-34). If there were no answer, it would still be our duty to pray, though without an answer we should be in danger of becoming simply mechanical in our prayers. As by a letter Hezekiah was plunged into deepest grief, so by a letter of a different import shall his heart be made glad. This letter was written in the gorgeous imagery familiar to the gifted Isaiah. It is true a draught of water is as sweet to the thirsty, whether drank from a common earthenware vessel, or from a richly chased goblet; still, the precious fluid may be found in the one vessel as in the other. In this Divinely inspired answer Sennacherib is rebuked for his proud boasting, and his humiliation and retreat predicted; a pledge is given that Judah shall still flourish in peace and prosperity; a solemn announcement is made that Senuacherib shall utterly fail in carrying out his boasted threats, and Jehovah promises himself to defend and deliver the beleagured city. How great is the condescension of our God, in not only hearing prayer, but in assuring the suppliant of an answeran answer adequate to meet the case, turning fear into confidence, humiliation into triumph, sorrow into joy.
V. He is privileged to witness a great and miraculous deliverance (2Ki. 19:35-37). One hundred and eighty-five thousand Assyrians smitten in one night, and Sennacherib murdered by his own sons! Surely Judah is sufficiently avenged, its insults and suffering atoned, and the word of the blasphemed Jehovah solemnly vindicated. It is probable that the supernatural agent of Divine vengeance made use of a deadly plague or pestilence in the destruction of the Assyrian soldiers. Dr. Kitto contends that a simoom, or hot pestilential wind, was the destroying agent. Whatever the means used, the awful fact that so many perished cannot be explained away. Herodotus refers to it in his history, though in a legendary form, when he relates:As the two armies (Egyptian and Assyrian) lay opposite one another, there came in the night a multitude of field mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the Assyrians, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their flight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. Jehovah is not restricted to any one method in punishing his enemies.
LESSONS:
1. Prayer is the best refuge of the distressed.
2. National calamities give anxiety to the true-hearted monaroh.
3. Sincere prayer is never offered in vain.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 19:1. O the noble piety of Hezekiah! Notwithstanding all the straits of the siege and the danger of so powerful an enemy, I find not the garments of this good king any otherwise than whole and unchanged; but now, so soon as blasphemy is uttered against the majesty of his God, though by a pagan dog, his clothes are torn and turned into sackcloth. There can be no better argument of an upright heart than to be more sensible of the indignities offered to God than of our own dangers. The more we see Gods name profaned, the more shall we, if we be truly religious, love and honour it.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 19:2-7; 2Ki. 19:20-34. Isaiah a sublime example of a great prophet.
1. Was himself unmoved and confident while king and court were perplexed and distressed.
2. His influence and power were fully recognized in the depth of the national crisis.
3. Was familiar with the intentions of Jehovah, and rejoiced in vindicating His character.
4. His predictions were couched in terms of inimitable grace and dignity.
2Ki. 19:2-7. A sorrowful embassy.
1. Its external appearance was symbolic of the desperate straits of the nation and its leaders.
2. It was sent to the only man who seemed able to advise in the emergency.
3. It returned with a message that inspired confidence and hope.
2Ki. 19:4. Pray to thine utmost, strive and strain, tug hard and bestir thee all that may be. Prayer is a laborious exercise; and as a man that would be good at lifting must set his sides and shoulders to work, he must also often use himself to lifting, so here. This gets a dexterity, a handiness to the work.Trapp.
2Ki. 19:8-13. The arrogance of power.
1. Is fed by military successes.
2. Is exasperated by resistance.
3. Is imperious and blustering in its demands.
4. Refuses to acknowledge any power superior to itself.
2Ki. 19:8-19. The two contrasted kings: Sennacherib and Hezekiahthe godless and the just.
I. Sennacherib, who sees himself in peril and obliged to retreat by the approach of Tirhakah, does not on that account become more modest and humble, but only more obstinate and arrogant. This 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. 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.
II. 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. He asks, Where is the God of Hamath? &c. But where is now Sennacherib, who talked so proudly? He is gone like chaff before the wind, for the way of the godless shall perish. 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 honour, but that of the Lord, in whom he puts his confidence. The greater the cross, the greater the faith. The palm grows under weight. Sweetness flows from the grape when it is well trodden.Lange.
2Ki. 19:14. A king in trouble. It is evident that Sennacherib did not desire to make peace with Hezekiah. The destruction of Jerusalem would have been of great advantage to the Assyrians; to have left that strong city unsubdued behind them as they advanced towards Egypt would have been impolitic and unsafe. So Sennacherib determined to destroy it, and sent a letter full of boastful arrogance, threats, blasphemy, false insinuations, and insults to its king.
I. Hezekiahs trouble.
1. Kings cannot escape the scorching sparks of trouble that fly in all directions from the burning wheels of life. Palatial walls are often no barrier, and perfumed chambers are no relief. Trouble, like death, enters all dwellings. The higher the station, the greater the liability to woe. Storms howl on mountain tops when sunshine gilds the plain. Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown. The lofty pine the great wind often rives.
2. Neither does piety prevent trouble. Hezekiah had manifested the most ardent zeal for the worship of Jehovah. He walked before God in truth and righteousness. And yet this trouble fell upon him. Trouble is not an absolute evil. If it were, the pious would escape it. It is an angel in dishabille stooping to serve us. Celestial benedictions often assume dark disguises. Trouble is a divine factor in human life. Divine diet, as an old writer phrases it, is as necessary for moral growth and strength as daily food is for our physical natures. Trouble is often a proof of Gods interest in us. The best need discipline. The pious are often more benefited by trouble than by joy.
3. Trouble, too, may arise, not from our own wrong-doings, but from the wrong-doings of others. Sennacheribs lawless ambitions then troubled the whole earth. God uses evil men to discipline his saints. Our troubles are shaped by God. He controls them, though they appear wild and formless. Men rage like a storm, but we may be
Assured that He, who from the tempests neck
Hath loosed his grasp, still holds it at His beck;
And with a pulse too deep for mortal sense,
The secret pulse of His omnipotence,
That beats through every motion of the storm,
Can check destruction in its wildest form.
The hand that holds these sharp threshing instruments, these pruning knives, these fashioning chisels, is a firm one, and guided by infinite wisdom. God knew what Hezekiah needed. God used Sennacherib to discipline him.
4. Great troubles may be conveyed to us by insignificant means. A letter only was received, and yet what a universe of woe there was in it. Only a letter! But it has crushed a noble spirit, broken a mothers heart, cast a man upon the earth writhing in unutterable anguish, blotted out his lifes sun, and driven him forth an exile to wander over a dark and desolate waste for ever. Only a letter! But who can tell what troubles the reception of a letter may convey? Postmen often carry social torpedoes in their bags. But, further, what was the trouble which now distressed Hezekiah?
1. The threatened loss of his kingdom. Men cling to their possessions. They have an instinct to retain as well as gain. Loss is always painful. To lose his kingdom was to lose his all.
2. The threatened loss of his position. None like to be compelled to abdicate, even if his throne be only the chief seat in the synagogue, the vestry hall, the market-place, or the workshop. Men grip high places tenaciously. Dread of social humiliation will blacken lifes fairest pictures. Hezekiah saw before him the loss of all his greatness and honour.
3. Threatened captivity or death. To grace a conquerors triumph, to pine away in a dungeon, or to endure a cruel death, would most probably be his lot if he were not delivered from his powerful foe. Little mercy was shown to the conquered in those days. A dark doom stared him in the face. That which men hold most dearliberty and lifewere imperilled.
4. Possible demolition of the royal city. Imperial cities have ever been dear to monarchs. The most heartless have wept over their destruction. Jerusalem was dear to every Jew. It was especially so to its kings. Hezekiah had fortified and beautified it. Its threatened destruction would fill him with dismay.
5. The ruin and exile of his people. Hezekiah felt deeply for his peoples welfare. Under his reign they had enjoyed much peace and prosperity. That they should be exposed to the brutalities of an invading host, their houses and vineyards destroyed, and themselves ultimately carried away captive into a strange land, would overwhelm him with grief. Such a Calamity seemed nigh.
6. The dishonour of Jehovah. Sennacherib had insulted God, and Hezekiahs pious heart burned with a holy indignation. If Jerusalem were taken, Gods holy and beautiful house would be profaned, His glory tarnished, and His worship which had been lately restored, obliterated from the earth. These were the bitter elements thrown into his chalice of grief. With a heavy heart he wended his way to the house of God, taking the letter with him.
II. Hezekiahs refuge.All men have not a Divine refuge in trouble. The irreligious cannot rush into the sheltering arms of God. If earthly refuge fails, they are like a ship caught in the tempest without anchor or haven; a warrior exposed to his enemies without shield or fortress; a traveller under the pelting storm without covert or home. Earthly refuges are insufficient in times of extreme peril. Lifes insecurities throw us on God. The pious have an advantage over the godless in hours of trial: they can use every means of protection and help which the irreligious have, and then shelter themselves in God. Hezekiah had availed himself of every earthly defence. He had done all that a wise monarch could do to defend his city, and after this, he committed his cause to God. Fanaticism despises means, but true faith uses them, and then soars above them to rest in omnipotence.
1. Hezekiah sought God in his refuge in the Temple. He went there because, in that holy place, God more particularly manifested Himself. Special promises were given to those who prayed within its sacred precincts. Hezekiah had often beheld the Divine glory there. It was his accustomed place of worship. His trouble had not driven him there, as trouble often drives one to the sauctuary. He went there because he believed that he would find God most easily in that place. Helpful memories often crowd upon us in places where we have often prayed, and bear us up, as upon eagles wings, into the Divine presence. Sacred places are often the gale of heaven to the troubled spirit. Men, then, strive to find the quickest way to the sympathetic heart of God.
2. Hezekiah would set a good example to the nation. He would lead his people to seek God in that day of trouble. Kings have great influence. Many follow them either to the temples of vice, or to the temples of religion. A kings example is often more potent than a Divine command.
3. He would publicly manifest his confidence in Gods power to protect and save. His faith found expression in an act which honoured God and quickened his confidence in Him. It was not under the paralysis of despair, nor from an ostentatious display of formal piety, but from the promptings of a sincere trust in the living God, that Hezekiah went up into the House of the Lord. Hezekiah spread the letter before the Lord. This was a most significant acta prayer in action. It probably was done in solemn silence, words afterwards rising to his lips. He would not reply to this letter, but he would leave it with God to answer it. Many letters might better be left with God than answered. He wished to show how completely he could place his trouble before God. It is not every trouble that can be spread before God. Troubles that come from our follies, or that are the sequences of our sins, and that are the result of our opposition to the will of God, cannot be fully spread before the Lord. Some reserve is necessary, and this is often fatal to our success in prayer. Hezekiah had nothing to hide: he placed himself and his trouble entirely in the hands of God. This was his refuge, and his deliverance was sure.
LEARN:
1. To live so as to have those troubles only which come by Divine appointment.
2. In the greatest of these troubles never to despair of Divine help, but to expect it.
3. To be pious in prosperity, that when adversity comes we may have God for our refuge.Hom. Quarterly.
The devout spirit of this prayer, the recognition of the Divine Being in the plenitude of His Majestyso strikingly contrasted with the fancy of the Assyrians as to His merely local power; his acknowledgment of the conquests obtained over other lauds, and of the destruction of their wooden idols, which, according to the Assyrian practice, were committed to the flames, because their tutelary deities were no gods; and the object for which he supplicated the Divine interposition, that all the kingdoms of the earth might know that the Lord was the only Godthis was an attitude worthy to be assumed by a pious theocratic king of the chosen people.Jamieson.
2Ki. 19:14-19. A pathetic spectacle.
1. A monarch pleading for a nation in distress (2Ki. 19:14).
2. Jehovah reminded of His close relationship to His covenant people (2Ki. 19:15).
3. A picture of the havoc wrought in a nation by its idolatry (2Ki. 19:17-18).
4. A touching appeal to Jehovah to vindicate His character (2Ki. 19:19).
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. Who is a true man? He who can pray, and who trusts in God.Lange.
2Ki. 19:15-19. A king in prayer. Prayers have their histories. Their ancestry is trouble, struggle with circumstances, and helplessness. They mark epochs in our lives. They are born in those hours which leave an indelible impression upon us. The sublimest strains which men have uttered have been towards God in moments of agony. A great mans prayers in the anguish of trial lay bare the inner heart of humanity, and should be treasured up as a revelation. Misery sees miracles. Prayer is a great relief to the troubled heart. To utter our distress is to relieve it. To truly cast it upon God in prayer, is to remove it. Hezekiah sought relief in his trouble in prayer.
I. Hezekiah prayed to Jehovah as the God of his nation. O Lord God of Israel.
1. The nation bore the name of one of its progenitors, that as a prince had prevailed with God. The name Israel had been more generally applied to the northern kingdom of Samaria, which had already been overthrown; but Hezekiah claims it for the remnant that was left. Did he wish to remind himself of Jacobs power in prayer when he uttered that name? or of Gods special interest in his nation? Perhaps both. What God has been to our forefathers, our churches, our nation in times of trouble, He will be to us amid the perils of our day. History is a handmaid in the service of faith.
2. His nation was Jehovahs peculiar dwelling-placewhich dwellest between the cherubims. The Shekinahthe holy lightas a symbol of the Divine presence, ever shone forth from between those weird and colossal figures which Solomon had carved and placed on either side of the mercy-seat. There might be seen a constant manifestation of the presence of God. But Hezekiahs reference to this peculiar Divine manifestationusing words which were probably common among the Jewswas to suggest that as God dwelt among them He would protect His own dwelling-place. God would surely save His chosen habitation. This is true, God will protect where He dwells. While He remains, there is perfect safety. When He departs there is ruin.
(1). God dwelling in a nation saves it. God now manifests Himself, not by a material brightness, but by righteousness, purity, and truth.
(2). God dwelling in a man saves him. Every Christian is a temple of God. The true cherubim and shekinah are in the soul.
(3). God dwelling in a church saves it. No enemies can overthrow a church that has the Divine glory shining in the midst of it.
(4). We can appeal to the manifestations of the Divine presence to increase our confidence in God in times of danger.
II. Hezekiah recognizes, in his prayer, the sole supremacy of Jehovah. Thou art the God, &c.
1. Hezekiah asserted that Jehovah was the only true God. Polytheism was a foolish delusion. It probably arose from mens innate propensity to materialize spiritual things, from the worship of natural objects as the manifestation of the Divine power, from the sinful and insatiate imagination of mens hearts, from the deification of departed heroes, or from the attempt to give visible shape to applauded virtues. But there can be but one infinite and eternal God. He may reveal Himself in many waysin flaming fire, in human forms, in religious truth, in nature, in Christ, in the SpiritHe is one onlyinfinite, eternal, and incomprehensibleGod alone. None can be associated with Him. None can be placed in comparison with Him. All other gods are no gods. False and dead images, they cannot save themselves from destruction. But Jehovah, the true and living God, could save.
2. That He exercised supreme control over all the kingdoms of the earth. He was not only the God of Israel, but of all nations. Where His power was not acknowledged it was supreme. Where He was not worshipped He reigned, King of all kings, and Lord of all Lords. Hezekiah rested upon Gods sovereignty, though it was then obscured. It is often obscured. Evil powers seem triumphant Anarchy reigns. High uproar lords it wide. But Gods order manifests itself. His purposes unfold themselves. He overrules all dynasties, overthrowing one kingdom and setting up another, curbing the restless might of men, not destroying human freedom, but controlling it. Hezekiahs faith grasped the truth that no earthly power could exist without the permission or surveillance of God. Assyria, as well as Judah, belonged to God.
III. He appealed to Jehovah as the Maker of heaven and earth. Heaven and earth to the Jewish mind included all things. Here was an assertion of universal creatorship. In this sublime idea of God is involved:
1. That He is eternal. He existed before all things; delighting in the glory of His own nature before the worlds were made, no material form or spiritual existence sharing that eternity with Him.
2. That He is separate from His works. The universe is not He, as the ancient pantheists taught, and as some teach now. He is immanent in all His creatures, but independent of them. The Maker is not His work. God transcends all beings and worlds.
3. That He is omnipotent. He who made the universe must be almighty. Its greatness is inconceivable, and the power that produced it must be infinite.
4. That He has an absolute right to control all things. The Maker has indefeasible rights in his productions. This is admitted of men.
5. That He has all things under His direct control. As He has created all forces, all laws, all agencies, all worlds, all angels, all men, He has them under His immediate direction, and can turn them whithersoever He will. This conception of God afforded solid ground for Hezekiahs faith. Before the greatness of Jehovah the might of Hezekiahs enemies sank into nothingness. Large conceptions of God will ever give large expectations in prayer. The more we widen our views of God, the more confidence we shall have in Him in trouble.
IV. Hezekiah prayed with great earnestness. Lord, bow down Thine ear, &c. Now, therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech Thee. He ardently craves the attention of God. Gods knowledge is always perfect, and His interest in His troubled saints always sure; but it sometimes seems as if He heeded not. Faith needs testing. Desire must be tried. Hearing and seeing in men are the chief means of observation. The heart in its agonies ever feels the humanity of God. Heart cries to heart, deep unto deep, soul to soul. Earnestness is the living spirit in prayer. Our prayers may have order, beauty, and eloquence, but without earnestness they are vain. To desire fervently will lead invariably to ardent expressions. Cold prayers are no prayers. I beseech Thee is the natural cry of a praying heart. Earnestness is needed, not to lead God to observe our condition, or to create a disposition in Him to help us, but
1. That the strength of our desires may be revealed.
2. That we may be raised from the low condition of formal devotion.
3. That we may have all the spiritual culture which the outcries of real need may impart.
4. That we may be prepared to receive Divine deliverance thankfully. Hezekiah was stirred with the most powerful emotions as he prayed. His trouble heated his soul as fire.
V. Hezekiah recognized the greatness of the deliverance which he sought. Of a truth, Lord, &c. Other kingdoms had fallen, why not his? Only that his hope was in God. No human ingenuity or might could deliver him. No gods could protect; Jehovah alone must save. Men must be brought to see that deliverance is Gods work. The soul is a besieged city. The forces of Diabolus are around Mansoul. The deliverance which it needs is great. Its Sennacherib is mighty. Of a truth. The whole race has come under his power. We cannot estimate the greatness of our danger. When Napoleon Buonaparte, watching the fortunes of the battle, saw the charge of our Scots Greys, at Waterloo, as, launched on his columns, they dashed like a thunderbolt into the thick of them, crushing and bearing down all before them, he exclaimed, How terrible are these Greys! But what mortal foe so terrible as him we have to fightso relentless, so malignant, ever walking about seeking whom he may devour! No serpent so cunning, no lion so savage! From other enemies escape may be found; from him, none. Neither the world, nor the Church itself, offers any asylum, nor the universe, other than the hollow of Gods hand, the shadow of His wings (Guthrie). To recognize the greatness of the deliverance we need, will
1. Deepen our sense of helplessness in ourselves.
2. Stimulate the exercise of great faith.
3. Prepare us for the manifestation of Gods great delivering hand.
VI. Hezekiah associates the glory of Jehovah with the deliverance which he sought.
1. The reproaches which had been cast upon him had been cast upon God. This deliverance would be one of those great revelations of the true and only God which, in an age when power in the Deity would be more influential than righteousness or love to impress men, would exercise a most potent influence in shaping their spiritual destinies, and, perhaps, set forces at work that for centuries would operate upon men in giving them a deeper reverence for the unseen God, and thus checking their vices and preparing the way for more exalted unfoldings of His character.
2. Hezekiahs prayer prevailed. Gods might was put forth; whether, as Kingsley suggests, by a stream of poisonous vapour, such as often comes forth out of the ground during earthquakes and eruptions of burning mountains, and kills all men and animals that breathe it, or by a pestilence, or by the simoom, or by a plague of miceaccording to the Egyptian legend of Herodotuswe cannot tell. But it was Gods delivering arm put forth in answer to Hezekiahs faith and prayer
(1) That his people might learn to put their trust in Him; and
(2) that all the earth might know that none could defy His power and prosper.Hom. Quarterly.
2Ki. 19:20-34. Jehovah, the defence of His people.
1. He vindicates His character from the wicked aspersions of His enemies.
2. He preserves His people inviolate.
3. He delivers them from distress, and restores to them prosperity and power.
4. He is unchanging in His fidelity to His covenant.
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).Lange.
2Ki. 19:32. Impotent men! What are we in the hands of the Almighty? We purpose, He overrules; we talk of great matters, and think to do wonders, He blows upon our projects and they vanish with ourselves. He that hath set bounds to the sea hath appointed limits to the rage of the proudest enemies; yea, even the devils themselves are confined. Why boast ye yourselves, O ye tyrants, that ye can do mischief? Ye are stinted, and even within those lists is confusion.Bp. Hall.
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 His enemies, and burn their chariots in fire!Lange.
2Ki. 19:35-37. The proud boaster humbled. I. He is smitten with dismay by the terrible evidences of a Divine avenging power (2Ki. 19:35).
Like the leaves of the forest when summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen;
Like the leaves of the forest when autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.
For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!
And the widows of Asshur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!
II. He relinquishes in fear and disgrace his proudly-cherished enterprise (2Ki. 19:36). III. He comes to an untimely and ignominious end (2Ki. 19:37).
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? Sennacheribs calamity and his retreat proclaim to all the world that God resisteth the proud; and they are a testimony only to the truth of 1Sa. 2:6-10. He who had smitten whole kingdoms and peoples, fell under the blows of his own sons. When God has sufficiently chastised His church, He throws the rod of His wrath into the fire (Isa. 33:1).Lange.
2Ki. 19:37. Sennacherib was the last of the great Assyrian conquerors. No Assyrian host again ever crossed the Jordan. Within a few years from that time, the Assyrian power suddenly vanished from the earth. The effect of the event must have been immense, in proportion to the strain of expectation and apprehension that had preceded it. Isaiah staked upon his prophetic word the existence of his country, his own and his peoples faith in God. So literally had that word been fulfilled that he was himself, in after times, regarded as the instrument of the deliverance. There is no direct expression of his triumph at the moment, but it is possible we have his hymn of thanksgiving, when he afterwards heard of the world-renowned murder which struck down the mighty king in the temple at Nineveh. The earth again breathes freely. The sacred cedar-grove feels itself once more secure. The world of shades, the sepulchre of kings, prepares to receive its new inmate (Isaiah 14.) If there is any doubt as to the prophets utterance, there is none as to the burst of national thanksgiving, as incorporated in the Book of Psalms (Psalms 46, 76). The weapons of the great army, such as we see them in the Assyrian monumentsthe mighty bow and its lightning arrows, the serried shieldswere shattered to pieces. The long array of dead horses; the chariots, now useless, left to be burnt; the trophies carried off from the dead, all rise to view in the recollection of that night. The proud have slept their sleep, and the mighty soldiers fling out their hands in vain. The arms have fallen from their grasp. The neigh of the charger, the rattle of the chariot, are alike hushed in the sleep of death. The wild uproar is over, the whole world is silent, and in that awful stillness the Israelites descend from the heights of Jerusalem, like their ancestors to the shores of the Red Sea, to see the desolation that had been wrought on the earth. As then, they carried away the spoils as trophies. The towers of Jerusalem were brilliant with the shields of the dead. The fame of the fall of Sennacheribs host struck the surrounding nations with terror far and wide. It was like the knell of the great potentates of the world; and in their fall the God of Israel seemed to rise to a higher and yet higher exaltation. The importance of the deliverance was not confined to the country or the times of Hezekiah. 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 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 host of Sennacherib. The grandeur of the deliverance has passed into the likeness of all sudden national escapes.Stanley.
Thou art avenged, O God, Thou art avenged plentifully of thine enemies! Whoever strives with thee, is sure to gain nothing but loss, but shame, but death, but hell. The Assyrians are slain; Sennacherib is rewarded for his blasphemy; Jerusalem is rescued; Hezekiah rejoices; the nations wonder and tremble.Bp. Hall.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B. SENNACHERIBS INITIAL SURRENDER DEMANDS 18:17-19:7
The Assyrian king was not satisfied with the tribute paid by Hezekiah. He wanted nothing less than the total surrender of Jerusalem. While he himself was engaged in military operations in the lowland region of Palestine, he sent an embassy to Jerusalem to demand capitulation (2Ki. 18:17-37). In response to the bombastic demands and blasphemous assertions of these pagans, Isaiah delivered an oracle promising deliverance for Judah (2Ki. 19:1-7).
Whereas older commentators viewed the actions and words of the Assyrian envoys in this section as improbable, more recent scholars have been forced to concede the historical verisimilitude of 2Ki. 18:17 to 2Ki. 9:7.[605] The details of this section and the diplomatic arguments of Rab-shakeh have an analogy in a siege of Babylon by Tiglath-pileser III.[606]
[605] Gray, OTL, p. 684.
[606] See Childs, IAC, pp. 69103.
1. THE ARROGANT ASSYRIAN DEMANDS (2Ki. 18:17-37)
TRANSLATION
(17) And the king of Assyria sent Tartan, Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish unto King Hezekiah with a heavy force to Jerusalem; and they went up, and came to Jerusalem, and stood by the aqueduct of the upper pool which is in the highway of the fullers field. (18) And they called unto the king; and Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the remembrancer went out unto them. (19) And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Say now unto Hezekiah, Thus says the Great King, the king of Assyria: What is this confidence in which you trust? (20) You have said (but they are merely words), Counsel and might for war! Now upon whom do you trust that you have rebelled against me? (21) Now behold you trust for your sake upon the staff of this bruised reed, upon Egypt, on which if a man leans it will go into his hand and pierce it. Thus is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. (22) And if you say unto me, Upon the LORD our God we will trust: Is it not He whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem? (23) And now make a wager, I pray you, with my lord, the king of Assyria, and I will give to you two thousand horses if you are able on your part to set riders upon them. (24) And how will you turn away the face of one captain of the least of the servants of my lord, and trust for your part in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? (25) Now have I come up without the LORD against this place to destroy it? The LORD said unto me, Go up against this land and destroy it. (26) Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah and Shebna and Joah said unto Rab-shakeh, Speak unto your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak with us in the language of the Jews in the presence of the people who are upon the wall. (27) And Rab-shakeh said unto them, Did my master send me to speak these words unto your master and unto you? Did he not send me unto the men who sit on the wall, that they might eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you? (28) And Rab-shakeh stood and cried in a loud voice in the Jews language, and spoke, and said, Hear the word of the Great King, the king of Assyria: (29) Thus says the king: Do not let Hezekiah deceive you for he is not able to deliver you from my hand. (30) Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD, saying, the LORD will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. (31) Do not hearken unto Hezekiah for thus says the king of Assyria: Negotiate with me by a present, and go out unto me, that each may eat from his vine and each from his fig tree, and each may drink water of his cistern, (32) until I come and take you unto a land like your land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey that you might live and not die. Do not hearken to Hezekiah, for he has enticed you, saying, the LORD will deliver us. (33) Have the gods of the nations delivered each his land from the hand of the king of Assyria? (34) Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivah? Have they delivered Samaria from my hand? (35) Who is it among all the gods of the lands that has delivered their land from my hand that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem from my hand? (36) But the people were silent and answered him not a word for it was a commandment from the king, saying, Do not answer him. (37) Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah who was over the house, and Shebna the scribe and Joah the sons of Asaph the recorder to Hezekiah with their clothing rent; and they told him the words of Rab-shakeh.
COMMENTS
Historians and Biblical commentators are not in agreement as to the time setting of 2Ki. 18:17-37. Some think that even after receiving the tribute money from Hezekiah, Sennacherib was not satisfied, and that he was determined to punish this rebellious vassal. Consequently he sent a contingent of troops to Jerusalem in an effort to get Hezekiah to surrender. Others think that a time gap may exist between 2Ki. 18:16-17. According to this view, Sennacherib withdrew from Palestine in 701 B.C. Because of certain overtures from Egypt. Hezekiah determined again to extricate himself from the Assyrian grip. Sennacherib then reappeared in the region about 688 B.C. marching through the Philistine plain to confront any Egyptian force that might attempt to march northward. A small contingent was dispatched to Jerusalem to hold Hezekiah in check and to wage psychological warfare against him.[607]
[607] Among recent Evangelical writers, Finley (BBC, p. 48081) has presented a powerful defense of the two invasion theory.
At the head of the contingent which was dispatched to Jerusalem were three officers bearing the titles Tartan, Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh. All three titles are known from Assyrian records. The Tartan was the commander-in-chief of the field army. It is not certain what the precise functions of the other two officers might have been.[608] The Assyrian officers positioned themselves by the aqueduct (KJV, conduit)[609] which carried water from the spring Gihon, the main source of water for the city, to the upper pool, probably the Pool of Siloam. This aqueduct was located on the road which led to the fullers field, an area adjacent to En-rogel south of Jerusalem[610] (2Ki. 18:17).
[608] The Rabsaris was probably the chief of the kings bodyguard. Rab-shakeh means chief officer.
[609] This aqueduct is mentioned also in Isa. 7:3.
[610] On the location of En-rogel, see comments on 1Ki. 1:9-10. According to Finley (BBC, p. 482) this field was the place where newly shorn wool and woven cloth were processed by the use of an alkaline cleanser.
From their vantage point on the east side of the city, the Assyrian officers shouted to the Jewish guards that they had a message for the king. Hezekiah sent out to the wall three of his highest officials: Eliakim who was over the household, i.e., prime minister;[611] Shebna the scribe, perhaps something equivalent to a secretary of state; and Joah the recorder or remembrancer.[612]
[611] Eliakim had displaced Shebna in this office just as Isaiah the prophet had predicted (Isa. 22:15-23).
[612] On the duties of the remembrancer see comments on 1Ki. 4:3.
Rab-shakeh took the lead in speaking for the Assyrians probably because he could speak Hebrew fluently. His rude and abrupt order to the Jewish officers was stripped of all diplomatic niceties. Throughout the address he spoke of Sennacherib as the Great King while to Hezekiah he ascribed no title whatsoever. Rab-shakeh came right to the point: What was this confidence in which the Jews trusted? (2Ki. 18:19). Hezekiah had withheld tribute. 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. How had he dared take those steps? What was the basis for his confidence?
Beginning in 2Ki. 18:20, Rab-shakeh attempts to eliminate one by one the possible grounds upon which Hezekiah based his rebellion. First, he imagines Hezekiah boasting of his counsel and strength for war, i.e., of the wisdom of his advisers and his military capabilities. Such boasts were merely words, or one might say in modern idiom, so much hot air (2Ki. 18:20). Sennacherib apparently knew of Hezekiahs efforts to secure an alliance with Egypt (Isa. 30:2-7) and rightly judged that he was expecting to receive aid from that quarter. Rab-shakeh ridiculed this expectation. Egypt was nothing but a bruised reed[613] which will snap the moment any weight is applied to it. The sharp jagged casing of that broken reed might well injure the man who tried to use it for a staff (2Ki. 18:21). The Assyrians were entirely justified in their contempt for the military capabilities of Egypt. Pharaoh had never yet given effective aid to any state which had come under attack by Assyria.[614]
[613] This characterization of Egypt is repeated in Eze. 29:6.
[614] King So gave no aid to Samaria in 722 B.C. Though Pharaoh came to the aid of Gaza in 720 B.C., the city fell easily to Sargon. Egyptian efforts to aid Ashdod in 711 B.C. and Ashkalon in 701 B.C. were equally unsuccessful.
Sennacherib had also heard of Hezekiahs great religious reformation and of his boasts concerning the God of Israel (cf. 2Ch. 32:8). He either had been told or had concluded that this reformation was not popular with all segments of the population, and therefore Rab-shakeh was instructed to attempt to exploit this issue. How could Hezekiah confidently rely on the protection of the God of the nation when he had for years been desecrating and destroying the high places and altars of this God? To the pagan Sennacherib it seemed inconceivable that any deity could condone such action.
Were it not for the explicit command of the Law of Moses concerning a centralized place of worship, the argument of the Assyrian would make excellent sense. Certainly there would have been many of those who were within earshot of Rab-shakeh who probably would have agreed with his line of thinking. Jews from rural areas would have flocked to Jerusalem during the emergency and no doubt many of them resented the fact that Hezekiah had made a determined effort to centralize the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem (2Ki. 18:22). The illicit high places had been winked at for so long that they had become in the eyes of many a perfectly legitimate facet of formal worship.
To this point Rab-shakeh proceeded with logical precision. He could not, however, resist the temptation to ridicule the military capabilities of the Jews. If Hezekiah would wager two thousand men, Sennacherib would supply horses for them to ride upon (2Ki. 18:23). By this remark Rab-Shakeh was mocking the fact that the Jewish army lacked any cavalry. He was also suggesting that Hezekiah was facing a shortage of fighting men. Without such a force the Jews could not hope to be able to turn back even one unit of the Assyrian army, and for such a force the Jews were dependent upon undependable Egypt (2Ki. 18:24). Furthermore, the Assyrian armies were invincible because, boasted Rab-Shakeh, Yahweh Himself had dispatched Sennacherib against Jerusalem (2Ki. 18:25). Perhaps the Assyrian king had heard of the prophecies of Isaiah (Isa. 7:17-24; Isa. 10:5-12) which foretold the Assyrian invasion of Judah.
The three Jewish officials stood on the wall and listened to the threats and boasts of Rab-shakeh. They could sense the uneasiness of the soldiers who manned the wall. The propaganda of Rab-shakeh was having its intended effect. Eliakim, Shebna and Joah interrupted the Assyrian officer at this point and requested that he speak to them in the diplomatic language of the daythe Aramaic tongue. Hebrew and Aramaic are closely related languages, but sufficiently different to be distinct languages which were only intelligible to those who had learned them. The common people of Jerusalem would not know Aramaic; the diplomats would. The Jewish officials desperately desired that any further negotiations be conducted in the international language of the time (2Ki. 18:26). Rab-shakeh, of course, refused to comply with this request. The very purpose of his coming to Jerusalem was to intimidate the soldiers and weaken the resolve of the citizens to resist. He had come to make the men who defended Jerusalems walls realize that before long they would be brought to the last extremity of hunger and thirstthey would be forced even to consume their own excrement (2Ki. 18:27).
The urgent request of the Jewish diplomats only stirred Rabshakeh to greater efforts. He rosehe must heretofore have been seatedand addressed himself directly to the citizens on the walls (2Ki. 18:28). He urged the people not to allow Hezekiah to deceive them particularly with his assurances of supernatural deliverance (2Ki. 18:29). The Assyrians knew that Hezekiah had been stirring up the people to militant resistance with promises that God would not allow Jerusalem to fall to the Assyrians (2Ki. 18:30). Hezekiah based these assurances on the definite prophecies of Isaiah (Isa. 31:4-6; Isa. 33:20-22).
From threat Rab-shakeh turned to grandiose promises. If Jerusalem would but come to terms with Sennacherib and surrender, everybody in the city would be allowed to return to his own land where for a time he might live a peaceful and happy life (2Ki. 18:31). Then after a time, Sennacherib would come and transplant them to a new land. Such national deportations were so common in the Assyrian empire that Rab-shakeh knew he must mention it if his remarks were to enjoy any measure of credibility. So he attempted to place this practice in the best possible light. He tried to persuade the Jews that being transported hundreds of miles from their homes really would not be so badthat they were to be envied rather than pitied for being about to experience it. The king of Assyria would see to it that they were taken to a land as nearly as possible like their own land. In describing the land of Judah the Assyrian used glowing terminology which was designed to win the sympathy of the Jews within earshot. If they followed Rab-Shakehs advice they would live; if Hezekiahs, they would die (2Ki. 18:32).
Again Rab-shakeh repeated his warning: Do not let Hezekiah persuade you that your God will deliver you (2Ki. 18:32). Recent history provided crushing evidence that Hezekiahs faith was fanatical and unrealistic. No local deity thus far had been able to deliver his people from the mighty Assyrian army (2Ki. 18:33). From the Assyrian point of view it was sheer madness to think that the insignificant god of this insignificant people could do what the mighty Moloch, Chemosh, Baal and Bel had been unable to do. To make his point more emphatically, Rabshakeh ticked off the recent victories of the Assyrian war machine: Hamath and Arpad in Syria had been conquered about 720 B.C. by Sargon. The Syrian cities of Sepharvaim, Ivah (Ava in 2Ki. 17:24), and Hena[615] also had easily been conquered, probably about 710 B.C. The idols of Samaria had not been able to deliver that city either when the Assyrians conquered it in 722 B.C. (2Ki. 18:34). Rab-shakeh challenged his auditors to produce a single example of a national god who had been able to withstand the Assyrian might. If no such example could be produced then the Jews should have abandoned their hope of supernatural deliverance from Sennacherib (2Ki. 18:35). Rabshakeh could not conceive of the idea of Yahweh being anything but a local god, on a par with the idols of surrounding nations.
[615] Hena and Ivah are problematical. They are not mentioned in the parallel account in Isaiah 36 nor in the Greek translation of the present passage. The Targum renders these words as though they were verbal forms, he sent them wandering and caused them to stray.
In the face of these outrageous and blasphemous assertions, the Jews of Jerusalem maintained a resolute silence. Rabshakehs efforts to generate some sort of insurrection within the city failed. Upon hearing of the arrival of this Assyrian psychological warfare team, Hezekiah had given strict orders that no matter what was said, his subjects were to maintain strict silence (2Ki. 18:36). Horrified at the blasphemies of Rabshakeh, Hezekiahs three ministers ripped their robes and returned to the royal palace to report all that had been said (2Ki. 18:37).
2. THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF ISAIAH THE PROPHET (2Ki. 19:1-7)
TRANSLATION
(1) And it came to pass when King Hezekiah heard, that he tore his garments, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went to the house of the LORD. (2) And he sent Eliakim who was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. (3) And they said unto him, Thus says Hezekiah: A day of trouble, chastisement and abhorrence is this day, for children have come to the time of birth and there is no strength to bring forth. (4) Perhaps the LORD your God will hearken unto all the words of Rab-shakeh who was sent by the king of Assyria his master to revile the living God, and will reprove the words which the LORD your God heard, now lift up a prayer on behalf of the remnant that is left. (5) And the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah. (6) And Isaiah said unto them, Thus say unto your master: Thus says the LORD: Do not be afraid because of the words which you have heard with which the lackeys of the king of Assyria blaspheme Me. (7) Behold I am about to send a blast against him and he shall hear a report, and return to his land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his land.
COMMENTS
When Hezekiah heard the report of his ministers, he too was terribly upset. Following their example, he tore his garments and donned sackclotha sign of grief and self-humiliation.[616] He then took his troubles to the Lord as he went to the Temple to seek divine counsel and solace (2Ki. 18:1). At the same time the king dispatched an embassy to the great prophet Isaiah[617] who resided in Jerusalem. Isaiah had been an adviser to Ahaz and most certainly would have been among the counselors of Hezekiah. The embassy wore sackcloth to emphasize the horror and grief which Rab-shakehs threatening boasts had engendered (2Ki. 18:2).
[616] By this action the king may have initiated a public fast.
[617] Isaiah is the first canonical (writing) prophet to be mentioned in the historical books of the Old Testament.
The kings message to the prophet is summed up in 2Ki. 18:3-4. This, said the king, is a day of trouble for the nation, a day of rebuke or chastisement for the sins we have committed against God, and a day of abhorrence in which God has allowed His people to be insulted by their enemies. The expression children are come to birth, and there is not strength to bring forth is a proverbial expression, probably meaning that the nation is facing a dangerous crisis and has no strength to face up to it (2Ki. 18:3). Perhaps, suggested the king, the Lord would take note of the contemptuous words which Rab-shakeh had spoken against the living God and then reprove those words in some mighty act of judgment. To this end Hezekiah urged Isaiah to pray on behalf of the remnant who had not yet fallen into the hands of Sennacherib. The Assyrian king claims to have carried away 200,150 persons in this expedition. He also had taken away from Hezekiah certain cities and assigned them to more friendly monarchs. Thus, only a remnant of the people of Judah were left (2Ki. 18:4). With this message the embassy came to seek the help of the prophet (2Ki. 18:5).
Isaiah seems to have already formulated a reply to the king even before the delegation arrived at his home. Hezekiah did not need to be afraid of the blasphemous words which the lackeys (lit., foot-boys) of the king of Assyria had spoken (2Ki. 18:6). God would send a blast (lit., a wind) against Sennacheribthe destruction of his army. The report of this disaster would send the Assyrian king into full retreat.[618] When he returned to his own land Sennacherib would be assassinated (2Ki. 18:7).
[618] Keil thinks the report or rumor which Sennacherib heard was the news of Tirhakahs advance from Egypt.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XIX.
(1) Went into the house of the Lord.To humble himself before Jehovah and pray for help. (Comp. 2Ch. 32:20.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
HEZEKIAH’S GRIEF AND MESSAGE TO ISAIAH, 2Ki 19:1-5.
1. Rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth Customary signs of deep distress and grief.
Went into the house of the Lord For it was supposed that Jehovah’s eyes were upon that place night and day. Compare 2Ki 19:14 and 1Ki 8:29.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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
The Messengers Of The King of Assyria Call On The People Of Jerusalem To Surrender And In So Doing Seek To Demean Hezekiah ( 2Ki 18:18 to 2Ki 19:1 ).
We may wonder why this incident was described in such detail and the answer would be that it was in order to underline the greatness of the king who would be pitting himself against YHWH, prior, of course, to his being brought down. The prophetic author wants us to recognise to the full the greatness of YHWH’s opponent. It would then lead to the obvious question, ‘who could possibly bring this great king down when everyone else has failed?’ And the answer, of course, will be ‘YHWH’. Thus the final aim is to underline the glory of YHWH.
There is also in this initial passage a determined effort on behalf of the Assyrians to demean Hezekiah (compare 2Ki 18:19 with 2Ki 19:10). Note how, when they are speaking of Hezekiah, the term ‘king’ is firmly omitted all the way through in the first interview addressed directly to the people, something which is in deliberate contrast to the term ‘great king’ used of the king of Assyria. In the second interview, however, when Sennacherib is trying to win Hezekiah himself over, he will be ‘Hezekiah, king of Judah’ (2Ki 19:10). This is an incidental confirmation of the fact that the two incidents are deliberately consecutive.
The arguments used by the king of Assyria are carefully built up over the speech as each argument that ‘Hezekiah’ might have used is dismissed. Thus:
He emphasises the unreliability and untrustworthiness of Egypt, something unquestionably true in the past (2Ki 18:21).
He emphasises the fact that Hezekiah has upset YHWH by destroying the multiplicity of high places at which He was worshipped, which is how Hezekiah’s reforms would appear to the Assyrians, and how they had appeared to some Judaeans whom he had captured (2Ki 18:22).
He emphasises the weakness of the Judaean army as compared with his own strength, drawing attention to the fact that they have no cavalry to speak of (2Ki 18:23-24).
He stresses that it is in fact YHWH Who has sent him (2Ki 18:25).
He later points out that none of the gods of the great nations have been able to withstand him (2Ki 18:33-35).
His overall aim is to weaken the resolve of the people, knowing that they will have plenty of time to think about his words as they slowly starve.
Analysis.
a
b And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder (2Ki 18:18).
c And Rabshakeh said to them, “Say you now to Hezekiah, Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this in which you trust? You say (but they are but vain words), ‘There is counsel and strength for the war.’ Now on whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me? Now, behold, you are trusting on the staff of this bruised reed, even on Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust on him” (2Ki 18:19-21).
d “But if you say to me, ‘We trust in YHWH our God,’ is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?’ ” (2Ki 18:22).
e “Now therefore, I pray you, give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. How then can you turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put your trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? Am I now come up without YHWH against this place to destroy it? YHWH said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it’ ” (2Ki 18:23-25).
f Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, “Speak, I pray you, to your servants in the Aramaean language, for we understand it, and do not speak with us in the Jews’ language, in the ears of the people who are on the wall” (2Ki 18:26).
g But Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master, and to you, to speak these words? Has he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?” (2Ki 18:27).
f Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spoke, saying, “Hear you the word of the great king, the king of Assyria” (2Ki 18:28).
e “Thus says the king. Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you out of his hand” (2Ki 18:29).
d “Nor let Hezekiah make you trust in YHWH, saying, ‘YHWH will surely deliver us, and this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria’ ” (2Ki 18:30).
c “Do not listen to Hezekiah. For thus says the king of Assyria, Make your peace with me, and come out to me, and eat you every one of his vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink you every one the waters of his own cistern, until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive-trees and of honey, that you may live, and not die, and do not listen to Hezekiah, when he persuades you, saying, ‘YHWH will deliver us’. Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? W here are the gods of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, who have delivered their country out of my hand, that YHWH should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?” (2Ki 18:31-35).
b But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word, for the king’s commandment was, saying, “Do not answer him.” Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, came to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and told him the words of Rabshakeh (2Ki 18:36-37).
a And it came about, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he tore his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of YHWH (2Ki 19:1).
Note that in ‘a’ the enemy ambassadors came in their pride and stood by the conduit of the upper pool (where Ahaz had rejected YHWH’s help), and in the parallel Hezekiah humbly went into the house of YHWH. In ‘b’ Eliakim, Shebna and Joah went out to face the three Assyrian ambassadors from the shelter of the city wall, and in the parallel they returned to Hezekiah with their clothes torn in anguish. In ‘c’ Judah are challenged as to what they place their trust in, and in the parallel the downfall of those who had similar trust is expounded. In ‘d’ they are told of the folly of trusting in YHWH, and in the parallel they are warned against letting Hezekiah make them trust in YHWH. In ‘e’ the reasons are given as to why they have no hope of deliverance, and in the parallel they are warned against letting Hezekiah convince them that they will be delivered. In ‘f’ they call on the ambassadors not to speak in the Jews’ language, and in the parallel they deliberately speak in the Jews’ language. Centrally in ‘g’ the Rabshakeh emphasises that his words are for the common people who are in such dire straits.
2Ki 18:17
‘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 (launderer’s) field.’
The Assyrian forces arrived at Jerusalem and the three Assyrian official come to ‘the conduit of the upper pool which is in the highway of the launderer’s field’. They may well have seen the water source as a reminder to the besieged people that they would soon be short of water (something later emphasised in 2Ki 18:27. The Assyrians were not aware of the Siloam tunnel which Hezekiah had built to in order to provide a safe supply of water to the city, compare Isa 22:11). And they may have been inspecting it in order to discover what water resources the city had. It is probably not accidental that this conduit of the upper pool was where Ahaz had disgraced himself in the eyes of YHWH (Isa 7:3) by refusing His offer of a sign which would prove that if he trusted in YHWH he would be delivered. Now Hezekiah was being put to a similar test. (This would then be another evidence of the priority of Isaiah’s account, if priority there was, for only Isaiah mentions the offer). There is much (undecided) debate among scholars as to where exactly it was.
2Ki 18:18
‘And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder.’
The three Assyrian ambassadors demanded the king’s presence, but were instead face with three important Judaean officials. Hilkiah was the high chamberlain and prime minister (compare Isa 22:20 ff), Shebnah the leading Scribe and probably the expert in Artamaic, and Joah the one who would keep the official record of what was said.
2Ki 18:19
‘And Rabshakeh said to them, “Say you now to Hezekiah, Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this in which you trust?”
The Rabshakeh, as the leading political figure, acted as spokesman. He was clearly fluent in both Aramaic (the official diplomatic language) and Hebrew. His tone was clearly derogatory as his reference to the king as ‘Hezekiah’ underlines (contrast 2Ki 19:10). Note the contrasting ‘the great king, the king of Assyria. ‘Great king’ (sharu rabu) was a self-assumed title by Assyrian kings. His stated aim was to undermine their confidence, and he will deal with what he sees as all the possible grounds for confidence.
2Ki 18:20
“You say (but they are but vain words), ‘There is counsel and strength for the war.’ Now on whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me?”
That they had such confidence in something comes out in what they had decided. They had met in war council and had decided that they had ‘counsel and strength for war’ (otherwise they would not be resisting). So he wants to know precisely in what their confidence is grounded.
Alternately we may render, ‘Do you find counsel and strength for war in mere words?’ (i.e. they say ‘in vain words there is counsel and strength for war’). It is easy to boast until the situation actually has to be faced, and then all their clever words and policies will come to nothing.
2Ki 18:21
“Now, behold, you are trusting on the staff of this bruised reed, even on Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust on him.”
Suppose for example it was in Egypt (as it certainly partly was). Did they not realise that by trusting in Egypt, who constantly let people down, they were trusting in what appeared to be a stout staff, but was actually a bruised reed? And it was of such a nature that if they leaned their hand on it, it would pierce their hand (see Isa 30:1-5; Eze 29:6-7). That is what Pharaoh king of Egypt was like to those who trusted in him.
There was some truth in this as the past revealed, but it must not be overlooked that Egypt did send two armies at different stages, and it was not their intention that those armies should be defeated, although the defeats could not have been too great as the Assyrians did not follow them up. The Rabshakeh, however, summed Egypt up dismissively on the basis of their past failures
2Ki 18:22
“But if you say to me, ‘We trust in YHWH our God,’ is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?’ ”
But suppose they were trusting in their God, YHWH? Did they not realise that Hezekiah with his reforms had offended YHWH by taking away His high places and His altars? That was undoubtedly the Assyrian view of the matter. In their eyes the more high places and altars there were the better the gods were pleased. But here was Hezekiah insisting that they all worshipped at one altar in Jerusalem. How could that be pleasing to YHWH? (We should note that this was the Assyrian parody of the situation, not necessarily the full truth). It must surely be admitted that YHWH was offended and that that was why the invasion had happened. No doubt a good number of those listening agreed with these sentiments, for not all had agreed with Hezekiah’s reforms. (This incidentally confirms that these reforms had already taken place, as does the evidence of the dismantling of the altar at Beersheba)
2Ki 18:23
“Now therefore, I pray you, give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them.”
But suppose they were trusting in the strength of their armed forces. Let them compare cavalries. The Assyrians had thousands of cavalrymen, many no doubt visible from the walls. But what about Judah? Why if they could find two thousand cavalrymen among their forces the king of Assyria would gladly supply the horses for them, and not even miss them. But everyone knew that Judah were not famed for cavalrymen (they were mainly militia-men and part-timers), and the inference was that such numbers could not be found. How then could they hope to resist mighty Assyria?
This is a case where the less grammatical language in Isaiah is smoothed out, and indication that at least Isaiah was not copied from Kings. (It may have been the other way round, or they may both have used the same source).
2Ki 18:24
“How then can you turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put your trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?”
How then, if their trust is in Egypt for chariots and horsemen (as he has proved it to be), will they be able to face even the meanest of the king of Assyria’s cavalry captains? For the danger of trusting in Egyptian horses see Isa 31:1 ff.
The two constructs in apposition are very unusual but defensible, and we must remember that it was a foreigner speaking. His Hebrew may not have been perfect..
2Ki 18:25
“Am I now come up without YHWH against this place to destroy it? YHWH said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it.’ ”
Then he comes up with his trump card. Do they not realise that he has actually come up with YHWH on his side? Who do they think had told him to come up to destroy Jerusalem? Why, it was YHWH Himself. It may in fact well be that renegade prophets of YHWH from Israel had prophesied favourably to Sennacherib (for good payment), especially in reaction to his religious reforms, thus this may not just have been a propaganda move. And in his arrogance he may actually have believed it. We can also compare Isa 10:5 ff, a prophecy which might have been known to his spies. So even their own prophets supported his case.
2Ki 18:26
‘Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, “Speak, I pray you, to your servants in the Aramaean language, for we understand it, and do not speak with us in the Jews’ language, in the ears of the people who are on the wall.”
This was probably not a plea based on their fear of the people’s response. It would hardly have been wise to make the request in this way if that was so, as the reply given could only have been expected. Rather it was a firm affirmation that they did not need to be treated like barbarians as though they could not understand Aramaic, as in fact they could speak it quite adequately. Thus they were requesting that negotiation take place in the diplomatic language recognised by all and that they be treated as intellectual equals in the negotiations. Such things were for negotiators, not for common people. In a sense it was a question. Were these serious negotiations, or were they just propaganda? They soon received their answer.
2Ki 18:27
‘But Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master, and to you, to speak these words? Has he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?” ’
The Rabshakeh made clear that he was not interested in serious negotiations with the king. His aim was to reach the common people and persuade them to rebel against their leaders. These same tactics had been used by the Assyrians at Babylon when Tiglath-pileser III sent a delegation to the king of Babylon when he was in revolt who similarly argued their case to those gathered on the city walls. Such behaviour was a deliberate insult to the three Judaean negotiators. Note the basis of his reasoning. As a result of the famine caused by the siege he had no doubt that they were already having to survive by eating their own excrement, and drinking their own urine. That was what eventually happened in sieges, as he well knew (compare 2Ki 6:24-29). His words were meant for people who were in that state, not the slightly better provided for high officials
His crude way of putting things stands in contrast to the dignified attempt of the three Judaean negotiators to keep things on a high level. There may in all this well be an intended contrast, stressing the polite diplomacy of Judah, and the arrogant and crude diplomacy of Assyria. Judah are clearly gentlemen, whereas Assyria are merely bullies.
2Ki 18:28
‘Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spoke, saying, “Hear you the word of the great king, the king of Assyria” ’
Suiting his words to his reasoning the Rabshakeh then raised his voice and shouted up at the walls in ‘the Jews’ language’ (the Judaean dialect of Hebrew). Once again he stressed that he was speaking on behalf of ‘the Great King, the king of Assyria’. he wanted them to be in no doubt about whose majesty they were opposing.
2Ki 18:29
“Thus says the king. Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you out of his hand,”
His first emphasis was on the fact that there was no way in which ‘Hezekiah’ himself, whatever his meagre resources, could deliver them out of the king of Assyria’s hand. They must therefore not let him deceive them into thinking that he might be able to do so. He simply did not have sufficient forces at his command.
2Ki 18:30
“Nor let Hezekiah make you trust in YHWH, saying, ‘YHWH will surely deliver us, and this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.’ ”
Nor must they listen to ‘Hezekiah’ if he told them to trust in YHWH. They must take no notice of any assurance from him that YHWH would deliver them and would not allow their city to be delivered into the hands of the king of Assyria for it was simply not true, as the examples of other nations and cities would make clear.
It would seem clear that his intelligence sources had informed him that there were voices in the city saying, ‘Trust in YHWH’, which was, of course, the message of Isaiah. This explains why his words here are so emphatic. He is trying to counter what they have been told.
2Ki 18:31-32
“Do not listen to Hezekiah. For thus says the king of Assyria, Make your peace with me (literally ‘make a blessing with me’), and come out to me, and eat you every one of his vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink you every one the waters of his own cistern, until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive-trees and of honey, that you may live, and not die, and do not listen to Hezekiah, when he persuades you, saying, ‘YHWH will deliver us’.”
Indeed they must not listen to anything that ‘Hezekiah’ said. Rather they must listen to ‘the king of Assyria’ when he told them to come and ‘make a blessing’ with him, that is, a pact which results in blessing or brings them into the king’s sphere of blessing. If they ‘came out’ to him (the regular expression for surrendering a city) and did ‘make a blessing’ with him they would immediately be free to return to their own homes, to enjoy the produce of their own trees and to drink water from their own cisterns. And then later he would come and take them away to a land like their own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive-trees and of honey. Under the dreadful conditions of the siege it would sound like a wonderful alternative. Of course it was very much hyped up. What the Assyrian troops would do after the surrender had taken place would be very much open to question, for there would undoubtedly be brutalities; their time at home, if any, would be very limited and even then they would undoubtedly find their trees bare and their cisterns defiled; and the journey to foreign parts would be both uncomfortable and painful. The Assyrians were not noted for their gentleness. Thus the offer would not turn out to be as attractive as it sounded. But it might still appear a better alternative to certain death. At least then most of them would live and not die. Thus they would be foolish to listen to Hezekiah’s persuasive assurance that YHWH would deliver Jerusalem from the king of Assyria’s hand, a policy which would result for them in certain death.
2Ki 18:33
“Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?”
Let them consider all the gods of the other nations. Did they know of any gods who had delivered their nations out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Strictly speaking they might have given the island fortress of Tyre as an example. Assyria had devastated mainland Tyre but had been unable to subdue the island fortress which had been supplied by sea. It was, however, a rare example and undoubtedly due to special circumstances (Jerusalem was not surrounded by sea).
2Ki 18:34
“Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?”
He then listed a number of such foreign nations, people from some of which had been transported to Samaria (see 2Ki 17:24). Had they been delivered out of his hands by their gods either before or after being transferred to Samaria? Regardless of their gods they were still under the heel of the king of Assyria. The question might have had in mind knowledge of the fact that Samaria had itself engaged in disquiet even after their arrival, something which had had to be subdued. (There were certainly disturbances in Samaria a year after the surrender of the city of Samaria to Sargon, and it is probable that all these peoples when they arrived kept in touch with their ‘homelands’ and resented their situation).
Alternatively he may have been shortcutting his description and have really meant, ‘have they delivered their nations out of their hands and have they (the gods of Samaria, YHWH, Baal, Asherah) delivered Samaria out of my hand?’
2Ki 18:35
“Who are they among all the gods of the countries, who have delivered their country out of my hand, that YHWH should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?”
He then parallels the gods of the nations with YHWH. What other gods have delivered their countries out of his hands? the answer is, none. So why should YHWH? What difference was there between YHWH and the other gods?
But these words were a mistake for two reasons. Firstly because Judah did see their God as different from the gods of the nations. Indeed His forte was known to be that He could deliver His people, as witness the Exodus of which they sang in their Temple, and which they commemorated in the feast of the Passover and their other feasts, and the accounts in the Book of Judges and Samuel. He was therefore by these words unknowingly stirring up their latent faith. But secondly it was dangerous because YHWH was in fact different, and would react accordingly. It was a direct challenge being laid down to YHWH. a very dangerous thing to do.
2Ki 18:36
‘But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word, for the king’s commandment was, saying, “Do not answer him.” ’
Meanwhile he received no reply. No one answered him. For the king had given the command ‘Do not answer him’ and his guards would be on the watch for anyone who was disobedient. To speak would mean instant death. It was a studied insult to the great men of Assyria.
2Ki 18:37
‘Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, came to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and told him the words of Rabshakeh.’
Having listened to the Rabshakeh’s words the three Judaean representatives tore their clothes in anguish, and then reported back to Hezekiah, informing him of what the Rabshakeh had said.
2Ki 19:1
‘And it came about, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he tore his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of YHWH.’
When king Hezekiah heard what had been said he also tore his clothes in anguish, and he covered himself with sackcloth, a sign of humility and fasting, and went into the house of YHWH to fulfil his priestly responsibility of intercession (as priest after the order of Melchizedek). This idea of the king as the nation’s intercessor occurs quite frequently (see e.g. 2Sa 24:10; 2Sa 24:17). Note the first reference to him as ‘king Hezekiah’ since 2Ki 18:17. It was as the king that he went in to make intercession.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 19:37 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping 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. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.
2Ki 19:37
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Mourning of Hezekiah and the Arrogance of the Assyrian King
v. 1. And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, v. 2. And he sent Eliakim, which was over the household, and Shebna, the scribe, v. 3. And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble and of rebuke and blasphemy, v. 4. It may be the Lord, thy God, will hear all the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria, his master, hath sent to reproach the living God, v. 5. So the servants of King Hezekiah, v. 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 of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me; v. 7. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, v. 8. So Rabshakeh returned and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah; for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish, v. 9. And when he, v. 10. Thus 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. v. 11. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly, v. 12. Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar? v. 13. Where Is the king of Hamath and the king of Arpad and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivah?
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 19:1-37
SECOND EXPEDITION OF SENNACHERIB AGAINST HEZEKIAH (continued). The chapter falls into four portions:
(1) The sequel to the embassy of Rabshakeh (2Ki 19:1-8);
(2) the insulting letter of Sennacherib (2Ki 19:9-14);
(3) Hezekiah’s prayer, and God’s answer to it by the mouth of Isaiah (verses 15-34); and
(4) the destruction of Sennacherib’s host, his hurried flight, and his murder at Nineveh by his sons (verses 35-37). The narrative runs parallel with that in Isa 37:1-38; with which it corresponds almost word for word.
2Ki 19:1
And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothesfollowing the example of his chief officers, who came into his presence “with their clothes rent” (see 2Ki 18:37)and covered himself with sackcloth. A sign of grief and self-humiliation (comp. Gen 37:34; 2Sa 3:31; 2Sa 21:10; 1Ki 20:31, 1Ki 21:27; 2Ki 6:30, etc.). It was natural that the king should be even more strongly affected than his ministers. And went into the house of the Lord; to open his griefs, ask counsel, and beg for aid.
2Ki 19:2
And he sent Eliakim, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests. “The elders of the priests” are aged men holding the priestly office, not necessarily the high priest, or the most notable or most dignified of the priests. The king felt that his best hope, so far as man was concerned, lay in the prophetical order. Isaiah, Hosed, Joel, Micah, and perhaps Obadiah, were the prophets of the time; but it is not clear that any of them were accessible except Isaiah. He had been Ahaz’s counselor (Isa 7:4-16), and was now certainly among the regular counselors of Hezekiah. Moreover, he was in Jerusalem, and could readily be consulted. Hezekiah, therefore, sends to him in his distress, and sends a most honorable and dignified embassy. It is his intention to treat the prophet with the utmost respect and courtesy. No doubt, at this period the prophetical order stood higher than the priestly one in general estimation; and not unworthily. If any living man could give the king sound advice under the circumstances, it was the son of Amoz. Covered with sackcloth. Probably by the king’s command. Hezekiah wished to emphasize his own horror and grief in the eyes of the prophet, and could only do so by making his messengers assume the garb which he had judged suitable for himself on the occasion. To Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. Nothing morels known of Amoz beyond his being Isaiah’s father. He is not to be confounded with the Prophet Amos, whose name is spelt quite differently: , not .
2Ki 19:3
And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of Blasphemy. Of “trouble,” or “distress,” manifestlya day on which the whole nation is troubled, grieved, alarmed, distressed, made miserable. It is also a day of “rebuke,” or rather of “chastisement”a day on which God’s hand lies heavy upon us and chastises us for our sins. And it is a day, not of “blasphemy,” but of “abhorrence” or of “contumely”a day on which God contumeliously rejects his people, and allows them to be insulted by their enemies (see the comments of Keil and Bahr). For the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth. A proverbial expression, probably meaning that a dangerous crisis approaches, and that the nation has no strength to carry it through the peril.
2Ki 19:4
It may be the Lord thy Godstill “thy God,” at any rate, if he will not condescend to be called ours, since we have so grievously offended him by our many sins and backslidingswill hear all the words of Rabshakeh. “The words of Rabshakeh” (Isa 37:4); but the expression here used is more emphatic. Hezekiah hoped that God would “hear” Rabshakeh’s words, would note them, and punish them. Whom the King of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God (For the “reproaches” intended, see 2Ki 18:30-35. For the expression, “the living God,” , see Deu 5:26; Jos 3:10; 1Sa 17:26; Psa 42:2; Psa 84:2; Hos 1:10, etc.) A contrast is intended between the “living” God, and the dead idols whom Rabshakeh has placed on a par with him. And will reprove the words which the Lord thy God hath heard. The “words of Rabshakeh,” his contemptuous words concerning Jehovah (2Ki 18:33-35) and his lying words (2Ki 18:25), constituted the new feature in the situation, and, while a ground for “distress,” were also a ground for hope: would not God in some signal way vindicate his own honor, and “reprove” them? Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left. Sennacherib, in his former expedition, wherein he took forty-six of the Judaean cities, besides killing vast numbers, had, as he himself tells us, carried off into captivity 200,150 persons. He had also curtailed Hezekiah’s dominions, detaching from them various cities with their territories, and attaching them to Ashdod, Gaza, and Ekron. Thus it was only a “remnant” of the Jewish people that was left in the land (comp. Isa 1:7-9).
2Ki 19:5
So the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah. Superfluous, according to modern notions, but rounding off the paragraph commenced with verse 2.
2Ki 19:6
And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master. Isaiah seems to have been ready with a reply. The news of the words spoken by Rabshakeh had probably flown through the city, and reached him, and he had already laid the matter before God, and received God’s instructions concerning it. He was therefore able to return an answer at once. Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servantsrather, lackeys; the term used is not the common one for “servants,” viz. , but a contemptuous one, , “foot-boys,” or “lackeys”of the King of Assyria have blasphemed me.
2Ki 19:7
Behold, I will send a blast upon him. The meaning is doubtful. Most modern critics translate, with the LXX; “I will put a spirit within him,” and understand “a spirit of cowardice,” or “a despondent mood” (Thenius), or “an extraordinary impulse of Divine inspiration, which is to hurry him blindly on” (Drechsler). But the idea of our translators, that the blast () is external, and sent upon him, not put in himthat, in fact, the destruction of his army is referred to, seems defensible by such passages as Exo 15:8 and Isa 25:4. The prophecy was, no doubt, intentionally vagueenough for its immediate purpose, which was to comfort and strengthen Hezekiahbut not intended to gratify man’s curiosity by revealing the exact mode in which God would work. And he shall hear a rumor; literally, he shall hear a hearsay; i.e. he shall be told something, which shall determine him on a hasty retreat. It is best, I think, to understand, not news of Tirhakah’s advance (Knobel, Keil, Bahr), much less news of an insurrection in some other part of the empire (Cheyne), but information of the disaster to his army. It is no objection to this that Sennacherib was “with his army.” No doubt he was. But he would learn the catastrophe from the mouth of some one who came into his tent and told himhe would “hear a hearsay” And shall return to his own land (see verse 36), and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. (On Sennacherib’s murder, see the comment upon verse 37.)
2Ki 19:8
So Rabshakeh returned. Rabshakeh’s embassy came to an end with the retirement of Hezekiah’s officers from their conference with the three envoys of Sennacherib. No further communication was held with him. He had outraged all propriety by his appeal to the “men upon the wall” (2Ki 18:27-35); and it seems to have been thought most dignified to give him no answer at all. He had offered no termshe had simply delivered a summons to surrender, and the closed gates and guarded walls were a sufficient reply. So he felt, and returned to his master, re infecta. And found the King of Assyria warring against Libnah. The position of Libnah relatively to Lachish is uncertain. The site of Lachish may be regarded as fixed to Um-Lakis; but that of Libnah rests wholly on conjecture. It has been placed at Tel–es-Safieh, twelve miles northeast of Um-Lakis; at Arak-el-Menshiyeh, about five miles nearly due east of the same; and near Umm-el-Bikar, four miles south-east of Um-Lakis. A removal from Um-Lakis to Tel-el-Safieh would mean a retreat. A march from Um-Lakis to either of the other sites would he quite compatible with an intention to push on to Egypt. For he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. Whether Lachish had been taken or not cannot be determined from these words. But we can scarcely suppose that a place of such slight strength can have defied the Assyrian arms successfully. It is beat therefore to suppose, with Keil and Thenius, that Lachish had been taken.
2Ki 19:9-14
Sennacherib‘s letter to Hezekiah. Sennacherib seems to have been induced to write to Hezekiah by the fact that he could not march against him at once. A forward movement on the part of Tirhakah was reported to him (2Ki 19:9), and he thought it necessary to meet, or at least watch it. But he must vent his anger on the rebel Judaean monarch in some way. He sends a letter, therefore, as more weighty and impressive than a mere message. He warns Hezekiah against being himself deceived by Jehovah (2Ki 19:10); and he expands his inductive argument in proof of the irresistible might of Assyria, by an enumeration of four more recent conquests (2Ki 19:12). Otherwise, he does little but repeat what Rabshakeh had already urged.
2Ki 19:9
And when he heard say of Tirhakah King of Ethiopia. Tirhakah was one of the most distinguished of the later Egyptian monarchs. An Ethiopian by birth, and originally ruling from Napata over the Upper Nile valley from the First Cataract to (perhaps) Khartoum, he extended his dominion over Egypt probably about B.C. 700, maintaining, however, Shabatok, as a sort of puppet-king, upon the throne. About B.C. 693 he succeeded Shabatok, and held the throne till B.C. 667, being engaged in many wars with the Assyrians. The native form of his name is “Tahrak” or “Tahark,” the Assyrian “Tarku” or “Tarqu,” the Greek “Taracos” or “Tearchon.” He has left numerous memorials in Egypt and Ethiopia, and was regarded by the Greeks as a great conqueror. At the time of Sennacherib’s second attack on Hezekiah he was, as appears in the text, not yet King of Egypt, but only of Ethiopia. Still, he regarded Egypt as practically under his suzerainty, and when it was threatened by Sennacherib’s approach, he marched to the rescue. Behold, he is come out to fight against thee. He may have regarded himself as bound in honor to come to the relief of Hezekiah, or he may have been simply bent on defending his own territory. He sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying,
2Ki 19:10
Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah King of Judah, saying. The messengers brought a “letter” (), as we see from 2Ki 19:14; but still they were to “speak to Hezekiah”i.e. they were first to read the contents to him, and then to hand him the copy. Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria. Sennacherib drops the fiction that he himself is sent by Jehovah to attack Judaea and destroy it (2Ki 18:25), and contents himself with suggesting that any announcements which Hezekiah may have received from his God are untrustworthy. Probably he spoke his convictions. He did not think it possible that Jerusalem could resist or escape him (comp. Isa 10:8-11 and Isa 10:13, Isa 10:14).
2Ki 19:11
Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly (see the comment on 2Ki 18:33). The fact was indisputable (secret. 17). The question remainedWould this triumphant career of success necessarily continue? And shalt thou be delivered? A perfect induction is impossible in practical matters. Anything short of a perfect induction is short of a proof.
2Ki 19:12
Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed? The Assyrian kings always speak of all their predecessors as their ancestors. In point of fact, Sennacherib bad had only one “father” among the previous kings, viz. Sargon. As Gozan (see the comment on 2Ki 17:6). It is uncertain at what time Gozan was finally conquered and absorbed. It was frequently overrun by the Assyrians from the reign of Tiglath-pileser I.; but it was probably not absorbed until about B.C. 809. The Prefect of Gozan first appears in the list of Assyrian Eponyms in B.C. 794. And Haran. “Haran” is generally admitted to be the city of Terah (Gen 11:32), and indeed there is no rival claimant of the name. Its position was in the western part of the Gauzanitis region, on the Belik, about lat. 36 50′ N. It was probably conquered by Assyria about the same time as Gozan. And Reseph. A town called “Razappa,” probably “Rezeph,” appears in the Assyrian inscriptions from an early date. It is thought to have been in the near vicinity of Haran, but had been conquered and absorbed as early as B.C. 818. Whether it is identical with the Resapha of Ptolemy (‘Geograph.,’ 5.15) is doubtful. And the children of Eden. Probably the inhabitants of a city called “Bit-Adini” in the Assyrian inscriptions, which was on the Middle Euphrates, not far from Carchemish, on the left bank. This place was conquered by Asshur-nazir-pal, about B.C. 877. Which were in Thelasar. “Thelasar” is probably the Hebrew equivalent of “Tel-Asshur,” “the hill or fort of Asshur,” which may have been the Assyrian name of Bit-Adini, or of a city dependent on it. Asshur-nazir-pal gave Assyrian names to several cities on the Middle Euphrates.
2Ki 19:13
Where is the King of Hamath. Ilu-bid, King of Hamath, raised a rebellion against Sargon in B.C. 720, and was taken prisoner the same year and carried to Assyria. And the King of Arpad. Arpad revolted in conjunction with Hamath, and was reduced about the same time. Its “king” is not mentioned, but he probably shared the fate of Ilu-bid. And the King of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hens, and Ivah? It is probably not meant that these three cities were all of them under the dominion of one and the same king. “King” is to be taken distributively. (On the sites of the cities, see the comment upon 2Ki 18:34.)
2Ki 19:14
And Hezekiah received the letter. It had not been previously stated that Sennacherib had written a letter. But the author forgets this, and so speaks of “the letter.” Kings generally communicated by letters, and not merely by messages (see 2Ki 5:5; 2Ki 20:12; 2Ch 2:11; Neh 1:9, etc.). Of the hand of the messengers, and read it. Probably Sennacherib had caused it to be written in Hebrew. And Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. Not as if God would not otherwise know the contents of the letter, but to emphasize his detestation of the letter, and to make it silently plead for him with God. Ewald rightly compares what Judas Maccabaeus did with the disfigured copies of the Law at Maspha (1 Mace. 3:48), but incorrectly calls it “a laying down of the object in the sanctuary.” Maspha was “over against” the temple, at the distance of a mile or more.
2Ki 19:15
And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel. In the parallel passage of Isa 37:16 we find, “O Lord of hosts, Cod of Israel.” Our author probably abbreviates. Which dwellest between the cherubims; or, on the cherubim“which hast thy seat,” i.e; behind the veil in the awful holy of holies, consecrated to thee, and where thou dost manifest thyself.” Hezekiah, as Keil observes, calls into prominence “the covenant relation into which Jehovah, the Almighty Creator and Ruler of the whole world, had entered towards Israel. As the covenant God, who was enthroned above the cherubim, the Lord was bound to help his people, if they turned to him with faith in the time of their distress and entreated his assistance.” Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. Thou art not, i.e; as Sennacherib supposes, a mere local god, presiding over Judaea, and protecting it; but thou art the God of all the earth and of all its kingdoms, including his own, equally. Moreover, thou alone art the God of the kingdoms. Their supposed gods are no gods, have no existence, are the mere fictions of an idle and excited imagination, are mere “breath” and “nothingness.” Thou hast made heaven and earth. Whereas they have done nothing, have given no proof of their existence (see Isa 41:23, Isa 41:24).
2Ki 19:16
Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear. “Bow down thine ear” is a Hebrew idiom for “give ear,” “attend “(see Psa 31:2; Psa 71:2; Psa 86:1; Pro 22:17, etc.). It is based upon the fact that, when men wish to catch exactly what another says to them, they bend themselves towards him, and bring one ear as near to him as they can. Open, Lord, thine eyes, and see. Take cognizance both with eye and ear; i.e. take full cognizancelet nothing escape thee. And hear the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent him to reproach the living God; rather, which he has sent to reproach. The suffix translated “him” in our version really means “it”i.e. the speech or letter of Sennacherib, which Hezekiah has “spread before the Lord.”
2Ki 19:17
Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyriai.e. Sennacherib, and his predecessorsthe long line of monarchs who have sat on the Assyrian throne for many past ageshave destroyed the nations and their lands; rather, have laid waste, as in the parallel passage of Isaiah (Isa 37:18). “Destroyed” is too strong a word. Hezekiah fully admits the boast of the Assyrian monarch, that he and his predecessors have had a wonderful career of success (comp. Isa 10:5-14); but he refuses to regard this past success as ensuring success in the future. All is in the hand of God, and will be determined as God pleases. It is not an iron necessity that rules the world, but a personal will, and this well may be affected by prayer, to which (verse 19) he therefore has recourse.
2Ki 19:18
And have east their gods into the fire. The images worshipped by the various nations are regarded as “their gods,” which they were, at any rate in the minds of the common people. The ordinary practice of the Assyrians was to carry off the images taken from a conquered people, and to set them up in their own country as trophies of victory (see Isa 46:1, Isa 46:2, where a similar practice is ascribed by anticipation to the Persians). But there are places in the inscriptions where the gods are said to have been “destroyed” or “burnt.” It is reasonable to suppose that the images destroyed were those of wood, stone, and bronze, which had little or no intrinsic value, while the gold and silver idols were carried off to the land of the conqueror. No doubt idols of the former far outnumbered those of the latter kind, and, at each sack of a city the “gods” which it contained were mostly burnt. For they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone (comp. Isa 42:17; Isa 44:9-20; Isa 46:6, Isa 46:7). Wooden images (the Greek ) were probably the earliest that were made, and, on account of their antiquity, were often especially reverenced. They were “carved, but rude, with undivided feet, and eyes indicated by a line, the face colored red, or white, or gilt. It was only later that ivory and gold plates were commonly laid over the wood, vested and decked out with ornaments”. Stone idols were at first shapeless masses, then pillars or cones, finally imitations of the human form, varying from the rudest representations to the priceless statues of Phidias. In Assyrian times, neither the wooden nor the stone idols were possessed of any artistic beauty. Therefore they have destroyed them. “Gods” of this kind could not help themselves, much less save their devotees or the cities supposed to be under their protection. It was not to be wondered at that the Assyrians had triumphed ever such gods.
2Ki 19:19
New therefore, O Lord our God. Hezekiah draws the strongest possible contrast between Jehovah and the idols. Sennacherib had placed them upon a par (2Ki 18:33-35; 2Ki 19:10-13). Hezekiah insists that the idols are “no gods,” are “nothing”at any rate are mere blocks of wood and stone, shaped by human hands. But Jehovah is “the God of all the kingdoms of the earth” (2Ki 19:15), the Maker of heaven and earth (2Ki 19:15), the one and only God (2Ki 19:19)answering to his name, self-existing, all-sufficient, the groundwork of all other existence. And he is “our God“the special God of Israel, bound by covenant to protect there against all enemies. I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand; i.e. “do that which this proud blasphemer thinks that thou canst not do” (2Ki 18:35); show him that thou art far mightier than he supposes, wholly unlike those “no-gods,” over whom he has hitherto triumpheda “very present Help in trouble”potent to save. That all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God. The glory of God is the end of creation; and God’s true saints always bear the fact in mind, and desire nothing so much as that his glory should be shown forth everywhere and always. Moses, in his prayers for rebellious Israel in the wilderness, constantly urges upon God that it will not be for his glory to destroy or desert them (Exo 32:12; Num 14:13-16; Deu 9:26-29). David, in his great strait, asks the destruction of his enemies, “that men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth” (Psa 83:18); and again (Psa 59:13), “Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be; and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth.” Hezekiah prays for a signal vengeance on Sennacherib, not for his own sake, not even for his people’s sake, so much as for the vindication of God’s honor among the nations of the earththat it may be known far and wide that Jehovah is a God who can help, the real Ruler of the world, against whom earthly kings and earthly might avail nothing. Even thou only. It would not satisfy Hezekiah that Jehovah should be acknowledged as a mighty god, one of many. He asks for such a demonstration as shall convince men that he is unique, that he stands alone, that he is the only mighty God in all the earth.
2Ki 19:20
Then Isaiah the son of Amos sent to Hezekiah, saying. As Hezekiah prays, Isaiah is by Divine revelation made cognizant of his prayer, and commissioned to answer it favorably. That he sends his answer, instead of taking it, is indicative of the high status of the prophets at this period, which made it not unseemly that, in spiritual matters, they should claim at least equality with the monarch. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib King of Assyria I have heard. First of all, Hezekiah is assured that his prayer has been “heard.” God has “bowed down his ear” to it (verse 16)has taken it into his consideration, and has sent a reply. Then the reply follows, in fourteen verses arranged in four strophes or stanzas. The first (verses 21-24) and second (verses 25-28) are addressed to Sennacherib, and breathe a tone of scorn and contempt. The third (verses 29-31), is addressed to Hezekiah, and is encouraging and consolatory. The fourth (verses 32-34) is an assurance to all whom it may concern, that Jerusalem is safe, that Sennacherib will not take it, that he will not even commence its siege.
2Ki 19:21
This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him. “Him” is, of course, Sennacherib. It adds great liveliness and force to the opening portion of the oracle, that it should be addressed directly by Jehovah to Sennacherib, as an answer to his bold challenge. The only address at all similar in Scripture is that to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:31, Dan 4:32), spoken by “a voice from heaven” But the present passage is one of far greater force and beauty. The virgin the daughter of Zion; rather, the virgin daughter of Zion, or the virgin daughter, Zion. Cities were commonly personified by the sacred writers, and represented as “daughters” (see Isa 23:10, Isa 23:12; Isa 47:1, Isa 47:5, etc.). “Virgin daughter” here may perhaps represent “the consciousness of impregnability” (Drechsler); but the phrase seems to have been used rhetorically or poetically, to heighten the beauty or pathos of the picture (Isa 23:12; Isa 47:1; Jer 46:11; Lam 2:13), without any reference to the question whether the particular city had or had not been previously taken. Jerusalem certainly had been taken by Shishak (1Ki 14:26), and by Joash (2Ki 14:13); but Zion, if it be taken as the name of the eastern city (Bishop Patrick, ad lee.), may have been still a “virgin fortress.” Hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; or, despises thee and laughs thee to scorn. The Hebrew preterite has often a present sense. Whatever was the case a little while ago (see Isa 22:1-14), the city now laughs at thy threats. The daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee; or, wags her head at theein scorn and ridicule (comp. Psa 22:7).
2Ki 19:22
Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? i.e. “Against whom hast thou been mad enough to measure thyself? Whom hast thou dared to insult and defy?” Not an earthly kingnot a mere angelic beingbut the Omnipotent, the Lord of earth and heaven. What utter folly is this! What mere absurdity? And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice? i.e. “spoken proudly”in the tone in which a superior speaks of an inferiorand lifted up thine eyes on high?i.e. “looked down upon”treated with contempt, as not worth considerationeven against the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah’s favorite phraseused by him twenty-seven times, and only five times in the rest of Scripturemarks this entire prophecy as his genuine utterance, net the composition of the writer of Kings, but a burst of sudden inspiration from the Coryphaeus of the prophetic band. The oracle bears all the marks of Isaiah’s elevated, fervid, and highly poetic style.
2Ki 19:23
By thy messengersliterally, by the hand of thy messengersRabshakeh and others (see 2Ki 18:30, 2Ki 18:35; 2Ki 19:10-13)thou hast reproached the Lord, and but said. Sennacherib had net said what is here attributed to him, any more than Sargon had said the words ascribed to him in Isa 10:13, Isa 10:14. But he had thought it; and God accounts men’s deliberate thoughts as their utterances. Isaiah’s “oracle” brings out and places in a striking light the pride, self-confidence, and self-sufficiency which underlay Sennacherib’s messages and letters. With the multitude of my chariots; or, with chariots upon chariots. The chariot-force was the main arm of the Assyrian military servicethat on which most dependence was placed, and to which victory was commonly attributed. The number of chariots that could be brought into the field by the Assyrians is nowhere stated; but we find nearly four thousand hostile chariots collected to oppose an ordinary Assyrian invasion, and defeated. The estimates of Cteriaseleven thousand for Ninas, and a hundred thousand for Semiramis (Died. Sic; Isa 2:5. 4)are, of course, unhistorical. I am come up to the height of the mountains. “The height of the mountains” is here the high ground which an army would have to traverse in passing from the Coele-Syrian valley into Palestine. It is not exactly Lebanon, which runs parallel with the coast, and certainly does not “guard Palestine to the north,” as Keil supposes; But it may be viewed as a “side” or “flank” of Lebanon. In point of fact, Lebanon and Hermon unite their roots to form a barrier between the Coele-Syrian plain (El Buka‘a) and the valley of the Jordan, and an invader from the north must cross this barrier. It is not so difficult or rugged but that the Assyrians could bring their chariots ever it. They were accustomed to traverse far more difficult regions in Zagros and Niphatos and Taurus, and to carry their chariots with them, dismounting when necessary, and having the vehicles lifted over obstacles by human hands. To the sides of Lebanon. An army which invades Palestine by the Coele-Syrian valleyquite the easiest and most usual line of invasionnecessarily passes along the entire eastern “side,” or “flank,” of Lebanon, which is the proper meaning of , and not “loftiest height” (Keil), or “innermost recess” (Revised Version). The plural, , is natural when a mountain range, like Lebanon, is spoken of. And will cut down the tall cedar trees thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof. The felling of timber in the Syrian mountain-chains was a common practice of the Assyrian invaders, and had two quite distinct objects. Sometimes it was mere cruel devastation, done to injure and impoverish the inhabitants; but more often it was done for the sake of the timber which the conqueror carried off into his own country. “The mountains of Amanus I ascended,” says Asshur-nazir-pal; “wood for bridges, pines, box, cypress, I cut down cedar-wood from Amanus I destined for Bit-Hira and my pleasure-house called Azmaku, and for the temple of the moon and sun, the exalted gods. I proceeded to the land of Iz-mehri, and took possession of it throughout: I cut down beams for bridges, and carried them to Nineveh”. The cedar (erez) and the pine, or juniper (berosh), were in special request. And I will enter into the lodgings of his bordersrather, the lodge of its borderperhaps a palace or hunting-lodge on the outskirt of the Lebanon forest region (comp. Son 7:4)and into the forest of his Carmel; rather, the forest of its orchard; i.e. the choicest part of the Lebanon forest regionthe part which is rather park or orchard than mere forest.
2Ki 19:24
I have digged and drunk strange waters; rather, perhaps, I dig, and drink and dry upthe preterit having again a present sense. Sennacherib means that this is what he is wont to do. As mountains do not stop him (2Ki 19:23), so deserts do not stop himhe digs wells in them, and drinks water “strange” to the soilnever before seen there. And with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of besieged places; rather, will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt (compare the Revised Version. “Mazor” is used for “Egypt” in Isa 19:6 and Mic 7:12). It is the old singular from which was formed the dual Mizraim. Whether it meant “land of strength” (Pusey), or “land of distress” (Ewald), may be doubted, since we have no right to assume a Hebrew derivation. There was probably a native word, from which the Hebrew Mazor, the Assyrian Muzr, and the Arabic Misr were taken. Sennacherib’s beast is that, as he makes deserts traversable by digging wells, so, if rivers try to stop him, he will find a way of drying them up. Compare the boasts of Alaric in Clau-dian, who had probably this passage of Kings in his thoughts
“To patior suadente fugam, cum cesserit omnis
Obsequiis natura meis?
Subsidere nostris Sub pedibus montes, arescere vidimus amnes
Fregi Alpes, galeisque Padum victricibus hausi.”
2Ki 19:25
Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it? The strain suddenly changesthe person of the speaker is altered. It is no longer Sennacherib who reveals the thoughts of his own heart, but Jehovah who addresses the proud monarch. “Hast thou not heard, how from long ago I have acted thus? Hast thou never been taught that revolutions, conquests, the rise and fall of nations, are God’s doing, decreed by him long, long ageay, from the creation of the world? Art thou not aware that this is so, either from tradition, or by listening to the voice of reason within thine own heart?” It is implied that such knowledge ought to he in the possession of every man. And of ancient times that I have formed it? A rhetorical repetition of the previous question, needful for the balance of clauses, in which Hebrew poetry delights, but adding nothing to the sense. Now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps. The idea was very familiar to Isaiah and his contemporaries. Years before, when Assyria first became threatening, Isaiah, speaking in the person of Jehovah, had exclaimed, “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets” (Isa 10:5, Isa 10:6). But the heathen kings whom God made his instruments to chasten sinful nations imagined that they conquered and destroyed and laid waste by their own strength (see Isa 10:7-14).
2Ki 19:26
Therefore their inhabitants were of small power; literally, were short of handunable, i.e; to make an effectual resistance. When God has decreed a change in the distribution of power among the nations, his providence works doubly. It infuses confidence and strength into the aggressive people, and spreads dismay and terror among those who are attacked. Unaccountable panics seize themthey seem paralyzed; instead of making every possible preparation for resistance, they fold their hands and do nothing. They are like fascinated birds before the stealthy advance of the serpent. They were dismayed and confounded. Historically, the prophet declares, this was the cause of the general collapse of the nations whom the Assyrians attacked. God put a craven fear into their hearts. They were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the house-tops. The “grass of the field” is one of the most frequent similes for weakness. “All flesh is grass” (Isa 40:6); “They shall soon be cut down like the grass” (Psa 37:2); “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth” (Isa 40:8); “I am withered like grass” (Psa 102:11). In the hot sun of an Eastern sky nothing faded more quickly. But this weakness was intensified in the “grass of the house-tops.” It “withered before it grew up” (Psa 129:6). The depth of earth was so slight, the exposure so great, the heat so scorching, that it sank in death almost as soon as it had sprung to life. Such has been the weakness of the nations given over as a prey to the Assyrians. And as corn blasted before it be grown up. Corn blasted before it shoots into a stalk is as frail as grass, or frailer. It dwindles and disappears without even asserting itself.
2Ki 19:27
But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in. “Resting in peace, going out, and coming in, cover all the activity of a man” (Bahr), or rather, cover his whole life, active and passive. Jehovah claims an absolute knowledge of all that Sennacherib does or thinks, both when he is in action and when he is at rest. Nothing is hid from him (comp. Psa 139:1-16). Human pride should stand abashed before such absolute knowledge. And thy rage against me. Opposition to their will fills violent men with fury and rage. Sennacherib’s anger was primarily against Hezekiah, but when once he was convinced that Hezekiah really trusted in Jehovah (2Ki 19:10), his fury would turn against God himself (see Psa 2:1-3, where the Lord’s anointed is primarily David).
2Ki 19:28
Because thy rage against me, and thy tumultrather, thy arrogancy (see the Revised Version); is rather the quiet security of extreme pride and self-confidence than “tumult”is come up into mine earsi.e. has attracted my noticetherefore I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips. The imagery is most striking. Captive kings were actually so treated by the Assyrians themselves. A hook or split-ring was thrust through the cartilage of the nose, or the fleshy part of the under lip, with a rope or thong attached to it, and in this guise they were led into the monarch’s presence, to receive their final sentence at his hands. In the sculptures of Sargon at Khorsabad we see three prisoners brought before him in this fashion, one of whom he seems to be about to kill with a spear. In another sculpture set up by a Babylonian king, his vizier brings before him two captives similarly treated, but with the ring, apparently, passed through the cartilage of their noses Manasseh seems to have received the same treatment at the hands of the “captains” (2Ch 33:11) who brought him a prisoner to Esarhaddon at Babylon. Other allusions to the practice in Scripture will be found in Isa 30:28; Eze 29:4; Eze 38:4. The threat in the present passage was, of course, not intended to be understood life-rally, but only as a declaration that God would bring down the pride of Sennacherib, humiliate him, and reduce him to a state of abject weakness and abasement. And I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest (comp. verse 33). The meaning is clear. Sennacherib would not be allowed to come near Jerusalem. He would hurry back by the low coast route (2Ki 18:17), by which he had made his invasion.
2Ki 19:29
And this shall be a sign unto thee. Another sudden change in the address. The prophet turns from Sennacherib to Hezekiah, and proceeds to give him a sign, and otherwise speak to him encouragingly. Signs were at the time freely offered and given by God both to the faithful and the unfaithful (see 2Ki 20:4; Isa 7:11, Isa 7:14). They generally consisted in the prediction of some near event, whose occurrence was to serve as a pledge, or evidence, of the probable fulfillment of another prediction of an event more distant. Such signs are not necessarily miraculous. Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves. The Assyrian invasion, coming early in the spring, as was usual, had prevented the Israelites from sowing their lands. But they would soon be gone, and then the Israelites could gather in such self-sown corn as they might find in the corn-lands. The next year, probably a sabbatical year, they were authorized to do the same, notwithstanding the general prohibition (Lev 25:5); the third year they would return to their normal condition. The sign was not given with reference to Sennacherib’s departure, which belonged to the first year, and must take place before the ingathering of the self-sown corn could begin, but with reference to the promise that Jerusalem should be free from any further attack on his part. Sennacherib reigned seventeen years longer, but led no further expedition into Palestine. And in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof.
2Ki 19:30
And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah. Sennacherib, who in his first expedition had carried away out of Judaea 200,150 prisoners, had in his second probably done considerable damage to the towns in the south-west of PalestineLachish, for instance, which was a city of Judah (Jos 15:39; 2Ki 14:19). The open country had been wasted, great numbers killed, and many probably carried off by famine and pestilence. Thus both Hezekiah (2Ki 19:4) and Isaiah regard the population still in the land as a mere “remnant.” Shall yet again take root downwardi.e; be firmly fixed and established in the land, like a vigorous tree that strikes its roots into the soil deeplyand bear fruit upward; i.e. exhibit all the outward signs of prosperity. The reign of Josiah, when the Jewish dominion embraced the whole of Palestine (2Ki 23:15-20), was the special fulfillment of this prophecy.
2Ki 19:31
For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant. The march of Sennacherib and the raid of Rabshakeh had driven the mass of the escaped population of Judaea to take refuge within the walls of Jerusalem, from which, on the retirement of the invaders, they would gladly “go forth,” to recultivate their lands (2Ki 19:29) and restore their ruined homes. And they that escaperather, that shall escapeout of Mount Zion“Mount Zion” is a variant for Jerusalem, as in 2Ki 19:21, and in Isaiah and the Psalms so continuallythe zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this. So in Isa 9:7 and Isa 37:32. Here most manuscripts have “the zeal of the Lord,” omitting “of hosts;” and this is probably the right reading. The meaning is that God’s zealous love and care for his people will effect their complete restoration to prosperity and glory, difficult as it was at the time to imagine such a restoration.
2Ki 19:32
Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the King of Assyria. The oracle concludes with a general announcement, addressed to all whom it may concern, not to any one individually, concerning the existing distress. First, it is laid down what shall not be the issue. Hei.e. Sennacheribshall not come intorather, untothis cityi.e. Jerusalemnor shoot an arrow therei.e; he shall not begin the attack, as was usually done, with discharges of arrows, to clear the walls of their defenders, and make it safe for the sappers and miners and the siege artillery to draw nearnor come before it with shieldi.e. advance close, to raise the scaling-ladders, or mine the walls, or fire the gates, under the protection of huge shieldsnor east a bank against it. Much less shall he proceed to the last extremity of raising mounds against the walls, and planting upon them his balistae and his battering-rams, with the object of effecting a breach. Each of the successive stages of a siege is touched, and negatived. None of these things shall be done. There shall be no siege.
2Ki 19:33
By the way that he came, by the same shall he return (see 2Ki 19:28). Not merely, “he shall fail of his object” (Bahr, Keil), “he shall return disappointed;” but, literally, he shall retrace his steps, he shall quit Palestine by the same route by which he entered itthe coast route along the maritime plain, which left Jerusalem on the right at a distance of forty miles. And shall not come intorather, untothis city, saith the Lord. An emphatic ending (comp. Isa 22:14; Isa 45:13; Isa 54:17; Isa 55:8; Isa 59:20; Isa 65:25; Isa 66:21, Isa 66:23).
2Ki 19:34
For I will defend this city, to save itnot merely with a view of saving it, but in such sort as effectually to save itfor mine own sakei.e; because my own honor is concerned in its preservation, especially after the taunts of Sennacherib (2Ki 18:32-35; 2Ki 19:10-13)and for my servant David’s sake. Not so much on account of the promises made to David, as on account of the love which God bore towards him for his faithfulness and earnest devotion.
2Ki 19:35-37
DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB‘S HOST, AND HIS OWN VIOLENT DEATH AT NINEVEH. The sequel is told in a few words. That night destruction came down on the host of Sennacherib, as it lay en-camped at some distance from Jerusalem, silently and swiftly. Without noise, without disturbance, the sleeping men slept the sleep of death, and in the morning, when the survivors awoke, it was found that a hundred and eighty-five thousand were slain. Upon this, with the remnant of his army, Sennacherib hastily returned to Nineveh. There, some time afterabout seventeen years according to our reckoninga conspiracy was formed against him by two of his sons, who murdered him as he was worshipping in a temple, and fled into Armenia. Another son, Esarhaddon, succeeded.
2Ki 19:35
And it came to pass that night. The important expression, “that night,” is omitted from the narrative of Isa 37:36, but is undoubtedly an original portion of the present history. It can have no other meaningas Keil and Bahr have seenthan “the night following the day on which Isaiah had foretold to Hezekiah the deliverance of Jerusalem.” God’s word “runneth very swiftly.” No sooner was the premise given than the destroying angel received his orders, and “that night” the terrible stroke fell. That the angel of the Lord went out; or, an angel ( , LXX.). We cannot say, with Bahr, that it was “the same one who smote the firstborn in Egypt, and inflicted the pestilence after the census under David.” Revelation does not tell us that there is definitely one destroying angel. “The angel of death” is a rabbinical invention. It accords rather with the analogy of God’s dealings that he should use at one time the services of one minister, at another time those of another. And smote. Imagination has been over-busy in conjecturing the exact manner of the smiting. Some critics have suggested pestilence, or more definitely “the plague” (Gesenius, Dathe, Maurer, Ewald, Winer, Thenins, Keil, etc.); others a terrible storm (Vitringa, Stanley); others the simoom (Prideaux, Milman); others a nocturnal attack by Tirhakah (Ussher, Preiss, Michaelis). Some of these the text altogether precludes, as the attack of Tirhakah, which must have aroused the whole host, and not left the disaster to be discovered by those who “awoke early in the morning.” Others are improbable, as the simoom, or a terrible storm with thunder and lightning, which have never been known to accomplish such a destruction. Pestilence is no doubt possible, but a pestilence of a strange and miraculous character, to which men succumbed without awaking or disturbing others. But the narrative rather points to sudden and silent death during sleep, such as often happens to men in the course of nature singly, and here on this occasion was made to happen in one night to a hundred and eighty-five thousand men by the Divine omnipotence acting abnormally. In the camp of the Assyrians. The destruction was not only at one time, but in one place. “The camp of the Assyrians” cannot mean half a dozen camps situated in half a dozen different places, as Keil supposes. Sennacherib was somewhere with his main army, encamped for the night, and there, wherever it was, the blow fell. But the exact locality is uncertain. All that the narrative makes clear is that it was not in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Herodotus places the catastrophe at Pelusium. Bahr thinks it was probably before Libnah. I should incline to place it between Libnah and the Egyptian frontier, Sennacherib, when he heard that Tirhakah was coming against him (verse 9), having naturally marched forward to meet and engage his army. A hundred four score and five thousand. These figures do not pretend to exactness, and can scarcely have been more than a rough estimate. They are probably the Assyrians’ own estimate of their loss, which the Jews would learn from such of the fugitives as fell into their hands. And when theyi.e; the survivorsarose early in the morning, theyi.e. the hundred and eighty-five thousandwere all dead corpsesabsolutely dead, that is; not merely sick or dying. The fact makes against the theory of a pestilence.
2Ki 19:36
So Sennacherib King of Assyria departed, and went and returned. The, original is more lively, and more expressive of haste. Sennacherib, it is said, “decamped, and departed, and returned”the heaping up of the verbs expressing the hurry of the march home (Keil); comp. 1Ki 19:3. And dwelt at Nineveh. Nineveh was Sennacherib’s favorite residence. He had built himself a palace, there, marked by the modern mound of Koyunjik. Sargon, his father, had dwelt mainly at Dur-Sargina or Khorsabad, Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaueser at Calah or Nimrod. Sennacherib’s palace and his ether buildings at Nineveh are described in his annals at some length. The expression, “dwelt at Nineveh,” does not mean that he never quitted it, but merely implies that he dwelt there for some considerable time after his return, as he appears to have done by his annals. The Eponym Canon makes his last year B.C. 682.
2Ki 19:37
And it came to passseventeen or eighteen years afterwards; not “fifty-five days” after, as the author of Tobit (1. 21) saysas he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god. The word Nisroch offers considerable difficulty. It has been connected with nesher (), “eagle,” and explained as a reference to the eagle-headed genius sometimes seen in the Assyrian sculptures. But there is no evidence that the genii were ever worshipped in Assyria, much less that they had temples of their own, nor is any name resembling “Nisroch” attached to any of them. The word itself is somewhat doubtful, and different manuscripts of the Septuagint, here and in Isa 37:38, have the variants of Nasaraeh, Esorach, Meserach, and Asarach, while Josephus has Araskas. Asarach might conceivably be a strengthened form of Asshur; but the substitution of samech for shin is against this explanation. Still, Asshur was certainly Sennacherib’s favorite god, the deity whom he principally worshipped. Josephus regards the name as belonging, not to the god, but to the temple ( ), which is perhaps the true solution of the difficulty. Translate”as he was worshipping his god in the house Nisroch.” That Adram-melech and Sharezer his sons. Adram-melech is called “Adrammeles” by Abydenus, “Ardamazanes” by Polyhistor. Neither form resembles any known Assyrian name, but Adrammelech has a good Semitic derivation (see the comment on 2Ki 18:31). “Sharezer” is probably a shortened form of Nergal-shar-ozer (comp. “Shalman,” Hos 10:14), which was a name in use at the time. Abydenus seems to have called him Nergilus. Smote him with the sword. So Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 10.1. 5) and Mos. Chor. (‘Hist. Armen.,’ 1.22). A mutilated inscription of Esarhaddon’s seems to have described his war with his brothers at the commencement of his reign, but the earlier part is wanting. And they escaped into the land of Armenia; literally, of Ararat. The Hebrew “Ararat” is the Assyrian “Ur-arda”the ordinary name for the country about Lakes Van and Urumiyeh. The name “Armenia” is not found earlier than the inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead. Esarhaddon (the Sarchedon of Tobit 1:21, and the Asshur-akh-iddin of the Assyrian inscriptions) succeeded his father in B.C. 681, and was engaged for some time in a war with his brothers on the Upper Euphrates, after which he made himself master of Nineveh. He reigned from B.C. 681 to B.C. 669, when he was succeeded by his son, Asshur-bani-pal. Assyria reached the acme of her prosperity in his time.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 19:1-35
The wisdom of trust in God, and the foolishness of trust in self.
The contrast between the devout, God-fearing, God-trusting Hezekiah, and the proud, self-trusting, self-asserting Sennacherib is one of the most striking and instructive in Scripture. The two are set one over against the other in the most graphic way.
I. THE PICTURE OF HEZEKIAH shows him:
1. Jealous of God‘s honor. Sennacherib’s words against God strike him with horror, appear to him such shocking blasphemy, that he rends his clothes and covers himself with sackcloth (2Ki 19:1), as if he would wipe out the insult offered to God by one of his creatures’ arrogancy, by causing to be presented before him the profoundest self-abasement and self-humiliation on the part of another.
2. Sensible of his own weakness. The day is “a day of trouble, of rebuke, and of contumely.” Israel is despised, insulted, disgraced, and yet can do nothing. The time of her utmost trial has come, and she has “no strength’ to carry her through the crisis.
3. Trustful in God‘s power to save. If God will, Hezekiah does not doubt he can “reprove” Sennacherib’s wordsdisperse them, scatter them, show them to be vain words, words of naught.
4. Reliant on the power of prayer. “Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left.” Prayer is the only key that can unlock a door of escape. He himself resorts to prayer (2Ki 19:15), and he exhorts Isaiah to do the same. If he himself is sinful, Isaiah is a righteous man, God’s prophet, and “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (Jas 5:16).
II. THE PICTURE OF SENNACHERIB shows him:
1. A hater and reviler of God. “Let not thy God deceive thee” (verse 10). As though God ever deceived, as though he were not the Truth itself. Sennacherib represents him as either a poor braggart who could not do what he had promised, or a malevolent being intentionally beguiling men, to their ruin. “Jehovah,” he says, “has sent him against Jerusalem,” has bidden him “go up and destroy it (2Ki 18:25), while at the same time he was deluding Hezekiah with promises of deliverance.
2. Absolutely confident in his own strength. Who can stand against the Assyrians? Who has ever been able to resist them? “Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria?” (verse 33). And if not, “shalt thou be delivered?” He sets his own strength against Hezekiah’s weakness (verses 23, 24), and regards himself as irresistible. His will is law. What can hinder it? Not armiesleast of all Egyptian armiesnot mountains, not rivers, not deserts. Intoxicated with success, he thinks there is no power equal to him either in earth or heaven. The gods of the nations have all failed. Hezekiah’s God will fail equally.
3. Secure of the future, and without any thought of suing for Divine aid. Why should Sennacherib sue? Success had always attended him in the past; surely “tomorrow would be as today,” only “yet more abundant.” He does not appear to give even his own gods a thought. Conventional ascription of his victories to Asshur may be found in his inscriptions; but, as Isaiah lays bare to us the workings of his innermost soul (verse 23, 24), there is no leaning on any higher power, no recognition of anything behind his own greatness and material strength, no suspicion even of the possibility of a reverse. He is a god to himself; he commands the future; everything must necessarily go well with him. The event shows the wisdom of Hezekiah’s trust and the utter folly of Sennacherib’s. “Out of the depths” Hezekiah “cries unto the Lord,” and “the Lord hears his voice.” “With the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.” Hezekiah may in the past have wavered, have listened to evil counselors, have paid his court to Pharaoh, and put his trust in the broken reed Egypt; but now, at any rate, he has repented of such evil courses, he has put them away from him, and thrown himself wholly upon God. His words (verses 15-19) have the unmistakable ring of sincerity and truth. To God he looks, and to him only. His strength is become perfected in his weakness; with the result that God hears his prayer (verse 20), and grants the unparalleled deliverance related in verse 35. Sennacherib, on the other hand, finds in a moment the whole ground of his self-confidence fail. It was as the master of many legions that he had thought to bend all things to his will. Bereft of his legions, he is nothing. Today a mighty conqueror carrying everything before him, unfeignedly astonished that any one should dare to disobey his commands; on the morrow he is a wretched fugitive, hurrying homewards as fast as his chariot-steeds will bear him, only anxious to escape from the foes whom he so lately despised, and to bury his shame and his disgrace within the walls of his distant palace. In his pride and his self-trust he had thrown out a challenge to God. God took up the challenge, and struck him down to the earth. The circumstances of the catastrophe are unique in the world’s history; but the lesson is one that the events of history have taught again and again. At the height of his pride and arrogancy and self-trust, the ungodly conqueror is stricken with failure, humiliated, beaten down to the ground, shown that, after all, he is a mere man, and that the fates of nations are not in his power, but in the hand of One whose name is “the Most High,” and who ruleth in all the kingdoms of the earth.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN
2Ki 19:1-7
A good man’s prayers sought.
Hezekiah is in deep distress of spirit at the haughty, defiant, confident tone of Rabshakeh. He wants help in his trouble. He sends not to his men of war, not to his statesmen, for advice, but to the man of God.
I. CHARACTER GIVES CONFIDENCE. Isaiah was known to live near to God. Therefore Hezekiah had confidence in him. Here is a good test of the character of your companions and associates. Would you go to them in time of trouble? Would you expect them to give you any comfort? Would you tell them the inner secrets of your heart? If not, is it not because you have no confidence in them? Their character does not command your respect. Choose the company, seek the counsel, of good. men.
II. CHARACTER GIVES POWER IN PRAYER. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” The man who expects an answer to his prayers is the man who habitually lives near to God. Mary Queen of Scots said she feared the prayers of John Knox more than an army of ten thousand men. Therefore:
1. Live near to God if you would influence others. Power for service comes from fellowship with God. Men like Isaiah have that quiet power that enables them to inspire others with confidence. “Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard” (verse 6). So with St. Paul on his perilous voyage to Rome. “I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.”
2. Live near to God if you would have power in prayer. The man who prays most is the man who knows the power of prayer.
“Thrice blest whose lives are faithful prayers,
Whose loves in higher love endure;
What souls possess themselves so pure,
Or is there blessedness like theirs?”
2Ki 19:8-37
Our difficulties, and how to deal with them.
We have seen that Hezekiah was a man distinguished by his trust in God. We have seen how his trust in God led him to act in times of peace. His trust in God led to personal religion, to practical effort, and to prosperity in life. We see here how he acted when troubles came. Depend upon it, the man who makes his peace with God when all is going well with himhe will have peace within his spirit when the time of trouble comes. The man who does not allow the flowing tide of worldly prosperity or worldly pleasure to draw him away from God, he will find that God is near to him in the hour of danger and of need. It was certainly an hour of danger and anxiety with Hezekiah. With a vast army, Sennacherib, the King of Assyria, was threatening Jerusalem. The very name of Assyria was at that time a terror to the nations, just as for a long time the name of Napoleon was a terror to Europe. One by one, nation after nation had gone down before the triumphal progress of the Assyrian arms. Sennacherib, conscious of his past successes, conscious of the mighty host that accompanies him, looks down with contempt upon Hezekiah and his attempt at resistance. He sends him a letter, in which he points out how futile his efforts at resistance must prove. The gods of the other nations had not been able to deliver them, and let him not think that his God whom he served would deliver him. This letter and Hezekiah’s action regarding it suggest to us some instructive lessons.
I. SENNACHERIB‘S LETTER, AND THE TEMPTATION IT BROUGHT. (2Ki 19:9-13.) The drift of Sennacherib’s letter was entirely to lead Hezekiah to distrust God. Sennacherib was confident of victory; but he wanted Hezekiah to surrender to him, so that he might obtain as much tribute as he could, and at the same time incur no loss of life in his own army. So he turns into ridicule Hezekiah’s faith in his God. “Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed? Where is the King of Hamath, and the King of Arpad, and the King of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hens, and Ivah?” In a similar way Rabshakeh, one of Sennacherib’s generals, had already spoken to the people of Jerusalem. He had sought to influence their fears. He had sought to tempt them by bribes. He had said, “Let not Hezekiah deceive you neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the King of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come ye 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: until I come and take you away into 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 deliver us.” It is easy to imagine the effect of such statements upon a people few in number compared with the Assyrian’s mighty host. The horrors of a protracted siege were in prospect. The longer they continued their resistance, the more desolation and devastation would be committed by the Assyrian army in their fields and homesteads. Many of them doubtless were already murmuring at Hezekiah, and some of them perhaps ready to make an agreement with the enemy. It was a trying position for Hezekiah. Both the letter of Sennacherib, and the circumstances in which he was placed, were a strong temptation to him to distrust God. He might have said, “Is this the reward which my service of God has brought me? I have been faithful to God’s commands. I have restored the temple; I have restored the service of God. I have thrown down the altars and high places, and broken the images in pieces. Even the brazen serpent, which the people valued so highly as a relic of the past, I have ground to powder, because their idolatry of it was dishonoring to God. And now is it thus that God rewards me?” This is just the temptation that our difficulties and troubles constantly bring to us. They tempt us to distrust God.
1. It is so in the growth of our own spiritual life. How often the young beginner in the Christian life is discouraged by the difficulties which arise, and which he did not calculate on! He finds that there is still an old nature within him which has to be grappled with and conquered. He meets, perhaps, with opposition and discouragements from the world without, and perhaps even from those from whom he expected sympathy and help. These difficulties tempt many a one to distrust God. Many there are still who, like the disciples when difficulties arose, “go back, and walk no more with” God. One of the common difficulties which tempts us to distrust God is the prosperity of the wicked. Everything seems to prosper with men who have no respect for the Law of God. The temptation is for us, in distrust of God’s promises, to imitate their godless practices. We begin to say, “There is no use in our being too scrupulous.” Ah! what a mistake that is! Supposing we had all their prosperity, would it compensate us for the loss of a quiet conscience? Prosperity is dearly bought, business is dearly bought, for which we have to sacrifice one commandment of God, or silence the still small voice of conscience that speaks within. “What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Whenever this difficulty of the prosperity of godless men troubles you, and success which seems to be reached by questionable and unscrupulous means, remember the grand words of the thirty-seventh psalm, “Fret not thyself because of evil-doers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb. Commit thy way unto the Lord: trust also in him; and he will bring it to pass.”
2. In the same way there are difficulties in Christian work. How common a thing it is for Christians, who make much profession of their faith in God, to be dismayed and discouraged by difficulties that arise! Very often they are hindered from engaging in Christian work at all just by the difficulties that exist. I do not mean to say every person will suit every kind of work. There may be many kinds of work in which a man should not engage, because he has no fitness for them. But every Christian ought to be engaged in some work. If you are doing nothing for the Master, may we ask you why? What is your reason? What difficulty is in your way? No difficulty an excuse for idleness. You may think yourself too young, or too inexperienced, or too humble; you may find others hard to work with; you may meet with discouragement and opposition; but no one of these things is any excuse for idleness. If difficulties were a reason for doing nothing, no Christian work would ever have been doneno churches built, no missionaries sent forth, no schools erectedfor there never was a Christian work yet that had not its difficulties. Let us learn to take as our motto in Christian work, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” Each one of you, no doubt, has his or her own difficulties to contend withdifficulties in your daily employment, difficulties from those you come in contact with, troubles and anxieties of spirit, cares and worries of various kinds. My message to you is this. Be not unduly cast down by your difficulties. Don’t make too much of them. Just do with them as Hezekiah did, and you will see how soon they will disappear altogether, or at any rate they will be very considerably diminished.
II. HEZEKIAH‘S PRAYER. (2Ki 19:14-19.) Hezekiah had learned by experience. As he grew older he became wiser. A short time before, when Sennacherib was capturing his cities, and had advanced upon Jerusalem, Hezekiah sent a message to him, saying, “I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear” Sennacherib appointed him the exorbitant tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. Hezekiah was in great straits for means to meet this demand. In his difficulty he imitated the foolish action of his own father Ahaz, and took the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, besides cutting off the gold from the doors and pillars of the temple, and then sent this as a peace offering to Sennacherib. But notwithstanding all this, Sennacherib did not give up his warlike intentions. He once more threatened Jerusalem. This time Hezekiah acts differently. He had learned now the mistake of rashly yielding to difficulties. It is a lesson we all need to learn. If we yield to our difficulties, they will return again, and with renewed force. One difficulty yielded to makes the next one harder to resist. One difficulty resisted makes the next one far easier to overcome.
1. Hezekiah’s first act, after he had read Sennacherib’s letter, was to go up into the house of the Lord. There he showed his wisdom. If we want advice in sickness, advice as to our bodily health, we go to the house of our physician. If we want to purchase food or clothing, we go where these necessaries of life are to be obtained. Hezekiah was now in a difficulty where human help could be of little or no use to him. So he goes to the one place where alone he might expect helpto the house of the Lord. The very act of going to the house of the Lord is a wise one. It reminds us that there is another world than that which is seenthe world of spirits, the world of the invisible. It reminds us that there is One in whose hand every human life is, One to whom in all ages human hearts have turned, in every time of sorrow, of difficulty, and of helplessness, and One whose power and whose goodness men have acknowledged by raising temples for his honor and for their own and others’ good. Every true Christian must testify what a blessing the house of the Lord has been to him. How should we have fared without its precious privileges? How often have we felt, when the Sunday morning came round, and we joined in the song of praise, and approached the mercy-seat in company with other anxious, sinful, troubled, human hearts like our own; as we listened to the words of everlasting life; as we heard of him who is the “Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” as we heard him saying to us, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest;”how often have we felt that the difficulties of the week vanished; the burdens of the week were lightened; the cloud of sorrow that hung over us seemed suddenly to lift; we went forth again with new hope in our hearts, and with new strength in our lives; and upon our lips, perhaps, were such words as these
“Goodness and mercy all my life
Shall surely follow me,
And in God’s house for evermore
My dwelling-place shall be!”
Hezekiah, then, did a wise thing in going to the place where blessing was to be found. But he did more than that.
2. He spread the letter before the Lord. What a faith in God’s presence that showed!a real presence, indeed, not of body, but of that ever~ present Spirit, in whom we live and move and have our being! What a confidence it showed in God’s interest in the affairs of all his people! What a lesson it is for us all! The best thing we can do with our difficulties is to spread them out before God. Perhaps when we begin to spread them out before him, some of them will seem hardly worth talking about hardly worth spreading, and the very act of doing so will bring us relief. But whatever it may be that gives us trouble, even though it be a small mattersomething unkind that has been said about us, an unpleasant letter that we have received, an unexpected loss in business, let us spread it out before God. Your Sunday morning, before you go into God’s house, would be well spent in thinking over the mercies you have to thank God for, the sins you have to confess, and the difficulties which trouble you, and then you would go into God’s house asking just for what you need. I know a servant of God who told me that he always made it a rule to be in his place in church at least five minutes before the service began. That gave him Tame, he said, to calm his mind, and to look into his own heart. The good seed then fell on prepared ground, and he said that whenever he did not do so,-he did not get at all so much benefit from the service.
“What a Friend we have in Jesus,
All our sins and griefs to bear!
What a privilege to carry.
Everything to God in prayer!
Oh, what peace we often forfeit,
Oh, what needless pain we bear,
All because we do not carry
Everything to God in prayer!”
Hezekiah’s confidence in God had two results.
(1) It encouraged others. He gathered the captains of war together in the street, and said to them, “Be strong and courageous, he 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” (2Ch 32:7, 2Ch 32:8). And so great was the confidence which the words of the king inspired, that we are told that all the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah King of Judah. What a power the quiet influence of one believing man can exercise! What a power it gives us to live near to God!
(2) Their confidence was not misplaced. God’s people never trust in him in vain. Hezekiah‘s prayer was answered. That very night the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and eighty-five thousand men.
“Like the leaves of the forest when summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay wither’d and strown.
“For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he pass’d;
And the eyes of the sleepers wax’d deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever were still!
“And the widows of Asshur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!”
Let us learn from this lesson that there is nothing too hard for God. Let us ask his help and guidance in every undertaking and event of life. Let us abide in his presence continually. Let us cling closer to the Rock of Ages. And then, come weal or come woe, come sickness or come health, come adversity or come success, we shall always be resigned to our Father’s will, and shall possess within our hearts the peace which passeth all understanding.C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 19:1-37
A nation’s calamities, counselor, and God.
“And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes,” etc. Our purpose in our sketches on this book has not allowed us to inquire into all the minute particulars of the characters or events recorded, or into the authorship of the book, or into the right of the prophet or prophets so frequently to say, “Thus saith the Lord,” but simply in the briefest way to develop for practical purposes the truths either expressed or suggested. In this chapter we have three momentous events recordedthe terrible calamity to which Jerusalem was exposed; the utter destruction of the Assyrian army; and the death of Sennacherib the Assyrian despot. The whole should be read in connection with Isa 37:1-38. We have here for notice four subjects of thoughtthe exposure of a nation to an overwhelming calamity; the blessing to a nation of a ruler who looks to Heaven for help; the advantage to a nation of a truly wise counselor; and the strength of a nation that has the true God on its side.
I. THE EXPOSURE OF A NATION TO AN OVERWHELMING CALAMITY.
1. The nature of the threatened calamity. It was the invasion of the King of Assyria. This was announced in startling terms and in a haughty and ruthless spirit by the messengers of Sennacherib. “Thus 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. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed?” (Isa 37:10-13). The danger was near at hand. Sennacherib was on his way with his hundred and four score and five thousand men. The tramplings of the war-horses and the rattling of the amour would soon be heard in Jerusalem. The utter destruction of the city was contemplated, and seemed rapidly approaching. In a far worse position was the kingdom of Judah at this moment than was England when the Spanish Armada was approaching our shores.
2. The influence of the threatened calamity.
(1) It struck the kingdom with a crushing terror. “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. And 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. And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble” (verses 1-3). The rending of the “clothes’ and the arraying in “sackcloth” were symbols to express the horror of the heart.
(2) It struck the kingdom with a helpless feebleness. “This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth” (verse 3). “The image is that of a parturient woman whose strength is exhausted, whose powers are paralyzed, at the moment when she required to put forth a vigorous effort. The expression in which the message was conveyed to the prophet described, by a strong figure, the desperate condition of the kingdom, together with the utter inability of the people to help themselves; and it intimated also a hope that the blasphemous defiance of Jehovah’s power by the impious Assyrian might lead to some direct interposition for the vindication of his honor and supremacy to all heathen gods.” Here is utter national helplessness in a terrible national calamity.
II. THE BLESSING TO A NATION OF A RULER WHO LOOKS TO HEAVEN FOR HELP. What, in the wretched condition of his country, does King Hezekiah do? He invokes the merciful interposition of Heaven. When the messengers came to Hezekiah with a threatening letter from the King of Assyria (see verses 10-13), what did the monarch do? He took it into the house of the Lord, and there prayed. “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. And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel,” etc. (verses 14-19). In this wonderful prayer:
1. He adores the God whom Sennacherib had blasphemed. He addresses him as the “God of all the kingdoms of the earth,” the Maker of “heaven and earth,” the one and only Lord.
2. He implores the Almighty for his own sake to deliver the country. “Now 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.” “The best pleas in prayer,” says an old author, “am those that are taken from God’s own honor; therefore the Lord’s prayer begins with ‘Hallowed be thy Name,’ and concludes, ‘Thine be the glory.'” Who is the greatest human king? Not the man who relies on his own power and skill to protect his nation from danger, and seeks to secure it in the possession and enjoyment of all its rights; nor the king who looks to his armies and navies in time of need; but he who practically realizes his dependence upon the “Lord” that made heaven and earth, Reverence for the Infinite is the soul of true royalty.
III. THE ADVANTAGE TO A NATION OF A TRULY WISE COUNSELLOR. Apart from his inspiration, Isaiah may be fairly taken in this case as the representative of a wise counselor, and that for two reasons.
1. He looked to heaven rather than to earth for his wisdom. “Then 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 King of Assyria I have heard. This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him” (verses 20, 21). The counsel which he had to give he here declares to have come from the Lord. God of Israel. How the wisdom was conveyed to him, whether by an outward voice or an inner vision, does not appear; he had it from heaven. He only is the true counselor of men who gets his wisdom from above. Whence do the advisers of sovereigns get their instructions? From hoary precedents or the fallible conclusions of their own feeble minds; and not directly from above. Hence the incessant blunders of cabinets, and the scandal in these days of one political party denouncing the blunders and professing to correct the mistakes of the other.
2. He received from heaven he communicated to men. In the communication:
(1) “Sennacherib is apostrophized in a highly poetic strain admirably descriptive of the turgid vanity, haughty pretensions, and heartless impiety of this despot. ‘The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee,’ etc. (verses 21-28).
(2) Hezekiah himself is personally addressed, and a sign given him of coming deliverance. He is told that for two years the presence of the enemy would interrupt the peaceful pursuits of husbandry, but in the third year the people would be in circumstances to till the earth, plant the vineyards, and reap the fruits, as formerly. ‘And this shall be a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof,’ etc. (verses 29-31).
(3) The issue of Sennacherib’s invasion is announced. ‘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,’ etc. (verses 32-34) (Dr. Jamieson). Such was the communication which, in language passionate, poetic, and powerful, Isaiah made to this perplexed and terrified nation. It involves two things:
(a) the deliverance of his country;
(b) the ruin of the despot.
IV. THE STRENGTH OF A NATION THAT HAS GOD ON ITS SIDE. Who delivered the imperiled nation? Who overwhelmed the despot? “The zeal of the Lord of hosts.” “And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred four score and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses,” etc. (verses 35-37). Who was the “angel of the Lord”? Was it some transcendent personality, or some tremendous force in nature, such as a pestiferous blast, or an electric bolt? It matters not; the “angel” was but the instrument in the hand of God.
1. How swiftly was the deliverance effected! “That night.” What a night was that!one of the most memorable nights of the world. Perhaps the whole was effected even in one single hour, or even in one instant of that night.
2. How terrible the ruin which that deliverance effected! “A hundred four score and five thousand men” destroyed. At night, a glittering array; in the morning, “dead corpses.”
“Like the leaves of the forest when summer is green,”
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay wither’d and strown.”
How rapidly God can do his work! he can annihilate a universe in the twinkling of an eye. Behold a mystery! Why should these hundred and eighty five thousand be thus destroyed on account of the conduct of one manSennacherib?
“God is his own Interpreter,
And he will make it plain?
The forty-sixth psalm is supposed to be the triumphant outburst of the delivered people. “God is our Refuge and Strength, a very present Help in trouble. The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.” This Sennacherib, this ruthless despot, does not seem to have fallen with the others. His body was not found amongst the dead corpses. Albeit, he did not escape. “So Sennacherib King of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshipping 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. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead” (verses 36, 37). What greater calamity could befall a man than to be murdered by his own sons?D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 19:1-7
Hezekiah and Isaiah.
The messengers whom Hezekiah had sent having returned and reported to him the words of Rabshakeh (2Ki 18:37), the king was plunged in unspeakable distress. We have now to observe his behavior in his trouble.
I. HEZEKIAH‘S GRIEF.
1. He assumed the signs of deepest mourning. The messengers had come to him with their clothes rent. Hezekiah now rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth. His humiliation was sincere. The words he had heard had knocked from under him his last hope of help from man. He felt that God’s “chastisement” (verse 3) was upon him, and that God alone could deliver. This moment of the realization of his helplessness was also the moment of the return of God’s favor to him. To this point it had been God’s aim to bring him, and now that he threw himself in his utter weakness on God’s strength, deliverance was assured.
2. He sought God in his sanctuary. He “went into the house of the Lord.” Thither also Asaph had gone in his hour of trouble, and there his difficulties were removed (Psa 73:17). Hezekiah no doubt sought the sanctuary for purposes of prayer. We see him do the same thing on receipt of Sennacherib’s letter (verse 14). We have every encouragement to come to God with our troubles (Psa 91:15), and nothing soothes the heart like pouring out all our sorrows before him (Php 4:6, Php 4:7). Prayer is the soul’s best resort in times of extremity.
II. THE DEPUTATION TO ISAIAH. In addition to praying himself to God, Hezekiah sent an honorable deputation to Isaiah, to request his intercession for the city.
1. He sends to God‘s prophet. Possibly for some time Hezekiah and Isaiah had not seen much of each other. The prophet’s counsels had proved distasteful. His denunciations of the alliance with Egypt cannot have been received with favor (Isa 30:1-33.). His advice certainly had not been taken; nor can it have been with his approval that Hezekiah made his ill-fated submission to Sennacherib. Now, in the hour of trouble, Hezekiah sends once more to him. He sends his highest officersthe same who had conferred with Rabshakehand the elders of the priests. All went covered with sackcloth, in token of their grief, penitence, and humiliation of heart. This is what often happens. God’s servants are not appreciated till the hour of real need comes; then men are glad to get their counsels and their prayers. It would be well if, in the conduct of state affairs, respect were paid to the counsels of religion earlier. It would save many a bitter hour afterwards.
2. He makes full confession of his sad estate. A crisis had come in which there was no ray of human hope. From Hezekiah’s side it was a day of “trouble”of deep distress and mortification; from God’s side it was a day of “chastisement” (Hos 5:2, “I am a Rebuker of them all “); from the side of the Assyrian, it was a day of “blasphemy”of impious vaunting against Jehovah. And like a woman in pains of childbirth, without strength for delivery, they had no means of bringing themselves out of their perilous position. “The metaphor expresses in the most affecting manner, the ideas of extreme pain, imminent danger, critical emergency, utter weakness, and entire dependence on the aid of others” (Alexander). The spirit of self-trust is now utterly slain. In making this confession, Hezekiah owned that Isaiah was right, and he had all along been wrong.
3. He entreats the prophet‘s prayers. Hezekiah’s one hope now was that, for his own glory’s sake, Jehovah would “reprove” the blasphemous words which Rabshakeh had uttered, and he besought Isaiah to lift up his prayer for the remnant of Jews still left. It is a true instinct of the soul which leads us to seek the intercession on our behalf of those who stand nearer to God than ourselves. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous Than availeth much” (Jas 5:16). Thus Pharaoh besought Moses to intercede for him (Exo 8:8, Exo 8:28; Exo 10:16); Moses on various occasions interceded for the people (Exo 32:30-33; Deu 9:12-20); Elijah interceded for the land of Israel (1Ki 18:11-45); the high priest interceded for the tribes; and Christ now intercedes for us (Rom 8:34; 1Jn 2:1). We cannot lay too much stress on the power of prayer, nor be too anxious to get an interest in the prayers of the holy. Hezekiah did well in joining with his own prayers this request for the intercession of Isaiah.
III. THE PROPHET‘S REPLY. We have already and frequently seen how ready God is to respond to the faintest movements of the soul towards him. The prophet did not send those who now sought him away without comfort. He gave them:
1. A word of encouragement. “Be not afraid,” etc. In his own heroic trust Isaiah had never faltered. Such trust is contagious. The words Which Isaiah spoke would send a new thrill of hope to the hearts of the messengers. How marvelous a thing is faith in God! How it supports a man’s own soul, lifts him above ordinary, and even extraordinary, discouragements, and makes him firm as a rock when others are trembling and despairing around (cf. Psa 46:1-11.)!
2. An assurance of deliverance. In the name of God, Isaiah was able to give them, further, an assurance that ‘Sennacherib would do them no hurt. God would put a spirit in him, and would cause him to hear tidings which would make him depart into his own laud, and there he would perish with the sword. Nothing is said as yet of the destruction of the army, unless, indeed, it is the tidings of that which Sennacherib was to hear. Another boasting message of Sennacherib and another prayer of Hezekiah come in between this promise and the final and fuller one.J.O.
2Ki 19:8-19
Sennacherib’s letter.
While the foregoing events were taking place, Rabshakeh had returned to his royal master. The siege of Lachish had been concludedadding another to the score of victoriesand Sennacherib was now at Libnah, Here the news came that Tirhakah was on his march against him, and naturally Sennacherib wished to secure the capitulation of Jerusalem before the Ethiopian could arrive. To this end he sent another message to Hezekiahthis time in the form of a letterrenewing the attempt to frighten the Jewish king into surrender.
I. SENNACHERIB‘S PROUD BOASTINGS. The letter is an echo of the speech of Rabshakeh, and is couched in the same boastful spirit.
1. He makes light of the power of Jehovah. “Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee,” etc. Sennacherib assumes that Hezekiah may have received true oracles from his God, but he warns him not to trust them. In his arrogance, he defies all gods as well as men. To him Jehovah was but one god among manythe god of one small nationnot for a moment to be compared with the powerful Asshur. His idea of the morality of the gods is seen in the supposition that they practiced deceit upon their worshippers.
2. He extols his own prowess. He again recounts the victories which he and previous kings of Assyria had gained. Their conquests had extended to all lands; gods and kings had everywhere gone down before them: how should Hezekiah escape? As an induction, Sennacherib’s argument seems very complete. The countries he names had been conquered; their gods had not availed to save them; their kings had been overthrown. Logic seemed on his side. Only faith could furnish a sufficient answer.
3. He is certain beforehand of victory. In his assurance that he would overcome Hezekiah, Sennacherib is the type of many boasters. Often has the voice of the adversary been raised in exultation at his prospective victory over the people of God. Paganism, Mohammedanism, and infidelity have each boasted that they would extinguish Christianity. Voltaire predicted that in a century from his time the Bible would be found only in antiquarian libraries. The same scoffer said that it took twelve men to found Christianity, but he would show that one man was sufficient to overthrow it. Modern unbelieving science sometimes speaks in the same strain. The argument per enumerationem is often employed, as it was by Sennacherib. All other religions show a tendency to collapse; their miracles are exploded, belief in witchcraft, etc; disappears before the march of enlightenment; therefore Christianity cannot hope to stand. But arrogance is a bad prophet. “Before honor is humility;” but “pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Pro 16:18; Pro 18:12). It was so with Sennacherib, and it will be found to be so by his modern imitators.
II. HEZEKIAH‘S PRAYER. When Hezekiah received this insulting epistle, he went as before to the temple, and spread it out before the Lord. He did as we should all do with our troubles, carried it straight to the presence-chamber. God in truth knows all we have need of before we ask him; but that is no reason why we should not present our petitions. God knew all that was in this boastful letter; but that was no reason why Hezekiah should not place it before him, and make its contents the basis of his prayer. The prayer he offered contained:
1. An acknowledgment of God‘s supremacy. To Sennacherib’s false idea of Jehovah, Hezekiah opposes the true one, The Lord God of Israel was no local deity, but the God of the whole earth.
(1) He is the God of revelation. “O Lord God of Israel, which sittest upon the cherubim.” It was because God had revealed himself to Israel, and dwelt in glory above the mercy-seat whereon stood the cherubim, that Hezekiah had come to the temple to offer up this supplication. Communion with God rests on God’s revelation of himself to man. Only as God has revealed his Being to us, and dwells among us in mercy, are we able to approach him. An unknown or unknowable God can call forth no trust.
(2) He is the God of providence. “Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth.” This is involved in the name Jehovah, which denotes God as the Being who is, and remains one with himself in all that he thinks, purposes, and does. His rule is unlimited; all events, great and small, are under his control; his counsel is the one stable factor in history. This conception of the supremacy of God in providence is involved in the knowledge he has given us of himself in grace.
(3) He is the God of nature. “Thou hast made heaven and earth.” This again is involved in the truth of God’s unlimited rule in providence, for only the Maker of the world can be its absolute Ruler. Reversing the order of thoughtonly because God is the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth, is he the Lord in providence; and because he is Lord in nature and providence, he can do all things for us in grace (Psa 121:1, Psa 121:2; Psa 135:5, Psa 135:6).
2. An exposure of Sennacherib‘s fallacy. Hezekiah does not dispute the facts recited by Sennacherib, nor does he attempt to belittle them in any way. “Of a truth, Lord,” he says, “the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands.” No good can come of refusing to look facts in the face. It has often happened in apologetics that the attempt has been made to deny, explain away, or minimize the force of facts which were supposed to conflict with religious truthfacts of geology, e.g; or facts of history or human nature which did not square with religious doctrine. This procedure is unwise, and invariably recoils to the injury of religion. We are entitled to ask for proof of alleged facts, and to suspend our judgment till such proof is given; but when the facts are established, they should be frankly admitted, and our theories widened to find room for them. Truth in one department can never conflict with truth in another, and religion, resting on its own strong foundations, can afford to deal fairly with every class of evidence. Hezekiah did not dispute Sennacherib’s facts; but he put his finger at once upon the fallacy of Sennacherib’s argument. The Assyrians had indeed conquered these many nations, and cast their gods into the fire; hut why? Because they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they had destroyed them. It was different when they had to deal with the true God, the Maker of heaven and earth. The error of modem unbelief is distinguishable from, yet kindred with, the error of Sennacherib. Sennacherib attributed a reality to his gods; unbelief allows none. Yet it agrees with Sennacherib in denying to Jehovah his true character as the one living God of nature, providence, and grace. Faith, coming to God, believes “that he is, and that he is the Rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Heb 11:6). Denying this truth, unbelief scoffs at religion, at the Bible revelation, at prayer, providence, miracles, redemption. It treats the confidence of Christians in their God as illusory, anticipates the downfall of their system, and mocks at their hopes of immortality. Its arguments, often cogent enough if there is no living God, lose all force the moment faith in God reasserts itself.
3. An argument for God‘s interposition. Having shown his grounds for the belief that God can interpose, Hezekiah urges two reasons why he should interpose.
(1) The first is the honor of his own Name. The fact that Sennacherib had in his pride and ignorance thus “reproached the living God” was a reason why God should reveal himself in his true character for Sennacherib’s discomfiture. The blasphemous pride of the creature exalting itself against the Creator should be brought low.
(2) A second reason was that, by saving his people from Sennacherib, Jehovah would give a grand lesson of his sole Deity to all the nations of the earth: “That all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only: It is God’s glory which Hezekiah puts in the foreground. He had no plea of merit to urge, either his own or the nation’s; therefore he can but ask God to be merciful to them for his own Name’s sake.J.O.
2Ki 19:20-34
Isaiah’s oracle.
God is the Hearer of prayer. As in the case of Daniel (Dan 9:20), while Hezekiah was still speaking, an answer was sent to him through Isaiah the prophet (cf. 2Ki 20:4). Thus also answers to prayer were sent in the cases of Paul (Act 9:10-18) and Cornelius (Act 10:1-8). Isaiah was the one person whose faith had remained unshaken through all this crisis. But it is not merely Isaiah’s confidence which speaks in this composition. He brought to the king a direct “word of God.” His oracle is one of surpassing beauty, grand and sustained in style, and expressing the greatest truths.
I. ZION‘S DERISION OF THE INVADER. The introductory picture is very striking. The city Jerusalem is represented as a maiden, standing on a height, derision imprinted on every feature, shaking her head, and sending out bursts of mocking laughter after the retreating Sennacherib. Is she insane? So to the world it might have seemed. Insane at least it might appear to draw such a picture at a time when the condition of the city seemed past salvation. But faith’s manifestations often seem like madness to the worldly (Act 26:24; 2Co 5:13). Faith triumphs beforehand over all the power of the enemy (Luk 10:19, Luk 10:20). It does not need to wait to see their overthrow; it is assured of it as if it had already happened. The strength of faith is seen in the degree in which it enables its possessor to rise above adverse circumstances. In its higher reaches it cannot only hope and wait, but exults and treats the threats of the enemy with ridicule and scorn (cf. Psa 2:4).
II. SENNACHERIB AS GLASSED IN HIS OWN EYES. Jehovah next asserts himself as “the Holy One of Israel,” and takes Sennacherib to task for his blasphemies against him. He puts language into Sennacherib’s lips poetically expressive of that monarch’s lofty ideas of his own power. Alluding both to what he has done and to what he intends to do, Sennacherib boasts, “With the multitude of my chariots I am come up to the height of the mountains I have digged and drunk strange waters; and with the sole of my feet will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt.” The meaning is that no obstacles of nature can prevent the accomplishment of his designs. Mountains like Lebanon cannot stop his march; he will find water even in the desert; Egypt’s rivers will be trodden disdainfully underfoot. His chariots pass over all heights; cedar trees and fir trees fall before him; he penetrates to the farthest lodging-place and most fruitful region of the country. It is “I,” Sennacherib says, “who do all this.” Such boasting is:
1. Extravagant. In his inflated self-consciousness, Sennacherib sets no bounds to what he can accomplish. His language is exaggerated and hyperbolical. It is a man puffing himself up to the dimensions of a god (cf. Isa 10:13, Isa 10:14; Isa 14:13, Isa 14:14; Dan 4:30). Napoleon was accustomed to use similar language to impress the minds of his ignorant enemies. Only in part is this extravagant self-assertion delusion. Those who give vent to it know very well that much of it is theatrical and unrealmere froth and foam. But it gratifies their pride to indulge in it.
2. Irrational This on two grounds:
(1) Even granting that these boastings rested on real exploits, such self-exaltation is unbecoming in any mortal. The mightiest conqueror has only to reflect how soon he will become weak as other men (Isa 14:10-17), to see how foolish is his self-glorying.
(2) The past is an unsafe ground for boasting as to the future. Because his arms had hitherto been so uniformly successful, Sennacherib imagined that it was impossible any reverse could now befall him. He had got into his head the idea of his own invincibility. Napoleon had the same confidence in the invincibility of his arms. Experience shows the baselessness of such confidence. A long run of victories, intoxicating the conqueror with his own success, is generally followed by a disastrous calamity. The castle gets built up too high, and in the end topples over. Napoleon learnt this at Moscow and Waterloo. Excess of pride usually ends in an overthrow.
3. Impious. Boastings, finally, were impious. It was the creature arrogating to himself the power of God. Any reference to Asshur Sennacherib may have made in his inscriptions was but a thin veil to cover his self-glorying. His particular blasphemies against the God of Israel arose from ignorance of Jehovah’s true character. He thought he was contending against the petty god of a small tribe, whereas he had to deal with “the Holy One” who made heaven and earth. Men’s mistakes as to God do not alter the realities of their relation to him. Because God is “the Holy One,” he cannot overlook men’s impieties. Holiness is the principle which guards the Divine honor. It “guards the eternal distinction between Creator and creature, between God and man, in the union effected between them; it preserves the Divine dignity and majesty from being infringed upon” (Martensen).
III. SENNACHERIB AS BEHELD BY GOD. Vastly different from Sennacherib s view of himself was the view taken of him by God his Maker.
1. Sennacherib a mere instrument in God‘s hands for the execution of his purposes. “Hast thou not heard how I have done it long ago, and formed it of ancient times? Now have I brought it to pass that thou shouldest be to lay waste,” etc. Sennacherib was defying Jehovah, hut it was this God who from everlasting had decreed the events that were taking place, and had assigned to Sennacherib the part he was to bear in them. Here was a strange reversal of Sennacherib’s ideas! It was the axe boasting itself against him that heweth herewith, and the saw magnifying itself against him that shaketh it, and the rod shaking itself against them that lift it up (Isa 10:16). This is the truth which ungodly men constantly ignore. They exalt themselves against God, forgetful that, without God, they could not think a thought or move a finger; that it is he who gave them their being, and continually sustains them; that his providence girds them round, and uses them as executors of its purposes; and that they have only as much power as he chooses to give them.
2. His successes due to God. “Therefore their inhabitants were of small power,” etc. Sennacherib ascribed all his victories to his own prowess, and founded on them an argument for despising Jehovah, whereas it was because Jehovah had prospered him that he had gained these victories. It is God who brings low, and lifts up (1Sa 2:7). When he is against a people, their strength is small, they are dismayed and confounded, they are like grass that withers, and blasted grain. Sennacherib did not understand this, and took all the glory to himself.
3. God prescribes the limits of his power. As the Assyrian was thus an instrument in God’s hand, it was for God to say how far he would be permitted to go. The limit was reached when he began to rage and blaspheme against the power which controlled him. God had heard his words and seen his doings. “I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me.” He had done enough. The curb was now to be applied. Drawing a metaphor from Sennacherib’s own treatment of his captives, the oracle declared, “I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest. The prediction was soon to be fulfilled. No comfort can be greater, in times of “trouble, and rebuke, and blasphemy,” than to know that the hostile powers are under absolute Divine control, and that they cannot take one step beyond what God allows. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain” (Psa 76:10). When men turn against God in open blasphemy, their power is nearly at an end.
IV. A SIGN TO THE PEOPLE.
1. A pledge of God‘s favor. The immediate sign of the truth of this oracle would be the destruction of the invading army, which was to take place that very night. But as a further pledge of complete deliverance from the Assyriana token that he would not returnit was foretold that within three years the whole land would be again under cultivation. In the interval the people would be provided for by that which grew of itself. Material blessings are withdrawn when God frowns; restored when he smiles.
2. The remnant would take root and increase. The land had been deplorably thinned by invasion and captivity. Had the process gone on much longer, Judah would have disappeared, as Israel had done. A remnant, however, would be saved, and this, taking root downward, and bearing fruit upward, would by God’s blessing so multiply and strengthen as speedily to renew the population.
3. God‘s zeal engaged for the fulfillment of his promises. They were great things which God had promised, but the “zeal” of the Lord of hostshis jealousy for his own honor, and for his people and his landwould perform it. When God’s “zeal” is engaged in any undertaking, can we doubt that it will prosper? “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:39). God’s zeal is engaged in giving effect to all efforts for the extension of his gospel, the salvation of men, and the triumph of righteousness in the world.
V. THE SAFETY OF THE CITY. Finally, a definite assurance is given that, let Sennacherib rage as he may, the city would not be harmed. He should neither come into it, nor shoot an arrow into it, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it, as once before he had done. Instead, he would return by the way he came. This God would do
(1) for his own sake, i.e. for the vindication of his own honor from the reproaches of Sennacherib; and
(2) for his servant David’s sake. Succeeding generations little know how much they owe to God’s regard for his holy servants in days past. As was Jerusalem, so is the Church safe under God’s protection (Mat 16:18). For the higher David’s sake, he will not let it perish. But for God’s care and shielding power, it would long ere this have been destroyed.J.O.
2Ki 19:35-37
The mighty deliverance.
God’s word was not long in being fulfilled. That very night the angel of the Lord smote a hundred and eighty-five thousand of the host of the Assyrians. In few wordsfor the end is as good as reached with Isaiah’s oraclethe sacred narrator sums up the facts of the catastrophe.
I. THE DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB‘S ARMY.
1. Its historic truth. On all hands, though Sennacherib’s own annals pass over the event in silence, this seems to be admitted. “Thus,” says Wellhausen, “it proved in the issue. By a still unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was triumphant.”
2. Its miraculous character. Granting that the event happened, it seems impossible, in view of Isaiah’s distinct prediction, to deny its supernatural character. God’s hand is almost seen visibly stretched out for the deliverance of his city, and the bringing low of Sennacherib’s pride. Allow that the sweeping off of this great army was in any way connected with Isaiah’s faith, hope, and prayers, and a supernatural government of the world is established.
3. Its spiritual lessons.
(1) We see the end which commonly overtakes worldly boasters. Greek story delights to dwell on the Nemesis which overtakes inordinate pride. Napoleon, the modern Sennacherib, met with a discomfiture not dissimilar to that here recorded.
(2) We learn not to be afraid of spiritual boasters. The nations may rage, and the people imagine a vain thing; the kings of the earth may set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed. But “he that sits in the heavens will laugh; the Lord will have them in derision” (Psa 2:4). Scientific and philosophic boasters have not prevailed against the Church yet, and are not likely to do so.
(3) We learn the advantage of entire reliance on God. While Hezekiah leaned on the help of man, he could accomplish nothing. When he cast himself on God’s help, he was saved. God has all power in heaven and earth at his command, and is able to do all things for us.
II. THE END OF SENNACHERIB.
2Ki 19:1
The great king‘s retreat. At this point “the great king,” the King of Assyria, his boasting effectually silenced, disappears forever from Jewish history. He “departed, and went and returned, and dwelt in Nineveh.” No more is heard of his exploits in these pages.
2Ki 19:2
His miserable end. His end was a fitting satire on his boasts. Two of his own sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, conspired against him, and slew him while he was worshipping in the house of his god. This is the god to whose power, it may be presumed, he attributed all his conquests. Poor god! that could not save his own worshipper. Sic transit gloria mundi. The sons who slew him could not keep the throne, which was taken by Esarhaddon.J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
CHAP. XIX.
Hezekiah, mourning, sendeth to Isaiah to pray for him; he comforteth him: Sennacherib sendeth a blasphemous letter to Hezekiah; Hezekiah’s prayer. An angel slayeth the Assyrians: Sennacherib is slain by his own sons.*
Before Christ 710.
* See the Annotations and Reflections on Isaiah, ch. 37 where this chapter is repeated nearly word for word.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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 relates the effect Rab-shakeh’s blasphemy had upon the mind of Hezekiah, when it was reported to him. He sends to desire an interest in the prayers of the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah’s answer. Sennacherib sends a renewed message of insolence to Hezekiah. The king goes up into the house of the Lord, lays it before the Lord, and prayeth. The Lord, by his servant Isaiah, comforts him, and sends an angel to the destruction of the Assyrians. Sennacherib is slain by his sons.
2Ki 19:1
If the Reader will turn to the parallel history of this memorable event, as it is rehearsed, in 2Ch 32:1-8 he will there find that Hezekiah has been consulting with an arm of flesh, and taking counsel with his princes, how to counteract the stratagem of the king of Assyria. But here we find the pious king got back to the right path of duty, and of safety. He is here beautifully represented as going to the Lord. Reader! mark it down. If we begin with the Lord, and his strength, and his Arm, which is Jesus, then the Lord will bless instruments to our deliverance, and safety. But if, like Hezekiah, we first begin in the flesh, it is a mercy if the Lord strips us of all our hopes, in order to show us where our strength lies. Sweetly dearest Lord, dost thou teach our poor nature these precious things. Isa 27:5 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Hezekiah
2Ki 19:1
I. Hezekiah was a type of Christ. In what way? Look, first, at the destruction of the brazen serpent, as told us in this morning’s lesson. Try to realize all that it meant. It requires strong, brave men to do the thing, for this serpent had a wonderful history and sacred association. For many generations it had been one of the objects which most stirred the hearts of the Jews. But it had lost its power completely; it had become an object of superstitious worship, and so Hezekiah broke it in pieces. I wonder what the scribes and Pharisees of the day or those who at that time represented them thought of this act? Hezekiah was a type of Him Who centuries later scandalized the scribes and Pharisees by breaking the Sabbath. When the trial moment comes, when temptation is strong and help seems far away, the question will be, not whether we have learnt to hold the tenets of Christianity as historical facts, but whether they have taught us the power of prayer, and the evil hold dropped, and the call of duty accepted. Whether, in one word, we have learnt to live our faith, so that Christ lives in our hearts and through our lives.
II. Let us turn to another scene in Hezekiah’s life: the revival of the Passover as narrated in the Second Book of Chronicles. It was not confined to Judah. Invitations, we are told, were sent throughout the length and breadth of Israel. Again Hezekiah’s greatness is seen. He had grasped the idea of the Passover that it set forth the unity of the nation. There was nothing political in his aim. There was no thought of the winning back of Israel. His aim was to teach the people that, wherever their lot was cast, they were all one people, and doubtless this, too, scandalized the scribes and Pharisees of the day. And, says the chronicler, many of those that accepted the invitation came without having undergone the purification ordained by the Lord. Now mark Hezekiah on that occasion. He prayed the Lord to pardon every one who had prepared his heart to seek the Lord God of his fathers. One more type of Him Who centuries after welcomed the outcasts. Is there not a lesson here for us? Think of all those well-meaning, religious people who cannot see the deeper unity which underlies differences of creed between us. What a grand thing it would be if in our days we could have an enormous Passover, a great gathering, not for discussions, but for worship, of all Christians who believe in Christ, apart from minor accidental differences. But let us beware of confounding the idea of unity and uniformity. The Divine ideal seems to be not uniformity, but a grand symphony played on a thousand instruments.
III. Let us look at one more scene in Hezekiah’s life his bearing towards the King of Assyria, as told in the lesson of this morning and this evening. Hezekiah, King of Judah, was lying helpless before the power of the King of Assyria, but in him we see no bravado and no fear, only a simple faith and trust in God. He met the insulting messages of Sennacherib in silence; the king’s command was, ‘Answer him not’. Once more he is a type of Him Who, centuries later, when He was accused of the chief priests and elders answered nothing, and when He received the blasphemous message was silent. Hezekiah’s first thought was God. He went to the temple and spread his trouble before the Lord. It is in this instant reference (which is a difficulty to many), this turning to God at once, without fear and without hesitation, that Hezekiah is so valuable an example to ourselves. For we, too, like Hezekiah, are besieged with enemies. Which of us has not some sin of temper, it may be, or selfishness, or pride, or lust some sin which he is tempted to commit frequently, and we have learned its power, and we long to cast it off and be rid of it for ever, but again and again the temptation comes? We fight against it, but we finally yield to it, and we feel as though this sin were poisoning our whole life. Have we said, ‘My help cometh from the Lord’?
References. XIX. 14. T. Champness, New Coins from Old Gold, p. 179. J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons (9th Series), p. 139. XIX. 14, 15. W. H. Hutchings, Sermon-Sketches (2nd Series) p. 263. XIX. 20-22. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Kings from chap. viii., p. 64. XX. 1. F. W. Farrar, Everyday Christian Life, p. 205. XX. 5. S. E. Cottam, The Royal Thanksgiving Sermons, 1822-1902. XX. 12, 13. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xii. No. 704. XX. 19. R. E. Hutton, The Crown of Christ, vol. ii. p. 281. XXI. 26. A. B. Meldrum, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxv. 1904, p. 302.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
2Ki 19
I. 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 [to humble himself before Jehovah, and pray for help (comp. 2Ch 32:20 )].
2. And 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.
3. And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke [chastisement ( Hos 5:9 )], and blasphemy [provocation]: for the children are come [expressive of the utter collapse of all human resources (comp. Hos 13:13 )] to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.
4. 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 [heavenwards] thy [a] prayer for the [existing (or present)] remnant that are left.
5. 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 [denoting apparently personal attendants (comp. chaps. 2Ki 4:12 , 2Ki 5:20 , 2Ki 8:4 ; Exo 33:11 ; Jdg 7:10 ; 2Sa 9:9 ; 1Ki 20:15 )] of the king of Assyria have blasphemed [not the root as in 2Ki 19:3 (Num 15:30 ; Psa 44:16 ; Isa 51:7 )] me.
7. Behold, I will send a blast upon him [Behold, I am about to put a spirit within him], and he shall hear a rumour, and shall return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.
8. So Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish.
9. And 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,
10. Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee [through prophets, or dreams, or any other recognised medium of communication], saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.
11. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered?
12. Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my father have destroyed; as Gozan [chap. 2Ki 17:6 ], and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar?
13. Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivah?
14. And Hezekiah received the letter [ 2Ki 19:10-13 may be regarded as embodying the substance of the letter, which the envoys first delivered orally, and then presented the letter to authenticate it] 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.
15. And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel which dwellest between the cherubims [which sittest above the cherubim, or, the cherub-throned (comp. Exo 25:22 ; 1Sa 4:4 ; Psa 18:10 ; Eze 1:26 )], thou [emphasis on “thou”] art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.
16. Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear [not so much my prayer as the words of Sennacherib]: open, Lord, thine eyes, and see [interfere actively between me and my enemy]: and hear the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent him [which he hath sent] to reproach the living God [in contrast with the lifeless idols of Hamath, etc.].
17. Of a truth [It is even as Sennacherib boasteth], Lord, the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands,
18. And have cast [put] their gods into the fire [comp. 1Ch 14:12 ]: for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them:
19. Now 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.
20. Then 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 king of Assyria I have heard.
21. This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning [against] him; The virgin [the term Virgin naturally denotes the inviolable security of the citadel of Jehovah] the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee [hath nodded behind thee (comp. Psa 22:8 )].
22. Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? [towards heaven ( Isa 40:26 ). (Comp. Isa 14:13-14 )] even against the Holy One of Israel [a favourite expression of Isaiah, in whose book it occurs twenty-seven times, and only five times elsewhere in the Old Testament],
23. By [Heb., By the hand of] thy messengers thou hast reproached the Lord, and hast said, With the multitude of my chariots I am come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon, and will cut down [and I will fell the tallest cedars thereof. Cedars and firs in Isaiah’s language symbolise kings, princes, and nobles, and all that is highest and most stately (Isa 2:13 , Isa 10:33-34 )] the tall cedar-trees thereof, and the choice fir-trees thereof: and I will enter into the lodgings of his borders, and into the forest of his Carmel.
24. I have digged and drunk strange waters [scarcity of water has hitherto been no bar to my advance], and with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of besieged [or fenced] places.
25. Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it, and of ancient times that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps.
26. Therefore their inhabitants were of small power [literally, short-handed (comp. Isa 1 , Isa 2 , Isa 59:1 )], they were dismayed and confounded; they were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the house tops, and as corn blasted before it be grown up.
27. But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me.
28. Because thy rage against me and thy tumult is come up into mine ears, therefore I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou earnest.
29. And this shall be a [the] sign unto thee [the prophet now addresses Hezekiah], Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves, and in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof.
30. And the remnant [the survival, survivors of the house of Judah that are left] that is escaped of the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.
31. For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal [jealousy] of the Lord of hosts shall do this.
32. Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there [at it], nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it.
33. By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into [unto] this city, saith the Lord.
34. For I will defend [And I will cover (with a shield) (comp. Isa 31:5 , Isa 38:6 ; chap. 2Ki 20:6 )] this city, to save it, for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.
35. And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses.
36. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh.
37. And it came to pass [twenty years afterwards], as he was worshipping his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia [Heb., Ararat]. And Esar-haddon his son reigned in his stead.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XVII
THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH
2Ki 18:7-20:21
In the preceding chapter we have briefly considered the first six years of the reign of Hezekiah noting particularly the great religious reformation wrought by him.
Now we are going to consider the reign of Hezekiah after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed. The first thing for us to do is to get clearly before our minds the prevalent political relations of the time. Syria which had been a powerful factor, has gone out of sight, and Assyria with its capital at Nineveh was now the great northern power. We have seen that Assyrian power destroy the Northern Kingdom and in the days of Ahaz we have seen an alliance between Assyria and Ahaz. Ahaz appealed to the Assyrian king to help him against Israel and Syria. Now when the Assyrian king, for his own purpose, entered into this alliance and destroyed both Syria and Israel, he naturally wanted Judah also, and we have seen that Ahaz became tributary to the Assyrian king. Ahaz king of Judah was the father of Hezekiah who inherited from this wicked father this subordination to the Assyrian king paying tribute to him. Now, on the south, Egypt, which had varied fortunes from be-fore the days of Abraham, was once more a great world power; so we see the little kingdom of Judah, with Hezekiah at the head of it, as a grain of corn between an upper and a nether millstone. Judah lies right in the path between Egypt and Assyria. The Assyrian king wanted Judah, not only to guarantee the safety of his possessions in the Northern Kingdom, but also as a base from which to strike his rival, the kingdom of Egypt, and the king of Egypt wanted Judah as a base for striking the king of Assyria. That is the political relation, except that Just now was rising at Babylon a power that would absorb Assyria. It had not come largely to the front yet, but it was coming fast, and when it did come to the front as the world power there was no Assyria, and the two powers then were Egypt and Babylon, and Egypt and Babylon bad Judah in between them. Now that is a glance at the chief political relations.
Subordinate political relations are these: Philistia, of course, never altogether conquered, was there as a thorn in the side of Judah. Edom, or Esau, to the south, was also a thorn in the side of Judah. And various governments of Arabia the Ishmaelitish descendants were ready at any time to strike a blow at Judah. In the same way Moab and Ammon descendants of Lot to the east of the Dead Sea, were ready to strike at Judah. Then there was Tyre and Phoenicia, another great world power, which had been for a long time, ever since the days of Hiram and even before Hiram’s time, and the later history of Judah will have much to do with Phoenicia and not on the friendly terms that it had with Phoenicia in the days of David and Solomon.
Now the next thing to look at is the religious status at the time Hezekiah came to the throne. From the beginning the religious status in the Northern Kingdom was bad, and going all the time from bad to worse until purely on religious grounds, turning away from Jehovah, that nation was wiped out, but before it was wiped out, through the marriage of the daughter of Jezebel the queen of the Israelitish kingdom to the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah through that marriage various religious evils came into the Southern Kingdom. Now when Ahaz, a descendant of that unrighteous marriage, came to the throne, he, on becoming tributary to the king of Assyria, became tributary in religion as well as in territory and in political suzerainty. He adopted the gods of the people. We have then this picture: All of the high places where stone pillars and wooden images called “Asherim” were worshiped that had never been abated by the kings of Judah before Hezekiah’s time. The worship of Jehovah had ceased in its songs, particularly the Davidic psalter. The door of the Temple was closed. The altar of sacrifice was removed, and the altar of a heathen god was put in its place. All of the regular servants that conducted the religious worship were either degraded from office or persuaded or compelled to become the officiating ministers at the altars of the false religion. Not merely was this so, but Ahaz had erected in the valley of Hinnom an image of Molech, the Ammonite god, and a hideous fellow he was. It was a hollow iron image with a furnace under the bottom of it and with iron arms extended, and when that furnace heated this image red hot they would worship their god by laying naked babies in the arms of that image, and to drown their cries they would beat drums and make all kinds of noise. Ahaz burned one or two of his babies that way.
Now from this valley of Hinnom we get the New Testament idea of the eternal hell, Gehenna. On account of the desecration through the worship of Molech in that valley a later curse made it the ground in which the refuse from the city was dumped and burned, and as the refuse never ceased accumulating, the decaying meats, the rotting bones, the off-scourings, fire had to be kept burning all the time, and wherever there are rotting meats there will be worms; so it became an eternal fire, and an undying worm in that valley which suggested or foreshadowed the description of the real, final hell, Gehenna, in which soul and body are destroyed, where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.
Not only was this true, but they had adopted methods of ascertaining the future, sorcery, witchcraft, and in order to get a clear view of either the political or religious situation of the time we must study the contemporary prophets. I give here a passage on that idea of the religious condition from Isa 8 . He is prophesying concerning this very period: “And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? on behalf of the living, should any seek unto the dead? To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” The old Mosaic law had taken cognizance of the disposition of the people to make inquisition concerning the future from the alleged spirits of the dead. Just as in modern times people through rappings and mediums and trances try to find out the state of their own departed and their own prospects in the future world. It is an awful offense against God.
In addition to this is another innovation, and I am not right sure that I or anybody else fully understands the significance of it. Ahaz had constructed on the Temple steps that led up to the platform on which a shadow would fall from the sun, a dial, and it has been conjectured by many intelligent commentators that, through that shadow and that dial, he worshiped the signs of the Zodiac. The dial was put there by Ahaz. We find that Dr. Thirtle of England, in a new book entitled, Old Testament Problems , attributes an entire section of the Psalms to an incident in Hezekiah’s life connected with this dial of Ahaz.
Just now we want to understand, not only the religious forms of worship, but also the moral condition of the people, and here again we get our best information from the prophets. Passages in Hosea give the immoralities of the contemporary Northern Kingdom, but having also some references to Judah, and likewise in Joel and in Amos, and considerable in Micah. Micah comes in largely in the history of Hezekiah and from his prophecy and Isaiah we find out the fearful religious and moral decadence of the people. But turning aside from other prophets, let us, as an example, consider the picture given of the times by Isaiah. In the first five chapters of Isaiah we have a summary of that condition, religious and moral, during all the period from Uzziah to Hezekiah. That is a part of the book that used this language: “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass its master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. I have smitten them until the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint, and from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot there is nothing but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores.” Then he gives a description of the leading women of the country. We know that from the women in high society we may get an idea of the depravity of the times. A picture of the ladies of any period is always very helpful to an understanding of that period. Here it is: “The daughters of Zion are haughty, and they walk with outstretched necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet.” We have read about the old woman That has rings on her fingers, And bells on her toes, So that she makes music Wherever she goes. These women of Judah had tinkling anklets so that every step was a jingle like a cowboy’s inch-in-diameter spurs with the tags hanging to them. Isaiah goes on: “Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and Jehovah will lay bare their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, and the cauls, and the crescents; the pendants, and the bracelets, and the mufflers; the head-tires, and the ankle chains, and the sashes, and the perfume boxes, and the amulets; the rings and the nose-jewels; the festival robes, and the mantles, and the shawls, and the satchels; the hand-mirrors, and the fine linens, and the turbans, and the veils. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet spices there shall be rottenness; and instead of a girdle, a rope; and instead of well set hair, baldness; and instead of a robe, a girding of sackcloth; branding instead of beauty.” Now wherever that is the case among the ladies of the upper class that land is sick. We may get a view of the men from the prophetic woes denounced by Isaiah. I read these woes to U. S. Senator Coke of Waco (found in Isa 5 ). He asked me to copy for him the one relating to monopoly on land as containing a suggestion that he had never had from any other direction before and that he wanted to use.
Now that picture of woes gives us a conception of the moral condition of the time when Hezekiah began to reign. Idols on every hill, the Temple of God closed, no inquirers at the oracle of God, but looking out for witches and spirit rappers, mediums, and appealing to the dead. That was the awful state of affairs. Now when Hezekiah, the son of the wicked king came, he was more commended of God than any other king in the dynasty of David until Jesus came. It is expressly said that there was none like him before and none like him after, and that he sought the Lord with his whole heart, and when it came to political relations his policy was not diplomacy but obedience to Jehovah. Once or twice in his life he was led to turn somewhat from that but came back quickly to his old original policy, and the best diplomacy in the world is to be true to God and the principles of righteousness. Bismarck startled all the diplomats of Europe by simply telling the truth and announcing in plain language the policy of Germany. None of them believed it. They said, “Of course, he is telling a lie. All diplomats lie,” and he couldn’t possibly have startled them more than by using absolute candor.
Hezekiah was not only a righteous king, but he was a great poet. Isaiah preserves one of his grand poems at full length, found in Isa 38 . Not only was he a literary genius but he revived literature. In his day there was a constellation of literary geniuses. He revived all of the great psalter of David, and particularly did he exercise himself to put in order the canon of the Scripture up to his time. A sample is found in Pro 25 ; here we have this statement: “These also are proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah, king of Judah copied out.” Now from Pro 25 on, all the books of Proverbs was compiled in the days of Hezekiah, and we find in another reference that which we have briefly considered in a preceding chapter, that in the same way he revised the psalms of the first two books of the psalter. The psalms of David are divided into five books. The first two books of the psalms were used as songs in the Temple in the days of Hezekiah, and the book entitled Problems of the Old Testament , by Dr. Thirtle of England, brings out more light on the days of Hezekiah and his reign than all the commentaries ever written by other men put together. It is an essential contribution to biblical literature. It explains as no other book explains, what are called the songs of degrees in the psalter. But I would have the reader take with more than a grain of salt what Dr. Thirtle’s book says of the Cyrus references in the prophecy of Isaiah.
Now taking up our lesson proper, the chief events of the reign of Hezekiah, let us study them seriatim.
In 2Ki 18:7 it says that he rebelled against the king of Assyria. Ahaz, in order to strengthen and protect himself against the coalition of Pekah king of Israel and Rezin king of Damascus, had appealed to Tiglath-Pileser the king of Assyria for protection. In order to secure that protection from the Assyrian king, Ahaz had to pay a large tribute annually, so that when Hezekiah came to the throne, there was no question but that he had also to pay annual tribute to the king of Assyria to preserve the integrity of his realm. Then he waged a successful war against the Philistines, the old enemies of Israel. They had been gaining in strength for some time. The kingdom of Israel had been somewhat weakened and now Hezekiah attacked them and completely defeated them. Why he did this we are not sure. Probably he did it in order to bring them to unite with him and the other kingdoms in throwing off the yoke of Assyria. It is certain from secular history that Hezekiah seized one of the kings of Philistia and shut him up in prison at Jerusalem because he was friendly to the king of Assyria. We find this in Sennacherib’s own account of his relationship with the Philistines. But Hezekiah could not withstand Sennacherib’s first invasion, and therefore he became tributary to Assyria, taking the treasures of the Temple, and cutting off the gold from the doors and pillars of the Temple, he gave them to the king of Assyria.
Now we come to consider the crisis in the life of Hezekiah; his sickness, recovery, and songs, 2Ki 20:1-11 . We don’t know Just when this occurred, but probably somewhere about 711 or 710 B.C. He had been reigning about fourteen years. “Sick unto death,” it says. And from what we see later in , 2Ki 20:7 , there was a boil upon him. Bennett, in his book on the diseases of the Bible, says that it was a carbuncle. Some have maintained that it was a cancer. Thirtle believed that it was a form of leprosy. The same Hebrew word is used to describe it as is used to describe the boils on the people of Egypt. There are certain kinds of boils that appear with leprosy. So we are not sure just what the trouble was, but it was something serious. The word comes to Hezekiah, “Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die and not live.” Hezekiah felt the effect of these words. It was a staggering blow. It meant that he would be cut off in the middle of his days; it meant that there would be no heir left to the throne of David; it meant that the splendid religious reformation would die out and be lost; it meant that in this critical period of Israel’s life the throne would be vacant, and then what would become of the kingdom? Is it any wonder that he turned his face toward the wall and prayed? Now, what is his argument? It is this: that since he had been righteous, since he had obeyed Jehovah, since he had been true, he therefore ought to live to a ripe old age. Hezekiah thought that he was entitled to a long life, and he was in terrible gloom and despair. He presents that argument in his prayer: “Remember now, O Lord I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight.” The Lord heard that prayer, and as Isaiah was departing and in the midst of the city, the Lord said unto him, “Isaiah, turn again, and say to Hezekiah the prince 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 unto 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 David’s sake.” That was such a gracious promise to Hezekiah, he could hardly believe it. “In three days you will go up to the house of Jehovah.” Hezekiah says, “What sign will there be to assure me?” So Isaiah makes the statement that the sign shall be that the shadow of the dial of Ahaz will go forward ten or backward ten steps or degrees. And Hezekiah replies, “It is nothing for it to go forward ten steps, it will naturally go that way as the sun goes down.” “All right,” says Isaiah, “the shadow of the steps shall go backward ten degrees.” No doubt Hezekiah could see this dial from the window of his palace. Ahaz set this sundial near his palace and evidently some sort of a pillar was arranged, so that the shadow would be cast on so many steps. We do not know how many there were, but there were more than twenty, and as the sun rose it would cast its shadow upon those steps and mark periods of time. As the sun set in the evening the shadow would be cast in a different way, and each step would mark a period of time.
Now if the shadow on those steps was sent backward, that would be a sign sufficient. How could it be possible for the shadow to be thrown backward, as if the sun were rising instead of setting? It can be explained by the laws of refraction, but it was a miracle just the same. Hezekiah saw it and doubtless he was in the Temple worshiping Jehovah in three days. Now let us consider the visitors or the ambassadors from Babylon. The record says, “At that time Merodachbaladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah: for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.” The real object was to see the condition of his kingdom, to find out Hezekiah’s strength, to find out what treasures he had, and if possible to secure his co-operation in a league against Assyria, for Babylon at this time was nearly independent of Assyria, and was seeking to throw off her yoke entirely. There is no question but what that was the real object. We arc told that Hezekiah showed them all his treasures, and they were well pleased. Isaiah didn’t like it and he said, “You are very courteous to them because they have come so far. They didn’t come from such a great distance; you may make a league now but before very long the king of Babylon shall come and take your descendants, and all your treasures and people, your children, and shall carry them away.” This was, of course, fulfilled literally within almost a hundred years.
Hezekiah accumulates great wealth and engages in many building enterprises: “Hezekiah had exceeding riches and honor.” He built him treasuries for all his riches, storehouses for the increase of corn and wine, etc., stalls for beasts and flocks, provided him cities and had possession of flocks and beasts in abundance, strengthened and improved the water works around about Jerusalem making more direct the connection between the waters of Sihon and the city of David. All this indicates that Hezekiah was something like Solomon in his prosperity, wealth and enterprises, as well as in name, fame and honor.
Now we come to the revolt against Assyria and the invasion of Judah by the Assyrian king. As we have already noted, “He rebelled against the king of Assyria, and served him not.” Somewhere about this time Hezekiah made up his mind no longer to pay tribute but to throw off the yoke of Assyria, and of course that means that the king of Assyria would at once take steps to bring him back into subjection. It means also that other nations besides Hezekiah’s would throw off the yoke, and Assyria makes a swift march to Palestine along the coast down to Philistia, and there gains a great victory over the Philistines. We see that from his situation there in Philistia he sent an army and captured all the cities and villages of Judah except Jerusalem, and in Sennacherib’s own record we have this statement: “But Hezekiah of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke forty-six of his fenced cities and fortresses, and small towns in their vicinity without number, by breaking them out with battering rams, and the bows of . . . and the strokes of axes and hammers, I besieged and took 200,150 persons, small and great, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, large cattle, small cattle, without number, I brought forth from the midst of them, and counted as spoil. As for Hezekiah himself, like a bird in a cage, in Jerusalem, his royal city, I shut him up. I threw up forts against him, and whoever would come out of the gates of the city I turned back. As for Hezekiah himself the fear of the glory of my sovereignty overwhelmed him; and the Arabs and his other allies, whom he had brought to strengthen Jerusalem, the city of his royal residence, deserted him. Thirty talents of gold, and eight hundred talents of silver, . . . great stores of lapis-lazuli,. couches of ivory, arm-chairs of ivory [covered] with elephant’s hide, ivory tusks, ussu wood, and the like, an immense treasure, and his daughters, his palace women, men singers, women singers, to Nineveh, my royal city, I made him bring, and for the delivery of the tribute, and rendering homage, he sent his ambassador.”
Allowing for the boastfulness of the Assyrian, there is still a great difference between the account of Sennacherib and the sacred writer. In some respects however, they supplement each other.
The Bible account says, “And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.” The difference in the quantity of silver may be accounted for by a difference in the size of the talent. The sacred writer omits the other items including the deportation of over 200,000 inhabitants. He merely says that he came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them. Thus we find fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah in an earlier chapter. Assyria is God’s hired razor that will shave all the cities of Judah except Jerusalem, and will overwhelm it and overflow it right up to the neck, leaving Jerusalem alone (Isa 7:20 ; Isa 8:7-8 ).
Hezekiah takes great precautions against the onslaught of the Assyrian. When he saw that Sennacherib had come he at once began to strengthen Jerusalem; to see that the water supply was made good. He cut off all the outward sources of water and brought them within the walls of the city, reorganized the army, stirred up his people and made them ready for the attack of the Assyrians. That was a terrible time. The Assyrians were near and what did that mean? The Assyrian with his invincible host! The people would be in a panic all around the country, the strangers and stragglers would come into the city, soldiers would come from there and the couriers would come from the Philistine Plain, and the whole people was in a state of turmoil and anguish.
Very soon word comes that they are coming up the defiles, and quickly the large army of Assyria appears before the walls of Jerusalem, and the choice valleys around are filled with foreign soldiers. Sennacherib sends three of his officers, one of whom was a great diplomat. Hezekiah is within his palace) Isaiah within his home, the army is before the city walls, and three messengers of Hezekiah are at the wall to hear the chief of the officers sent by Sennacherib Rabshakeh. He is an Assyrian, he has been trained in her schools, he knows three languages, he is a master in the art of diplomacy, and here is a great opportunity for him to try his skill; he stands before the walls and makes his speech. Hezekiah’s men give him no answer. They have Isaiah’s words that Jerusalem should be saved. He had prophesied two or three times that the Assyrian would be destroyed, before he could make his onslaught on Jerusalem.
The officers of Jerusalem said to Rabshakeh, “Don’t talk to us in the Jews’ language; talk to us in the Syrian language,” but Rabshakeh pays no attention to this; he cries out to the shrinking people in the Hebrew language, showing that he is a skilled diplomat and master of several languages. He says to them, “Hearken not to Hezekiah; for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make your peace with me, and come out to me, and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one of the waters of his own cistern; 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 olive oil and of honey.” That is a fine stroke of diplomatic reasoning to induce them to surrender. It would have its effect on the multitude. The ambassadors on the walls went back weeping and told Hezekiah. Hezekiah rent his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth, and went to the house of Jehovah. Then he sent for the prophet. What does he say? “This is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of contumely: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth.” Faith has come to its trying moment and it seems as if it were going to fail. How many a man’s faith has sustained him till the crisis comes and then fails him. Isaiah has been prophesying for years that the Assyrian shall be destroyed. He says, “It is all right. I will put a spirit in him [Sennacherib], and he will hear a rumor and will leave Jerusalem and go out to his own land,” He will hear something about the condition of his empire somewhere else and he will start for home. That has been done more than once. Charlemagne once left his campaign in Spain and hurried home because of a rumor that he had heard. Napoleon did this three times ostensibly because of a rumor. He pretended to have retreated from Moscow because he had heard a rumor from Paris.
Sennacherib finds that his schemes fail and that Hezekiah will not surrender. He learns also that Tirhakah, the king of Ethiopia, is coming up against him, and he sends a letter to Hezekiah, “Now there is no use in your trusting in Jehovah. You had better surrender and save your people.” Hezekiah takes the letter into the house of God and lays it upon the altar before the Lord. He prays to God, he has faith, he has been buoyed up by Isaiah, that masterful spirit. It is a critical period. Isaiah now speaks one of his fearful prophecies against him: “Woe unto thee that spoilest, and thou was not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they deal not treacherously with thee: when thou shalt cease to spoil, thou shalt be spoiled; and when thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee.” A critical moment in the life of Hezekiah is on, one of the turning points in the history is before us. Isaiah is still prophesying that Israel will be saved and Assyria shall be destroyed. What is the result? Sennacherib with his large army retreats from Jerusalem, is marching toward Egypt to meet Tirhakah who is advancing against him with a large army. He advances toward that awful stretch of country near Pelusium, a place of disease and death, where whole armies have been destroyed by pestilences or overwhelmed in the sands of the desert. The account says an angel of the Lord in one night blew a blast of death over his army, and in the morning 185,000 lay dead, and the rest hurried with Sennacherib at their head, back to Assyria. This is one of the great events of history, and one of the victories of faith. Psalms 46-48 were probably written in commemoration of this event: “The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge.” Beautiful and precious psalms are they. Israel is saved, the Assyrian army is destroyed, one of the turning points in the history of God’s people, and in the history of the world has been passed, and all because of one man’s faith) one man who believed in God and was steadfast in his faith.
QUESTIONS
1. What were Judah’s chief political relations at the fall of the Northern Kingdom?
2. What subordinate political relations?
3. What was religious status in the time of Hezekiah?
4. What New Testament reference to this time? Explain fully.
5. What was their method of ascertaining the future and what prophetic proof?
6. What says the author here about the dial of Ahaz?
7. Where do we find a summary of the condition, religious and moral, from Uzziah to Hezekiah and what conditions therein described?
8. What was Hezekiah’s policy? Illustrate.
9. What literary accomplishments of Hezekiah?
10. What book on this section commended?
11. What were Hezekiah’s first successes in war?
12. What was his disease, how cured and was it a “faith cure'”?
13. What is the meaning of “Set thy house in order”?
14. Is it right to crave to live?
15. Is it right to ask a token of God and what difference between faith and assurance?
16. What scheme of BerodachBeladan and what condition that made the success of the scheme possible?
17. What was Isaiah’s rebuke to Hezekiah and what was his prophecy concerning Judah?
18. What were precautions of Hezekiah against Sennacherib’s second invasion?
19. What were Hezekiah’s building enterprises?
20. What was Rabshakeh’s message and what the reply?
21. What was Rabshakeh’s further insolence and what despair of Hezekiah’s ministers?
22. What did Hezekiah do and what result?
23. What was Sennacherib’s next step and Hezekiah’s response?
24. What was God’s answer to Hezekiah and the fulfilment?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 19:1 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.
Ver. 1. And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it. ] And a great deal more, against the Lord and himself, than is recorded in the former chapter. See 2Ch 32:16 . It is easy to wag a wicked tongue; these dead dogs will be barking and blaspheming without measure, till God please to gag them. Hezekiah hasteth hereupon to God’s house, there to say, as Abisha once did to David, Why should these dead dogs curse my Lord the King of glory? As for Rabshakeh, he seems to say unto him, Sirrah, we will complain of you to one that shall shortly take you to task.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
it came to pass. Compare Isa 37:1.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 19
So it came to pass, when Hezekiah heard the words and the threats and the blasphemy, that he tore his clothes, covered himself with sackcloth, and went to the house of the LORD. And Eliakim, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, they covered themselves with sackcloth, and they came to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This is a day of trouble, of rebuke, of blasphemy: for the children are come to birth, there isn’t enough strength for them to be delivered. It may be that the LORD thy God will hear all the words that Rabshakeh, 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 is left. And so the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah. And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith the LORD, Don’t be afraid of the words which you have heard, which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, he’ll hear a rumor, he’ll return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land ( 2Ki 19:1-7 ).
And so Shalmaneser heard some rumors that the king of Ethiopia was coming out to fight, and so he sent messengers to Hezekiah saying, “Don’t trust in God and don’t be deceived saying Jerusalem will not be delivered into the hands of the Assyrians. You heard what the Assyrians have done in destroying the other lands. Where are the gods of the nations of the land that have been destroyed?”
And Hezekiah received the letter and he took it into the house of the LORD, and he spread it out before the LORD ( 2Ki 19:14 ).
He said, “Now, Lord, look at this threatening letter. Look what this guy is saying. And Lord, there’s a lot of truth to this. These people are strong. They’ve conquered over these other nations.” And he laid the whole thing out before the Lord.
You know, that’s the best place to bring your problems. You know, you may get some mean, threatening letter. Best thing to do is just lay it out before the Lord and say, “Look, Lord, what they’re threatening to do to me now.” And he just laid the whole thing out before the Lord. His burden, poured out his heart before the Lord. And the Lord answered Hezekiah through Isaiah and He said,
That which you have prayed to me against Sennacherib the king of Assyria I have heard ( 2Ki 19:20 ).
And God gives this prophecy against him saying that actually he has blasphemed against the Lord and against the God of Israel. And thus the Lord said,
I’ll put my hook in the nose, and my bridle in your lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which you came. And this will be the sign, You shall eat this year such as the things that grow themselves, the second year that which springs of the same; and in the third year you’re going to sow, and reap ( 2Ki 19:28-29 ).
The people have been shut up. There was a famine. God said, “I’m going to deliver you. This year, you’ll just eat what grows wildly. Next year the same, but the following year you’ll sow and plant again.”
And the remnant that is escaped to the house of Judah shall yet again take root downward, and bear fruit upward. For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the king of Assyria, He will not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with a shield, nor cast a bank against it. For by the way that he came, by the same way he will return, he will not come to this city, saith the LORD. For I will defend this city, to save it, for my own sake, and for my servant David’s sake ( 2Ki 19:30-34 ).
So the result of Hezekiah bringing his problems to the Lord, he found the answers. You know, so many times we run to others with our problems. First thing we do is run for a counselor. Run for a friend. You know, and we start laying our heavy trips on everybody else. The Bible says, “Cast all your cares upon Him; for He cares for you” ( 1Pe 5:7 ). So many times when people bring me their problems I only feel absolutely frustrated, because what can I do? Nothing. Except take it to the Lord. You know, I’m powerless to help. I can’t change the situations. Only God can change the situation. Oh, that we would learn to just bring our fears, our worries, our concerns and just lay them out before the Lord. “Lord, look what they’re saying. Look what they’re doing. Oh God, I cast myself upon You. I can’t do anything about it. I’m helpless. Lord, help me.” And the Lord will help you. The Lord helped Hezekiah.
Came to pass that night, that an angel of the LORD went through the camp of the Assyrians and wiped out a hundred and eighty-five thousand: so that when they woke up in the morning, there were a hundred and eighty-five thousand front line troops lying there dead corpses ( 2Ki 19:35 ).
One angel of the Lord. One night. A hundred and eighty-five thousand. Now as you’re reading Isaiah, you get a very interesting footnote on this. Very fascinating. The result of this experience to the people who were living in Jerusalem. What happened to them when this happened to the Assyrians? Very fascinating footnote. You’ll find it in Isaiah. He said, “Fear gripped the hearts of the sinners in Zion. Terror took hold on the hypocrites and they said, Who among us can dwell in the midst of this devouring fire?” ( Isa 33:14 ) To see what the fire of God did to the Assyrians made all the sinners terrified. They said, “Who among us can dwell in the midst of this devouring fire?” Or, that word dwell could also be translated, “Who among us can approach?” Or another place is translated, “Who among us can flee from this devouring fire?”
Now here is again where God is seen as a symbol of a devouring fire. “Our God is a consuming fire” ( Heb 12:29 ), we read in Hebrews. And when they saw the effect of God against the Assyrians, those who were sinners became terrified, because they realized that, you know, how can you dwell in the midst of this fire and not be burned? Not be destroyed. Not be consumed. They saw the effect of the fire of God. Now, oh, that’s another message, so we’ll get that when we get that in Isaiah.
And so Sennacherib the king of Assyria returned back to Assyria. And while he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, his sons assassinated him ( 2Ki 19:36-37 ). “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 19:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
In the presence of the undoubted peril, Hezekiah in penitence turned to his old and trusted friend, the prophet Isaiah, and charged him to pray for that remnant of God’s people which still remained. He thereupon uttered a prophecy concerning the deliverance which was to come, and thus revealed the fine scorn of a man who lived in communion with God for all such empty boasting as that of Sennacherib. God has need of a very small thing to work His will. Said Isaiah, “He shall hear a rumour.” As a matter of fact, this was what actually happened, and because of the rumor Sennacherib withdrew. The very next verse declares it. When Rab-shakeh returned, he found that Sennacherib had heard certain things, which had diverted his attention from Israel to other quarters.
Nevertheless, he returned to the charge, and a letter was sent to Hezekiah. This he spread before the Lord in prayer. Isaiah’s answer to Hezekiah, on the warrant of God, was lofty in thought and word. He declared that the chosen people laughed at the challenge of the blasphemer. Moreover, he claimed that the victories of which Sennacherib had boasted were the acts of God against whom he was now setting himself, Said Jehovah, “I know thy sitting down, and thy going out and thy coming in, and thy raging against Me.” He declared that judgment was to fall upon the Assyrians, and that God’s own people were to be delivered. Following the utterance, the swift judgment of God passed over the army; the great Sennacherib escaped to Nineveh only to be slain in the house of his god.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Facing the Enemys Threatenings
2Ki 19:1-13
That bowed form of Hezekiah before the altar of God, while his servants and elders were conferring with Isaiah, is a beautiful emblem of the true way of meeting trouble. And it is very blessed when our cause is so closely identified with Gods that we can appeal to Him to intervene for His own sake, 2Ki 19:4.
All through this crisis, Isaiah acted the part of a patriot and a saint. His intrepid figure stands out in bold relief amid the storm. He even dared to compose a funeral ode for the burial of this imperious tyrant. In all literature there is nothing more sublime than Isa 10:11-14. When bitter and threatening words are flung at us, let us go up to the house of God. See Psa 73:17. Let us get in touch with some holy soul, of the type of Isaiah, and ask for his prayers on our behalf. The prayer of a righteous man is very effectual. To stand in Gods secret place is to be in the calm center of the cyclone. Around us the elements may rage and the people imagine a vain thing; but they shall pass away as the chaff of the threshing-floor, while not a hair of our head shall perish.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 19:14
Hezekiah’s letter would be very different in form from our letters. The Assyrians did not use paper or even skins, but did their writing on clay. It is very likely that the letter was a tablet of terra cotta.
I. “Went up into the house of the Lord.” Where was he so likely to find God as in His house? Notice the prayer of the king, how he speaks of God as dwelling between the cherubim. Perhaps he had heard how Sennacherib sat on his throne between winged bulls and lions; but he had heard Isaiah tell of seeing the Lord surrounded by winged intelligences. God has only to speak to His winged messenger, and the angel has gone to crush the foes of Jehovah and His people. This was a model prayer, not going all round the world, but fastening on the thing wanted and asking for that. If our prayers were more like telegrams, we should have speedier answers.
II. Was the letter ever answered? Yes, for Jehovah answered it Himself. We know what the result was, and how suddenly the bolt of vengeance struck down the proud blasphemer.
III. There is a postscript to God’s answer. “It came to pass that night…they were all dead corpses.” Suppose we read in the newspaper to-morrow, “Sudden death of 185,000 soldiers!” What a stir it would make! What a sight the camp must have been next morning! There has been considerable discussion as to the cause of the destruction of so large an army, and it is generally understood now to have been the simoom. Cambyses, king of the Medes, lost fifty thousand men by one of these dreadful winds. But whether the wind was the messenger or an angel, it matters not. God willed it, and nature hasted to do His bidding.
T. Champness, New Coins from Old Gold, p. 179.
Hezekiah received the letter himself at the hand of the messengers, which was courteous; and he read it, which was calm and accurate; and he went up into the house of God, which was reverential; and he spread it before the Lord, which was filial and confiding.
I. Belief in the efficacy of prayer has latterly become very small. And at the root of this want of faith is this thought, that since God governs the world by general fixed laws, and since answers to particular prayers must be specialities, therefore oftentimes exceptions to these general laws, it is not to be expected that God will interrupt His universal system to meet any particular case. To this we answer two things: (1) In all other general laws, such as the laws of nations or even natural laws, provision is expressly made for exceptional occasions, and it is an axiom that under certain conditions the law shall not take any, or at least the same, effect. Why should not the same rule apply to the laws by which God regulates His providential dealings? (2) Why should not the particular answer to the particular prayer be itself a part of the grand universal law? Why should not God have ordained in His sovereignty that all true prayer shall bring certain results, as that any other cause in the world shall produce its own natural and proper effect?
II. Assuming then, as we well may, the fact that God does have respect to prayer, we ask, “What is it to spread a matter before God?” (1) You cannot spread anything before God till you have first spread yourself-your whole heart and life-before Him. (2) The whole trouble must be spread before Him; God loves minuteness; there is no spreading without minuteness. To speak out loud a sorrow or a care even to a thing inanimate is a help to definiteness, to clearness of thought, to manfulness, to duty; how much more so when we confide in God.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 9th series, p. 139.
References: 2Ki 19:14.-Old Testament Outlines, p. 81; S. Baring-Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 182; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 389. 2Ki 19:14-16.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 183. 2Ki 19:15.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ix., p. 89.
2Ki 19:15-19
I. We are too apt to think that peace and prosperity are the only signs of God’s favour; that if a nation be religious, it is certain to thrive and be happy. But it is not so. We find from history that the times in which nations have shown most nobleness, most courage, most righteousness, have been times of trouble, and danger, and terror. When nations have been invaded, persecuted, trampled under foot by tyrants, then, to the astonishment of the world, they have become greater than themselves, and done deeds which win them glory for ever.
II. What is true of nations is often true also of each single person. To almost every man, at least once in his life, comes a time of trial or crisis, a time when God purges the man, and tries him in the fire, and burns up the dross in him, that the pure, sterling gold only may be left. To some it comes in the shape of some terrible loss or affliction. To others it comes in the shape of some great temptation. Nay, if we will consider, it comes to us all, perhaps often, in that shape. A man is brought to a point where he must choose between right and wrong. God puts him where the two roads part. One way turns off to the broad road which leads to destruction; the other way turns off to the narrow road which leads to life. If he believes in the living God and in the living Christ, then when temptation comes he will be able to stand. If he believes that Christ is dwelling in him, that whatever wish to do right he has comes from Christ, whatever sense of honour and honesty he has comes from Christ, then it will seem to him a dreadful thing to lie, to play the hypocrite or the coward, to sin against his own better feelings. It will be sinning against Christ Himself.
C. Kingsley, Town and Country Sermons, p. 370.
References: 2Ki 19:15-19.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 521. 2Ki 19:34.-C. Kingsley, Sermons for the Times, p. 183.
2Ki 19:35
I. In the first thirty-seven chapters of Isaiah’s prophecies we have a full account of the ways of the Jews at that time, and the reasons why God allowed so fearful a danger to come upon them. The first thirty-five chapters are a spiritual history of the Jews and the Assyrians and all the nations round them for many years. The kings of Assyria thought themselves the greatest and strongest beings in the world; they thought that their might was right, and that they might conquer, and ravage, and plunder, and oppress every country round them without being punished. They thought that they could overcome the true God of Judaea, as they had conquered the empty idols of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Iva. But Isaiah saw that they were wrong; he prophesied that a great eruption or breaking out of burning mountains would destroy the king of Assyria’s army and would even shake Jerusalem itself.
II. How the Assyrians were killed we cannot exactly tell, most likely by a stream of poisonous vapour, such as often comes forth out of the ground during earthquakes and eruptions of burning mountains and kills all the men and animals who breathe it. God intended all along to teach the Jews that the earth and heaven belonged to Him and obeyed Him. He taught them and the proud king of Assyria once and for all that He was indeed the Lord, Lord of all nations and King of kings, and also Lord of the earth and all that therein is. Those who really trust in Him shall never be confounded. Those who trust in themselves are trying their paltry strength against the God who made heaven and earth, and will surely find out their own weakness, just when they fancy themselves most successful. If man dare not fight on the Lord’s side against sin and evil, the Lord’s earth will fight for Him. Earthquakes and burning mountains will do His work.
C. Kingsley, Sermons on National Subjects, p. 247.
References: 2Ki 19:37.-E. H. Plumptre, Expositor, 2nd series, vol. iv., p. 450. 2Ki 20:1.-H. W. Beecher, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxvii., p. 99; A. Raleigh, Thoughts for the Weary, p. 90; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 126. 2Ki 20:2.-J. Van Oosterzee, Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 482. 2Ki 20:9-11.-Hunter, Sunday Magazine, 1872, p. 644. 2Ki 20:11.-J. H. Wilson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. v., p. 24. 2Ki 20-Parker, vol. viii., p. 285. 2Ki 21:17, 2Ki 21:18.-J. R. Macduff, Sunsets on the Hebrew Mountains, p. 184. 2Ki 21-Parker, vol. viii., p. 298. 2Ki 22:2.-E. Monro, Practical Sermons on the Old Testament, vol. ii., p. 219. 2Ki 22:3-12.-D. G. Watt, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 180.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
2. Hezekiah and Isaiah and the Deliverance
CHAPTER 19
1. Hezekiahs message to Isaiah (2Ki 19:1-5)
2. Isaiahs answer. (2Ki 19:6-7)
3. Sennacheribs message to Hezekiah (2Ki 19:8-13; 2Ch 32:17)
4. Hezekiahs Prayer (2Ki 19:14-19; 2Ch 32:20)
5. Jehovahs answer through Isaiah (2Ki 19:20-34)
6. The deliverance (2Ki 19:35; 2Ch 32:21-22)
7. Sennacheribs death (2Ki 19:30-37)
And Hezekiah also rent his clothes. In deep humiliation and sorrow the pious man went to the house of the Lord and sent messengers to Isaiah. This is most blessed. He did not call a counsel of his advisers, a meeting of the captains to talk the matter over; nor did he send first to the prophet. Faith knows a better way than that. He went straight into the presence of the LORD and the sending to Isaiah was secondary. Many of our failures as His people are due to the fact that we do not go to the LORD first.
And equally beautiful is his message to Gods prophet. He mentions not himself in the danger of Jerusalem. It is the honor of Jehovah which is at stake; the honor of the living God is at stake. The Assyrian had defied the God of Israel. Yea, Hezekiahs comfort was that Jehovah had heard it all and knew it all. What lessons and what comforts are here for us also! Then he requests prayer.
The divine answer through Isaiah was brief. Be not afraid. The blessed assurance for faith first–Fear not! The promise of deliverance is the second thing in Isaiahs answer.
Another message in the form of a letter is sent by Sennacherib to the king. Again Hezekiah goes with it straight to the LORD. He read it and went up into the house of the LORD and spread it before the LORD. What blessing there would be in the lives of all Gods people; what wonderful evidences of His power and His love we might have if all things which happened unto us were at once taken into the presence of God and spread before Him!
And the beautiful answer to Hezekiahs prayer sent through the prophet! The LORD had heard, He had seen. All what had taken place He knew and any word which had been spoken. The message ends with the assuring word, I will defend this city, to save it, for Mine own sake, and for my servant Davids sake.
That night the judgment stroke fell. The whole Assyrian army of 185,000 men was smitten by the angel of the LORD. Prophetically it stands for the end of the Assyrian who will enter Israels land during the great tribulation and who will perish like Sennacheribs army.
Sennacherib dwelt after that in Nineveh. There he was murdered by his own sons. An Assyrian cylinder in the British Museum contains a record of this deed.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
when king: Isa 37:1-7
he rent: 2Ki 5:7, 2Ki 18:37, 1Sa 4:12, Ezr 9:3, Job 1:20, Jer 36:24, Mat 26:65
covered: 2Ki 6:30, Gen 37:34, 1Ki 21:27, 1Ki 21:29, Est 4:1-4, Psa 35:13, Jon 3:8, Mat 11:21
went into: 2Ch 7:15, 2Ch 7:16, Job 1:20, Job 1:21
Reciprocal: Gen 37:29 – he rent Exo 33:4 – and no Lev 24:11 – blasphemed 2Sa 3:31 – Rend 1Ki 20:31 – put sackcloth 1Ch 21:16 – clothed 2Ch 34:19 – that he rent Psa 75:1 – A Psalm Isa 33:7 – the ambassadors Act 14:14 – they
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
HELP FROM THE SANCTUARY
When king Hezekiah heard it he went into the house of the Lord.
2Ki 19:1
The first thing is that we should accept the Mastery of Jesus. It is to His disciples that He brings peace. Are we disciples?
And the second thing is the resolution to live one day at a time. Be not anxious for the morrow, for, after all, it is only to-day that we have to live. We look forward and try and think out how we will act, and to-morrow it is all so different, and meanwhile we have exhausted the nerve and we have used the energy which God intended to give us anew for the fresh days work. There was no gathering of the manna for more than one day at a time. The Word of Christ comes back to the disciple, and it is a question whether we will be loyal. It comes echoing down to us from the Eucharist, Lift up your hearts from the burden and the heat, from the misery and the uncertainty of trusting in your own selves. Let us have courage to answer: We lift them up unto the Lord.
I. The reign of Hezekiah falls like a bright beam of light across the darkest path of Jewish history.Now Hezekiah was a type of Christ. Look, first, at the destruction of the brazen serpent, as told us in this mornings lesson. Try to realise all that it meant. This serpent had a wonderful history and sacred associations. For many generations it had been one of the objects which most stirred the hearts of the Jews. But it had lost its power completely; it had become an object of superstitious worship, and so Hezekiah broke it in pieces. I wonder what the scribes and Pharisees of that day thought of this act? Hezekiah was a type of Him Who centuries later scandalised the scribes and Pharisees by breaking the Sabbath. When the trial moment comes, when temptation is strong and help seems far away, the question will be, not whether we have learnt to hold the tenets of Christianity as historical facts, but whether they have taught us the power of prayer, and the evil hold dropped, and the call of duty accepted. Whether, in one word, we have learnt to live our faith, so that Christ lives in our hearts and through our lives.
II. Let us turn to another scene in Hezekiahs life: the revival of the Passover, as narrated in the Second Book of Chronicles. It was not confined to Judah. Again Hezekiahs greatness is seen. He had grasped the idea of the Passoverthat it set forth the unity of the nation. There was nothing political in his aim. There was no thought of the winning back of Judah. His aim was to teach the people that, wherever their lot was cast, they were all one people, and doubtless this, too, scandalised the scribes and Pharisees of the day. And, says the chronicler, many of those that accepted the invitation came without having undergone the purification ordained by the Lord. Now mark Hezekiah on that occasion. He prayed the Lord to pardon every one who had prepared his heart to seek the Lord God of his fathers. One more type of Him Who centuries after welcomed the outcasts. Is there not a lesson here for us? Think of all those well meaning, religious people who cannot see the deeper unity which underlies differences of creed between us. But let us beware of confounding the idea of unity and uniformity. The Divine ideal seems to be not uniformity, but a grand symphony played on a thousand instruments.
III. Let us look at one more scene in Hezekiahs lifehis bearing towards the King of Assyria, as told in the lesson of this morning and this evening. Hezekiah was lying helpless before the power of the King of Assyria, but in him we see no bravado and no fear, only a simple faith and trust in God. He met the insulting messages of Sennacherib in silence; the kings command was, Answer him not. Once more he is a type of Him Who, centuries later, when He was accused of the chief priests and elders, answered nothing, and when He received the blasphemous message was silent. Hezekiahs first thought was God. He went to the Temple and spread his trouble before the Lord. It is in this instant reference, this turning to God at once, without fear and without hesitation, that Hezekiah is so valuable an example to ourselves. For we, too, like Hezekiah, are besieged with enemies. Which of us has not some sin of temper, it may be, or selfishness, or pride, or lustsome sin which he is tempted to commit frequently, and we have learned its power, and we long to cast it off and be rid of it for ever, but again and again the temptation comes? We fight against it, but we finally yield to it, and we feel as though this sin were poisoning our whole life. Have we said, My help cometh from the Lord?
Dean Furneaux.
Illustration
Here is a good mans victory in anticipation and advance over his enemies.
I do not think that Hezekiah needed to wait for his assurance of triumph, until
The might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Had melted like snow in the glance of the Lord.
When he came out of Gods Temple, it was with a look of calmness and confidence on his face. He had shaken off his care and sorrow. He had laid his necessities in Gods mighty hands, and he left them there. If I do really make over my distresses to Him, the poison goes out of them. If I share my tasks with Him, their irksomeness disappears. If I breathe my trouble into His strong and tranquil heart, He gives me the tranquillity and the strength instead. The moment of actual deliverance may not arrive for days or weeks. But it is as if it had arrived. I am persuaded that it is coming. I look forward to it undoubtingly. I wait for it. Nay, it is better than if it had arrived. There is something supernatural, unearthly, Divine, in being sustained, kept in peace, filled with joy, when tribulations abound, and when the Assyrians are still at Libnah.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2Ki 19:1. When Hezekiah heard it, he rent his clothes Good men were wont to do so, when they heard of any reproach cast on Gods name; and great men must not think it any disparagement to them to sympathize with the injured honour of the great God.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 19:7. I will send a blast, not the simoon or hot wind, very sulphurous and destructive, as in Berosus, but the immediate visitation of an angel, as when the firstborn of the Egyptians were all slain, and the Israelites spared. Scoffing at religion is often among the last revolts allowed to the wicked. 2 Chronicles 32.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 19:2. unto Isaiah: from the Book of Isaiah we learn that the prophet had steadily opposed Hezekiahs intrigues against Assyria.Shelna: Isa 22:15-25*.
2Ki 19:9. Ethiopia was the country S. of Egypt. At a time later than this (681 B.C. ?), Tirhakah seems to have established his government in Egypt. There is, therefore, a chronological difficulty in the mention of him here (p. 72). He is, however, not called king of Egypt, and he may have been acting as an ally of the princes of the Nile valley.
2Ki 19:10-13. Sennacheribs letter to Hezekiah, showing how hopeless it was for a king of Judah to resist him after all his victories over powerful nations.
2Ki 19:15-19. Hezekiahs prayer to Yahweh, who sitteth upon the cherubim (1Sa 4:4, 2Sa 6:2, 1 Kings 6*), praying Him to vindicate His honour against the false gods of the heathen.
2Ki 19:21-31. Isaiahs taunt song against Sennacherib, and the sign given to Hezekiah. The king of Assyria destroyed the nations because their gods were idols, but since he had blasphemed the living God, he would be turned back by the way he came. The sign was that for two years the people of Jerusalem would eat the corn that sprang up from old harvests, but that in the third year they would sow and reap as usual (2Ki 19:29).
2Ki 19:35. the angel of the Lord: Herodotus (ii. 141) has a story that Sennacheribs army was destroyed owing to the prayers of a pious king of Egypt. The pestilence is connected with the angel in 2Sa 24:15.
2Ki 19:37. Sennacherib was murdered by his sons in 681 B.C., twenty years after the invasion of Judah, if the date (701 B.C.) is correct.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
GOD’S ANSWER THROUGH ISAIAH
(vv.1-7)
Hezekiah, when he heard the report, showed the same humble attitude as his three servants had. He tore his cloches and put on sackcloth, the symbol of repentance and self-judgment. This was negative, but he also cook the positive action of going into the house of the Lord. There he would find positive help. No doubt it was through the Lord’s guidance that he sent Eliakim and Shebna and the elders of Israel to Isaiah the prophet.
The message they brought to Isaiah from Hezekiah was, “This day is a day of trouble and rebuke and blasphemy, for the children are come to the birth, but there is no strength to bring them forth” (v.3). Similar distress has been often repeated in the history of the Church. A climax arises that finds saints of God pathetically weak in meeting the attacks of the enemy. What is their resource? Only the grace of God. Thus Hezekiah asked Isaiah for his prayers that God would rebuke the words of the Rabshakeh and preserve the small remnant of Israel that was left in the land (v.4).
When the servants brought this message to Isaiah, the prophet needed no hesitation in telling them to report to Hezekiah the words of the Lord, telling him not to be afraid of the boasting words from Assyria, for God took account of those words which had blasphemed Him (v.6). God would work behind the scenes, causing the king of Assyria to hear a rumour to drive him back to his own land, where he would suffer death by the sword among his own people (v.7). His own sons killed him (v.37). Thus, respite was given to Hezekiah for a short time when the rumour caused Rabshakeh to leave Jerusalem because the king of Assyria had another front of battle with Libnah (v.8).
ANOTHER THREAT FROM SENNACHARIB
(vv.9-13)
But Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was not finished with Jerusalem. Though he was told of the King of Ethiopia coming to make war against him, he was still determined to subdue Jerusalem, and sent messengers again to Hezekiah, haughtily telling him, “Do not let your God in whom you trust deceive you, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria” (v.10). Sennacherib considered there was proof enough that Jerusalem would fall in the fact that the gods of the nations had not been able to deliver them from the domination of Assyria (vv.11-13).
Since none of the nations had been able to resist Assyria, Sennacherib was fully confident that the God of heaven and earth could not deliver Jerusalem either.
He sent a message to Hezekiah in the form of a letter. When Hezekiah received the letter he spread it out before the Lord (v.14). Rather than answer the letter himself, he committed it entirely to the Lord. Could the Lord be trusted to answer? Yes, indeed! If we too commit such things to the Lord, rather than fighting or arguing, can we not trust the Lord to answer better than we might imagine?
Then Hezekiah prayed and in his prayer he did not first plead for help, but beautifully gives God His place of absolute pre-eminence and dignity, “O Lord God of Israel, the One who dwells between the cherubim, You are God, You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You made heaven and earth” (v.15). Does this not remind us of the instructions of the Lord Jesus as to how to pray? – “Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.” “Father” speaks of God’s primacy, “in heaven” speaks of His supremacy, and “Hallowed be Your name” speaks of His dignity as apart from all others.
Thus, in giving God His place, we take the place of totally dependent creatures. In such dependence Hezekiah entreated the Lord to incline His ear to hear and observe the words of Sennacherib by which he was actually reproaching the living God Himself (v.16). He confesses the fact that other nations and lands had been subdued by the king of Assyria, burning their gods in the fire since they were only idols of wood and stone (vv.17-18), but Hezekiah was appealing to the only true God to save Jerusalem from this haughty king. He did not confine the reason for this to Jerusalem’s need for deliverance. Rather, he desired that all the kingdoms of the earth should know that God is the Lord, and He alone. Is it possible that God could ignore a plea such as this? Certainly not!
THE ANSWER OF GOD
(vv.20-34)
We do not read on this occasion that Hezekiah sent to Isaiah for help. But God immediately sent word by Isaiah to assure Hezekiah that his prayer was heard (v.20), and much more was added which would encourage and strengthen the faith of the godly king.
Verse 21 uses strong words indeed, speaking of the virgin, the daughter of Zion despising and laughing to scorn the king of Assyria, shaking her head against him. This is not intended to be an example for us to follow in the way we deal now with enemies of the truth, but it is God’s Word as regards what was a righteous response at that time to the man who was a wicked enemy of God. For God questions Sennacherib, “Whom have you reproached and blasphemed? Against whom have you raised your voice, and lifted up your eyes on high?” The answer is most solemn, – “Against the Holy One of Israel (v.22). By means of his messengers Sennacherib reproached the Lord, telling Him in effect that Assyria had enough chariots to reader God helpless against him. The proud boasting of Sennacherib continues through verse 24. He said he would cut down the tall cedars of Lebanon and its cypress trees, rendering the whole country defenceless against his power.
God’s answer to him is seen in verses 25-28. How withering indeed if only the king of Assyria had paid attention to it! Had he not heard long ago that God had made the forests of Lebanon and the waters the king boasted of drying up? It was the God who made these things who had given power to Sennacherib to crush fortified cities into heaps of ruins. Because God was behind this, therefore the inhabitants of those cities were without power to defend themselves (v.26) and became totally confounded. They were as the grass of the field, green for a time, then withering. But this is true of all mankind by nature (Psa 103:15-16). Though these nations gave way to Assyria, Assyria would yet give way and perish as the grass. How futile was her boasting then!
God knew Assyria’s dwelling place and all her activities, including her rage against God Himself (v.27). If she had confined her animosity to the nations she conquered, she may not have fallen so soon, but since adding her blasphemy against the God who had exalted her, therefore God would put His hook in her nose and His bridle in her lips and turn her back by the way she had come (v.28). Thus, God may use one nation to punish another, but when that nation is then puffed up with pride, God knows how to reduce it to a humiliating level.
Verse 29 introduces a sign for Jerusalem, however. They would continue in the land to eat that year “such as grows of itself,” a volunteer crop. They had evidently been unable to sow any crop, so could not depend on a harvest, but God would provide what was necessary for them. The same would be true for a second year, probably because of continued unstable conditions. But in the third year they were to sow and reap, to plant vineyards and eat of their fruit (v.29). Thus for three years Jerusalem was assured they would be safe from the depredations of the enemy.
Continuing His prophecy of blessing to Judah, God tells them that their small remnant who have escaped the offence of Assyria would “take root downward and bear fruit upward” (v.30). A stable character of being properly rooted would result in fruit “upward”, that is, fruit for God. “For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and out of Mount Zion they that escape (v.31- JND trans.). The remnant of Judah would not be so shut up in Jerusalem as to be prisoners there. It is not escaping from Mount Zion, but escaping from Sennacherib, “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.” How good for Jerusalem to depend on Him!
Therefore the Lord declared that the king of Assyria would not come into Jerusalem, nor even shoot an arrow there. In fact, he would not come against it with a protecting shield nor build a siege mound against it (v.32). Before he was able to get that far, God would intercept his progress, and make him return by the same way he came. For God would defend the city to save it. Why? For His own name’s sake and for the sake of David, God’s servant (vv.33-34).
GOD’S JUDGMENT ON SENNACHERIB
(vv.25-37)
Though God is wonderfully patient as regards the cruelty, and arrogance of His enemies, this does not mean He is indifferent, as many would like to think. He gives time for repentance, but when it is clear that men will not change, then sudden awesome judgment falls from a righteous God. Hezekiah had trusted God, and though the answer seemed slow in coming, it did come in God’s time. In one night the angel of the Lord killed in the camp of Assyria 185,000 men! (v.35). What a shock to those who remained!
Perhaps Sennacherib realised that Hezekiah’s God was greater than Sennacherib, and he left Jerusalem with his remaining army, returning to Nineveh. But there he did not turn to the true God, as his experience told him he ought to; but while he was worshipping in the temple of Nisroch. his idolatrous god, two of his own sons killed him and escaped to the land of Ararat (v.37). Nisroch was no protector of his deluded worshiper. But the living God was behind this judgment on Sennacherib. Though the wheels of God’s government, grind slowly their results are absolutely certain.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
3. Yahweh’s immediate encouragement 19:1-13
Hezekiah’s response to this crisis was to turn to Yahweh in prayer and to His prophet for an answer. He sensed his position under Yahweh’s authority, humbled himself, and sought God’s help (cf. 2 Samuel 7; 1 Kings 8). God rewarded Hezekiah’s attitude and assured him of success because the Assyrians had challenged the reputation of Yahweh.
God’s method of deliverance involved harassing the Assyrian army. First Libnah, a town a few miles northeast of Lachish, needed Sennacherib’s attention. Then he received word that the king of Cush (southern Egypt) was coming to attack from the southwest, the direction opposite from Libnah and Jerusalem. These divinely sent diversions caused Sennacherib to suspend his siege of Jerusalem.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
7
HEZEKIAH AND ASSYRIA
B.C. 701
2Ki 18:13-37; 2Ki 19:1-37
“When, sudden-how think ye the end?
Did I say without friend?
Say rather from marge to blue marge
The whole sky grew his targe,
With the suns self for visible boss.
While an Arm ran across
Which the earth heaved beneath like a breast,
Where the wretch was safe pressed.”
– BROWNING
ALTHOUGH during a few memorable scenes the relations of Judah with Assyria in the reign of Hezekiah leap into fierce light, many previous details are unfortunately left in the deepest obscurity-an obscurity all the more impenetrable from the lack of certain dates. It will perhaps help to simplify our conceptions if we first sketch what is known of Assyria from the cuneiform inscriptions, and then fill up the sketch of those scenes which are more minutely delineated in the Book of Kings and in the prophecies of Isaiah.
Sargon-perhaps a successful general of royal blood, though he never calls himself the son of anyone-seems to have usurped the throne on the death of Shalmaneser IV during the siege of Samaria in B.C. 722. He took Samaria, deported its inhabitants, and re-peopled it from the Assyrian dominions. “In their place,” he says, in his tablets in the halls of his palace at Khorsabad, “I settled the men of countries conquered [by my hand].” In 720 he suppressed a futile attempt at revolt, headed by a pretender named Yahubid, in Hamath, which he reduced to “a heap of ruins.” For some years after this he was occupied mainly on his northern frontiers, but he tells us that until 711 tribute continued to come in from Judah and Philistia. Meanwhile, these terrified and oppressed feudatories, writhing under the remorseless dominion of Nineveh, naturally began to listen to the intrigues of Egypt, whose interest it was to create a bulwark between herself and the invasion of the armies which were the abhorrence of the world. Under the influence of Sabaco which gave new strength and unity to Egypt, she succeeded in seducing Ashdod from its allegiance to Sargon. Sargon at once deposed Azuri, King of Ashdod, and put his brother Ahimit in his place. The Ashdodites soon after deposed Ahimit, and elected in his place Jaman, who was in alliance with Sabaco. This revolt was evidently favoured by Judah, Edom, and Moab; for Sargon says that they, as well as the people of Philistia, “were speaking treason.” The rebellion was crushed by Sargons promptitude. He tells his own tale thus: “In the wrath of my heart I did not divide my army, and I did not diminish the ranks, but I marched against Ashdod with my warriors, who did not separate themselves from the traces of my sandals. I besieged, I took Ashdod and Gunt-Asdodim. I then re-established these towns. I placed [in them] the people whom my arms had conquered, I put over them my lieutenant as governor. I regarded them as Assyrians, and they practiced obedience.” Sargon does not, however, seem to have conducted this campaign in person; for we read in Isa 20:1 “that he sent his Turtan – i.e., his commander-in-chief, whose name seems to have been Zirbani-to Ashdod, who fought against it and took it. The wretched Philistines had put their trust in Sabaco.” The people, says Sargon, “and their evil chiefs sent their presents to Pharaoh, King of Egypt, a prince who could not save them, and besought his alliance.” Isaiah had for three years been indicating how vain this policy was by one of those acted parables which so powerfully affect the Eastern mind. He had, by the word of the Lord, stripped the shoes from off his feet and the upper robe of sackcloth from his loins, and walked, “naked and barefoot, for a sign and portent against Egypt and Ethiopia,” to indicate that even thus should the people of Egypt and Ethiopia be carried away as captives, naked and barefoot, by the kings of Assyria. Egypt was the boast of one party at Jerusalem, and Ethiopia, which had now become master of Egypt under Sabaco, was their expectation; but Isaiahs public self-humiliation showed how utterly their hopes should come to naught. Before the outbreak at Ashdod, Sargon had suppressed a revolt of Hanun, or Hanno, King of Gaza, and Egypt and Assyria first met face to face at Raphia (about B.C. 720), where Sabaco fought in person with an Egyptian contingent, at a spot halfway between Gaza and the “river of Egypt.” {Isa 20:1-6} Sabaco, whom Sargon calls “the Sultan of Egypt” (Siltannu Muzri), had been defeated, and fled precipitately, but Sargon was not then sufficiently free from other complications to advance to the Nile. The hoarded vengeance of Assyria was inflicted upon Egypt nearly a century later by Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. In the two suppressions of revolt at Ashdod, Sargon or his Turtan must have come perilously near Jerusalem, and perhaps he may have inflicted insufficient damage to admit of the boast that he had “conquered” Judaea. If so, his military vanity made him guilty of an exaggeration.
Far more serious to Sargon was the revolt of Merodach-Baladan, King of Chaldaea. Babylon had always been a rival of Nineveh in the competition for world-wide dominion, and for twelve years, as Sargon says, Merodach-Baladan had been “sending ambassadors”-to Hezekiah among others – in the patient effort to consolidate a formidable league. Elam and Media were with him; and at a solemn banquet, for which they had “spread the carpets,” and eaten and drank, the cry had risen, “Arise, ye princes! anoint the shield.” Standing in ideal vision on his watch-tower, Isaiah saw the sweeping rush of the Assyrian troops on their horses and camels on their way to Babylon. What should come of it? The answer is in the words, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all the images of her gods he [Sargon] hath broken to the ground.” Alas! there is no hope from Babylon or its embassy! Would that Isaiah could have held out a hope! But no, “O my threshed one, son of my threshing-floor, that which I have heard from the Lord of hosts; the God of Israel, that have I declared unto you.” And so it came to pass. The brave Babylonian was defeated. In 709 Sargon occupied his palace, took Dur-yakin, to which he had fled for refuge, and made himself Lord Paramount as far as the Persian Gulf. It was his last great enterprise. He built and adorned his palaces, and looked forward to long years of peace and splendor; but in 705 the dagger-thrust of an assassin-a malcontent of the town of Kullum-found its way to his heart; and Sennacherib reigned in his stead.
Sennacherib-Siu-ahi-irba (“Sin, the moon-god, has multiplied brothers”)-was one of the haughtiest, most splendid, and most powerful of all the kings of Assyria, though the petty state of Judah, relying on her God, defied and flouted him. The son of a mighty conqueror, at the head of a magnificent army, he regarded himself as the undisputed lord of the world. Born in the purple, and bred up as crown prince, his primary characteristic was an overweening pride and arrogance, which shows itself in all his inscriptions. He calls himself “the Great King, the Powerful King, the King of the Assyrians, of the nations of the four regions, the diligent ruler, the favorite of the Great Gods, the observer of sworn faith, the guardian of law, the establisher of monuments, the noble hero, the strong warrior, the first of kings, the punisher of unbelievers, the destroyer of wicked men.” He was mighty both in war and peace. His warlike glories are attested by Herodotus, by Polyhistor, by Abydenus, by Demetrius, and by his own annals. His peaceful triumphs are attested by the great palace which he erected at Nineveh, and the magnificent series of sculptured slabs with which he adorned it; by his canals and aqueducts, his gateways and embankments, his Bevian sculpture, and his stele at the Nahr-el-Kelb. He was a worthy successor of his father Sargon, and of the second Tiglath-Pileser-active in his military enterprises, indefatigable, persevering, full of resource.
On one of his bas-reliefs we see this magnificent potentate seated on his throne, holding two arrows in his right hand, while his left grasps the bow. A rich bracelet clasps each of his brawny arms. On his head is the jeweled pyramidal crown of Assyria, with its embroidered lappets. His dark locks stream down over his shoulders, and the long, curled beard flows over his breast. His strongly marked, sensual features wear an aspect of unearthly haughtiness. He is clad in superbly broidered robes, and his throne is covered with rich tapestries, and bas-reliefs of Assyrians or captives, who, like the Greek caryatides, uphold its divisions with their heads and arms.
Yet all this glory faded into darkness, and all this colossal pride crumbled into dust. Sennacherib not only died, like his father, by murder, but by the murderous hands of his own sons, and after the shattering of all his immense pretensions-a defeated and dishonored man.
One of his invasions of Judaea occupies a large part of the Scripture narrative. It was the fourth time of that terrible contact between the great world-power which symbolized all that was tyrannical and idolatrous, and the insignificant tribe which God had chosen for His own inheritance.
In the reign of Ahaz, about B.C. 732, Judah had come into collision with Tiglath-Piteser II.
Under Shalmaneser IV and Sargon, the Northern Kingdom had ceased to exist in 722.
Under Sargon, Judah had been harassed and humbled, and had witnessed the suppression of the Philistian revolt, and of the defeat of the powerful Sabaco at Raphia about 720.
Now came the fourth and most overwhelming calamity. If the patriots of Jerusalem had placed any hopes in the disappearance of the ferocious Sargon, they must speedily have recognized that he had left behind him a no less terrible successor.
Sennacherib reigned apparently twenty-four years (B.C. 705-681). On his accession he placed a brother, whose name is unknown, on the viceregal throne of Babylon, and contented himself with the title of King of the Assyrians. This brother was speedily dethroned by a usurper named Hagisa, who only reigned thirty days, and was then slain by the indefatigable Merodach-Baladan, who held the throne for six months. He was driven out by Belibus, who had been trained “like a little dog” in the palace of Nineveh, but was now made King of Sumir and Accad-i.e., of Babylonia. Sennacherib entered the palace of Babylon and carried off the wife of Merodach and endless spoil in triumph, while Merodach fled into the land of Guzumman, and (like the Duke of Monmouth) hid himself “among the marshes and reeds,” where the Assyrians searched for him for five days, but found no trace of him. After three years (702-699) Belibus proved faithless, and Sennacherib made his son Assur-nadin-sum viceroy of Babylon.
His second campaign was against the Medes in Northern Elam.
His third (701) was against the Khatti (the Hittites)-i.e., against Phoenicia and Palestine. He drove King Luli from Sidon “by the mere terror of the splendor of my sovereignty,” and placed Tubalu (i.e., Ithbaal) in his place, and subdued into tributary districts Arpad, Byblos, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab, and Edom, suppressing at the same time a very abortive rising in Samaria. “All these brought rich presents and kissed my feet.” He also subdued Zidka, King of Askelon, from whom he took Beth-Dagon, Joppa, and other towns. Padi, the King of Ekron, was a faithful vassal of Assyria; he was therefore deposed by the revolting Ekronites, and sent in chains into the safe custody of Hezekiah, who “imprisoned him in darkness.” The rebel states all relied on the Egyptians and Ethiopians. Sennacherib fought against Egyptians and Ethiopians, “in reliance upon Assur my God,” at Altaqu (B.C. 701), and claims to have defeated them, and carried off the sons and charioteers of the King of Egypt, and the charioteers of the kings of Ethiopia. He then tells us that he punished Altaqu and Timnath. {See Jos 19:43} He impaled the rebels of Ekron on stakes all round the city. He restored Padi, and made him a vassal. “Hezekiah [Chazaqiahu] of Judah, who had not submitted to my yoke, the terror of the splendor of my sovereignty overwhelmed. Himself as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his royal city, I shut up. The Arabians and his dependants, whom he had introduced for the defense of Jerusalem, his royal city, together with thirty talents of gold, eight hundred of silver bullion, precious stones, ivory couches and thrones, an abundant treasure, with his daughters, his harem, and his attendants, I caused to be brought after me to Nineveh. He sent his envoy to pay tribute and render homage.” At the same time, he overran Judaea, took forty-six fenced cities and many smaller towns, “with laying down of walls, hewing about, and trampling down,” and carried off more than two hundred thousand captives with their spoil. Part of Hezekiahs domains was divided among three Philistine vassals who had remained faithful to Assyria.
It was in the midst of this terrible crisis that Hezekiah had sent to Sennacherib at Lachish his offer of submission, saying, “I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest upon me I will bear.” The spoiling of the palace and Temple was rendered necessary to raise the vast mulct which the Assyrian King requited.
It is at Lachish-now Um-Lakis, a fortified hill in the Shephelah, south of Jerusalem, between Gaza and Eleutheropolis-that we catch another personal glimpse of the mighty oppressor. We see him depicted on his triumphal tablets in the palace-chambers of Kouyunjik, engaged in the siege; for the town offered a determined resistance, and required all the energies and all the trained heroism of his forces. We see him next, carefully painted, seated on his royal throne in magnificent apparel, with his tiara and bracelets, receiving the spoils and captives of the city. The inscription says: “Sennacherib, the mighty king, the king of the country of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment at the entrance of the city of Lakisha. I give permission for its slaughter.” He certainly implies that he took the city, but a doubt is thrown on this by 2Ch 32:1, which only says that “he thought to win these cities”; and the historian says {2Ki 19:8} that he “departed from Lachish.” Lachish was evidently a very strong city, and it is so depicted in the palace-tablets at Kouyunjik. It had been fortified by Rehoboam, and had furnished a refuge to the wretched Amaziah.
If Judah and Jerusalem had listened to the messages of Isaiah, {Isa 29:1-24; Isa 30:1-33; Isa 31:1-9} they might have been saved the humiliating affliction which seemed to have plunged the brief sun of their prosperity into seas of blood. He had warned them incessantly and in vain. He had foretold their present desolation, in which Zion should be like a woman seated on the ground, wailing in her despair. He had taught them that formalism was no religion, and that external rites did not win Jehovahs approval. He had told them how foolish it was to put trust in the shadow of Egypt, and had not shrunk from revealing the fearful consequences which should follow the setting up of their own false wisdom against the wisdom of Jehovah. Yet, intermingled with pictures of suffering, and threats of a harvestless year, designed to punish the vanity and display of their women, and the intimation-never actually fulfilled-that even the palace and Temple should become “the joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks,” he constantly implies that the disaster would be followed by a mysterious, divine, complete deliverance, and ultimately by a Messianic reign of joy arid peace. Night is at hand, he said, and darkness; but after the darkness will come a brighter dawn.