Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 36:1
Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, [that] Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defensed cities of Judah, and took them.
1. (Cf. 2Ki 18:13) in the fourteenth year ] The year of Sennacherib’s expedition was beyond question 701 b.c. If this was really the fourteenth year of Hezekiah his accession must have taken place in 715. On the objections to this date, see Chronological Note, pp. lxxvi f. Assuming that the arguments there given are valid, the error in this verse might be accounted for in either of two ways. (1) It has been suggested that ch. 38 f. stood originally before ch. 36 f., and that in the process of transposition the precise specification of time, which really belonged to ch. 38, was retained as the introduction to the whole group of narratives. The 14th year of Hezekiah would thus be the true date, not necessarily of Sennacherib’s invasion, but of Hezekiah’s sickness and the embassy of Merodach-Baladan. (2) A second supposition is that the date was inserted here by an editor, who arrived at it by a calculation based on ch. Isa 38:5. Deducting the 15 years’ lease of life assured to Hezekiah by the prophet from the 29 years of his reign, he rightly concluded that his sickness must have occurred in the 14th year of his reign, and supposing further that all these events were nearly contemporaneous, he substituted this exact date for some vaguer statement which he may have found in his original. A third hypothesis, that the date is correct, but that the name Sennacherib has been wrongly written for Sargon, falls to the ground with the whole theory of an invasion of Judah by the latter monarch.
all the defenced cities of Judah ] Sennacherib himself boasts that he captured forty-six of them in this campaign.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah – Of his reign, 709 b.c.
That Sennacherib – Sennacherib was son and successor of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and began to reign A.M. 3290, or 714 b.c., and reigned, according to Calmet, but four years, according to Prideaux eight years, and according to Gesenius eighteen years. The immediate occasion of this war against Judah was the fact that Hezekiah had shaken off the yoke of Assyria, by which his father Ahaz and the nation had suffered so much under Tiglath-pileser, or Shalmaneser 2Ki 18:7. To reduce Judea again to subjection, as well as to carry his conquests into Egypt, appears to have been the design of this celebrated expedition. He ravaged the country, took the strong towns and fortresses, and prepared then to lay siege to Jerusalem itself. Hezekiah, however, as soon as the army of Sennacherib had entered Judea, prepared to put Jerusalem into a state of complete defense. At the advice of his counselors he stopped the waters that flowed in the neighborhood of the city, and that might furnish refreshment to a besieging army, built up the broken walls, enclosed one of the fountains within a wall, and prepared shields and darts in abundance to repel the invader 2Ch 32:2-5.
Sennacherib, seeing that all hope of easily taking Jerusalem was taken away, apparently became inclined to hearken to terms of accommodation. Hezekiah sent to him to propose peace, and to ask the conditions on which he would withdraw his forces. He confessed his error in not paying the tribute stipulated by his father, and his willingness to pay now what should be demanded by Sennacherib. Sennacherib demanded three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold. This was paid by Hezekiah, by exhausting the treasury, and by stripping even the temple of its gold 2Ki 18:13-16. It was evidently understood in this treaty that Sennacherib was to withdraw his forces, and return to his own land. But this treaty he ultimately disregarded (see the note at Isa 33:8). He seems, however, to have granted Hezekiah some respite, and to have delayed his attack on Jerusalem until his return from Egypt. This war with Egypt he prosecuted at first with great success, and with a fair prospect of the conquest of that country.
But having laid siege to Pelusium, and having spent much time before it without success, he was compelled at length to raise the siege, and to retreat. Tirhakah king of Ethiopia having come to the aid of Sevechus, the reigning monarch of Egypt, and advancing to the relief of Pelusium, Sennacherib was compelled to raise the siege, and retreated to Judea. Here, having taken Lachish, and disregarding his compact with Hezekiah, he sent an army to Jerusalem under Rabshakeh to lay siege to the city. This is the point in the history of Sennacherib to which the passage before us refers (see Prideauxs Connection, vol. i. pp. 138-141; Jos. Ant. x. 1; Gesenius in loc; and Robinsons Calmet).
All the defended cities – All the towns on the way to Egypt, and in the vicinity of Jerusalem (see the notes at Isa 10:28-32).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Isa 36:1
Sennacherib King of Assyria came up
Sennacherib
Sennacherib was one of the most magnificent of the Assyrian kings.
He seems to have been the first who fixed the seat of government permanently at Nineveh, which he carefully repaired and adorned with splendid buildings. His greatest work is the grand palace at Koyunjik, which covered a space of about eight acres, and was adorned throughout with sculptures of finished execution. He built also, or repaired, a second palace at Nineveh, on the mound of Nebbi Yunus, confined the Tigris to its channel by an embankment of brick, restored the ancient aqueducts which had gone to decay, and gave to Nineveh that splendour which she thenceforth retained till the ruin of the empire. (G. Rawlinson.)
Sennacheribs invasion of Judah
Lessons:–
1. That a people may be in the way of their duty, and yet meet with trouble and distress. Hezekiah was reforming, and his people in some measure reformed; yet their country is at that time invaded, and a great part of it laid waste. Perhaps they began to grow remiss and cool in the work of reformation, were doing it by halves, and ready to sit down short of a thorough reformation; and then God visited them with this judgment, to put life into them and that good cause. We must not wonder if, when we are doing well, God sends afflictions to quicken us to do better, to do our best, and to press towards perfection.
2. That we must never be secure of the continuance of our peace in this world, nor think our mountain stands so strong as that it cannot be moved. Hezekiah was not only a pious king, but prudent, both in his administration at home and his treaties abroad. His affairs were in a good posture, and he seemed particularly to be upon good terms with the King of Assyria; for he had lately made his peace with him by a rich present (2Ki 18:14), and yet that perfidious prince pours an army into his country all of a sudden, and lays it waste. It is good for us, therefore, always to keep up an expectation of trouble, that when it comes it may be no surprise to us, and then it will be the less a terror.
3. That God sometimes permits the enemies of His people, even those that are most impious and treacherous, to prevail far against them. The King of Assyria took all, or most, of the defenced cities of Judah, and then the country would, of course, be an easy prey to him. Wickedness may prosper a while, but cannot prosper always. (M. Henry.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXXVI
Sennacherib, king of Assyria, comes against Judah, and takes
all the fenced cities, 1.
He afterwards sends a great host against Jerusalem; and his
general Rabshakeh delivers an insulting and blasphemous message
to Hezekiah, 2-20.
Hezekiah and his people are greatly afflicted at the words of
Rabshakeh, 21, 22.
The history of the invasion of Sennacherib, and of the miraculous destruction of his army, which makes the subject of so many of Isaiah’s prophecies, is very properly inserted here as affording the best light to many parts of those prophecies, and as almost necessary to introduce the prophecy in the thirty-seventh chapter, being the answer of God to Hezekiah’s prayer, which could not be properly understood without it. We find the same narrative in the Second Book of Kings, 2Kg 18, 2Kg 19, 2Kg 20; and these chapters of Isaiah, Isa 36, Isa 37, Isa 38, Isa 39, for much the greater part, (the account of the sickness of Hezekiah only excepted,) are but a different copy of that narration. The difference of the two copies is little more than what has manifestly arisen from the mistakes of transcribers; they mutually correct each other, and most of the mistakes may be perfectly rectified by a collation of the two copies with the assistance of the ancient versions. Some few sentences, or members of sentences, are omitted in this copy of Isaiah, which are found in the other copy in the Book of Kings. Whether these omissions were made by design or mistake may be doubted. – L.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXXVI
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1. fourteenththe third ofSennacherib’s reign. His ultimate object was Egypt, Hezekiah’s ally.Hence he, with the great body of his army (2Ch32:9), advanced towards the Egyptian frontier, in southwestPalestine, and did not approach Jerusalem.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah,…. The following piece of history is inserted from the books of Kings and Chronicles, as an illustration of some preceding prophecies, and as a confirmation of them; see 2Ki 18:13
that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah; who in the Apocrypha:
“And if the king Sennacherib had slain any, when he was come, and fled from Judea, I buried them privily; for in his wrath he killed many; but the bodies were not found, when they were sought for of the king.” (Tobit 1:18)
is said to be the son of Shalmaneser, as he certainly was his successor, who in the sixth year of Hezekiah, eight years before this, took Samaria, and carried the ten tribes captive, 2Ki 18:10 he is called Sennacherib by Herodotus c, who says he was king of the Arabians, and the Assyrians; who yet is blamed by Josephus d, for not calling him the king of the Assyrians only of the Arabians, whereas he styles him both; and the same Josephus observes, that Berosus, a Chaldean writer, makes mention of this Sennacherib as king of Assyria; the same came up in a military way against the fortified cities of Judah, which were the frontier towns, and barriers of their country:
and took them; that is, some of them, not all of them; see
Isa 37:8, he thought indeed to have took them to himself, this was his intent, 2Ch 32:1, but was prevailed upon to desist, by a payment of three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold to him, by the king of Judah, 2Ki 18:14.
c In Euterpe c. 141. d Antiqu. Jud. l. 10. c. 1. sect. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Marcus V. Niebuhr, in his History of Asshur and Babel (p. 164), says, “Why should not Hezekiah have revolted from Asshur as soon as he ascended the throne? He had a motive for doing this, which other kings had not – namely, that as he held his kingdom in fief from his God, obedience to a temporal monarch was in his case sin.” But this assumption, which is founded upon the same idea as that in which the question was put to Jesus concerning the tribute money, is not at all in accordance with Isaiah’s view, as we may see from chapters 28-32; and Hezekiah’s revolt cannot have occurred even in the sixth year of his reign. For Shalmanassar, or rather Sargon, made war upon Egypt and Ethiopia after the destruction of Samaria (Isa 20:1-6; cf., Oppert, Les Inscriptions des Sargonides, pp. 22, 27), without attempting anything against Hezekiah. It was not till the time of Sargon, who overthrew the reigning house of Assyria, that the actual preparations for the revolt were commenced, by the formation of an alliance between the kingdom of Judah on the one hand, and Egypt, and probably Philistia, on the other, the object of which was the rupture of the Assyrian yoke.
(Note: The name Amgarron upon the earthenware prism of Sennacherib does not mean Migron (Oppert), but Ekron (Rawlinson).)
The campaign of Sennacherib the son of Sargon, into which we are transported in the following history, was the third of his expeditions, the one to which Sennacherib himself refers in the inscription upon the prism: “ dans ma e campagne je marchai vers la Syrie .” The position which we find Sennacherib taking up between Philistia and Jerusalem, to the south-west of the latter, is a very characteristic one in relation to both the occasion and the ultimate object of the campaign.
(Note: We shall show the variations in the text of 2Ki 18:13., as far as we possibly can, in our translation. K. signifies the book of Kings. But the task of pronouncing an infallible sentence upon them all we shall leave to those who know everything.)
Isa 32:1 “And it came to pass in the (K. and in the) fourteenth year of king Hizkyahu , Sancherb king of Asshur came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. (K. adds: Then Hizkiyah king of Judah sent to the king of Asshur to Lachish, saying, I have sinned, withdraw from me again; what thou imposest upon me I will raise. And the king of Asshur imposed upon Hizkiyah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold. And Hizkiyah gave up all the silver that was in the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the king’s house. At the same time Hizkiyah mutilated the doors of the temple of Jehovah, and the pillars which Hizkiyah king of Judah had plated with gold, and gave it to the king of Asshur) .” This long addition, which is distinguished at once by the introduction of in the place of , is probably only an annalistic interpolation, though one of great importance in relation to Isa 33:7. What follows in Isaiah does not dovetail well into this addition, and therefore does not presuppose its existence. Isa 36:2 “Then the king of Asshur sent Rabshakeh (K.: Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh) from Lachish towards Jerusalem to king Hizkiyahu with a great army, and he advanced (K.: to king H. with a great army to Jerusalem; and they went up and came to Jerusalem, and went up, and came and advanced) to the conduit of the upper pool by the road of the fuller’s field.” Whereas in K. the repeated (and went up and came) forms a “dittography,” the names Tartan and Rab-saris have apparently dropped out of the text of Isaiah, as Isa 37:6, Isa 37:24 presuppose a plurality of messengers. The three names are not names of persons, but official titles, viz., the commander-in-chief ( Tartan, which really occurs in an Assyrian list of offices; see Rawlinson, Monarchies, ii. 412), the chief cup-bearer ( with tzere = ) ). The situation of Lachish is marked by the present ruins of Umm Lakis, to the south-west of Bet-Gibrin ((Eleutheropolis) in the Shephelah. The messengers come from the south-west with the ultima ratio of a strong detachment ( a connecting form, from , like , Zec 14:4; Ewald, 287, a); they therefore halt on the western side of Jerusalem (on the locality, see at Isa 7:3; Isa 22:8-11; compare Keil on Kings).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Sennacherib’s Insolent Message. | B. C. 710. |
1 Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them. 2 And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field. 3 Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, which was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph’s son, the recorder. 4 And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? 5 I say, sayest thou, (but they are but vain words) I have counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? 6 Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him. 7 But if thou say to me, We trust in the LORD our God: is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar? 8 Now therefore give pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. 9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? 10 And am I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? the LORD said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.
We shall here only observe some practical lessons. 1. A people may be in the way of their duty and yet meet with trouble and distress. Hezekiah was reforming, and his people were in some measure reformed; and yet their country is at that time invaded and a great part of it laid waste. Perhaps they began to grow remiss and cool in the work of reformation, were doing it by halves, and ready to sit down short of a thorough reformation; and then God visited them with this judgment, to put life into them and that good cause. We must not wonder if, when we are doing well, God sends afflictions to quicken us to do better, to do our best, and to press forward towards perfection. 2. That we must never be secure of the continuance of our peace in this world, nor think our mountain stands so strong that it cannot be moved. Hezekiah was not only a pious king, but prudent, both in his administration at home and in his treaties abroad. His affairs were in a good posture, and he seemed particularly to be upon good terms with the king of Assyria, for he had lately made his peace with him by a rich present (2 Kings xviii. 14), and yet that perfidious prince pours an army into his country all of a sudden and lays it waste. It is good for us therefore always to keep up an expectation of trouble, that, when it comes, it may be no surprise to us, and then it will be the less a terror. 3. God sometimes permits the enemies of his people, even those that are most impious and treacherous, to prevail far against them. The king of Assyria took all, or most, of the defenced cities of Judah, and then the country would of course be an easy prey to him. Wickedness may prosper awhile, but cannot prosper always. 4. Proud men love to talk big, to boast of what they are, and have, and have done, nay and of what they will do, to insult over others, and set all mankind at defiance, though thereby they render themselves ridiculous to all wise men and obnoxious to the wrath of that God who resists the proud. But thus they think to make themselves feared, though they make themselves hated, and to carry their point by great swelling words of vanity, Jude 16. 5. The enemies of God’s people endeavour to conquer them by frightening them, especially by frightening them from their confidence in God. Thus Rabshakeh here, with noise and banter, runs down Hezekiah as utterly unable to cope with his master, or in the least to make head against him. It concerns us therefore, that we may keep our ground against the enemies of our souls, to keep up our spirits by keeping up our hope in God. 6. It is acknowledged, on all hands, that those who forsake God’s service forfeit his protection. If that had been true which Rabshakeh alleged, that Hezekiah had thrown down God’s altars, he might justly infer that he could not with any assurance trust in him for succour and relief, v. 7, We may say thus to presuming sinners, who say that they trust in the Lord and in his mercy. Is not this he whose commandments they have lived in the contempt of, whose name they have dishonoured, and whose ordinances they have slighted? How then can they expect to find favour with him? 7. It is an easy thing, and very common, for those that persecute the church and people of God to pretend a commission from him for so doing. Rabshakeh could say, Have I now come up without the Lord? when really he had come up against the Lord, ch. xxxvii. 28. Those that kill the servants of the Lord think they do him service and say, Let the Lord be glorified. But, sooner or later, they will be made to know their error to their cost, to their confusion.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
ISAIAH – CHAPTER 36
HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RELATIVE TO HEZEKIAH’S REIGN
(Isa 36:1 to Isa 39:8)
THE ASSYRIAN AT THE GATES OF JERUSALEM, Ch. 36-38
In the following four chapters one finds a brief historical addendum related to Hezekiah’s reign over Judah. Chapters 36-37 form a sort of conclusion to what the prophet has written, in chapters 1-35, relative to Judah’s relationship to Assyria. Chapters 38-39 form an introduction to Judah’s coming dealings with Babylon, as set forth in chapters 40-66.
Vs. 1-3: ASSYRIA INVADES JUDAH
1. Some time before the events recorded in this lesson, the northern kingdom of Israel had already been over-run by Assyria and her people led away into captivity.
2. Judah, along with a number of other small nations, had rebelled against Assyria – refusing to continue paying her tribute; thus, Sennacherib invaded Judah and quickly overran all her defensed cities, (vs. 1).
3. From Lachish he then sent Rabshakeh (a title designating one of his leading generals) to Jerusalem, with a great army, to demand the surrender of Hezekiah, (vs. 2).
4. The Assyrian officer stood at the head of his army, “by the conduit of the upper pool”; when he called for the king, he was met by a three-man delegation who represented king Hezekiah, (vs. 2b-3; comp. Isa 7:3; 2Ki 18:17-18).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. It happened in the fourteenth year. In this and the following chapter the Prophet relates a remarkable history, which may be regarded as the seal of his doctrine, in which he predicted the calamities that would befall his nation, and at the same time promised that God would be merciful to them, and would drive back the Assyrians and defend Jerusalem and the Holy Land. What had already been accomplished made it evident that he had not spoken in vain; but God intended that it should also be testified to posterity. Yet to the men of that age it was not less advantageous that such a record should be preserved. He had often threatened that the vengeance of God was near at hand, and that the Assyrians were ready at his bidding to be employed by him as scourges; and st the same time he promised that he would assist Jerusalem even when matters were come to the worst. Both were accomplished, and the greater part of the nation passed by, as with closed eyes, those evident judgments of God, and not less basely despised the assistance which was offered to them. So much the more inexcusable was their gross stupidity.
But to the small number of believers it was advantageous to perceive such illustrious proofs of the hand of God, that greater credit might afterwards be given to Isaiah. The Prophet also might pursue his course more ardently and with unshaken firmness, since God had given so splendid an attestation of his doctrine from heaven. And because the truth of God scarcely obtains from us the honor due to it, unless it be supported by strong proofs, God has provided not less largely for our weakness, that we may perceive as in a mirror that the power of God accompanied the words of Isaiah, and that what he taught on earth was confirmed from heaven. More especially has calling was manifestly sealed, when God delivered Jerusalem from the grievous siege of Sennacherib, and when no hope of safety remained; so that believers saw that they had been rescued from the jaws of death by the hand of God alone. For this reason I have said that it was a seal to authenticate the prophecies which might otherwise have been called in question.
In the fourteenth year. Not without reason does he specify the time when these things happened; for at that time Hezekiah had restored the worship of God throughout the whole of his dominions, (2Kg 18:4😉 and, not satisfied with this, sent messengers in various directions to invite the Israelites to come with speed from every place to Jerusalem, to offer sacrifices, and, after long disunion, again to unite in holy harmony of faith, and to worship God according to the injunctions of the Law. While such was the condition of the kingdom that superstitions were removed and the Temple cleansed, and thus the true worship of God was restored, Judea is invaded by the king of Assyria, fields are pillaged, cities are taken, and the whole country is subject to his authority. Jerusalem alone, with a few inhabitants, is left; and in that city Hezekiah was shut up as in a prison.
We must now consider what thoughts might occur to the pious king and to other persons; for if we judge of this calamity according to the perception of the flesh, we shall think that God was unjust in permitting his servant to be reduced to such extremities, whose piety seemed to deserve that the Lord would preserve him in safety and free from all molestation, since his whole desire was to maintain the true worship of God. This was no small trial of the faith of Hezekiah, and ought to be continually placed before our eyes, when we are subjected to the same temptations. The Lord did not punish Hezekiah for carelessness, pleasures, or luxury, and much less for superstitions, or unholy contempt of the Law; for as soon as he began to reign, he labored with the utmost zeal and carefulness and industry to restore the purity of religion. God therefore intended to try his faith and patience.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
VI. CHASTENING THROUGH CAPTIVITY
CHAPTERS 3639
A. PRESSURE, CHAPTER 36
1. PREDICAMENT
TEXT: Isa. 36:1-12
1
Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib, king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them.
2
And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fullers field.
3
Then came forth unto him Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph, the recorder.
4
And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trusteth?
5
I say, thy counsel and strength for the war are but vain words: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou hast rebelled against me?
6
Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust on him.
And it came to pass, as he (Sennacherib) was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword
(2Ki. 19:37).
Sennacherib was assassinated in 681 B.C. These men formed part of the palace guard and private bodyguard of the great Assyrian monarch. They were obviously not very efficient.
7
But if thou say unto me, We trust in Jehovah our God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?
8
Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.
9
How then canst thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my masters servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?
10
And am I now come up without Jehovah against this land to destroy it? Jehovah said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.
11
Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.
12
But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?
QUERIES
a.
Who is Rabshakeh?
b.
At which altar did Hezekiah tell Judah to worship?
c.
Did Rabshakeh threaten Jerusalem by Jehovahs command?
PARAPHRASE
It was in the fourteenth year of the reign of King Hezekiah that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, made military expeditions against many of the fortified cities of Judah and conquered most of them. While he was occupied with the siege of Lachish, the king of Assyria sent his commander-in-chief with a great number of troops to deliver an ultimatum to Hezekiah. When the king of Assyrias commander arrived at Jerusalem, he set up camp with his troops by the conduit of the upper pool along the road going down to the bleaching field. A trio of high officials from Hezekiahs court went out to where the Assyrian troops were to confer with their leader: Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, chief administrator; Shebna who was formerly chief administrator but now serving as a scribe; Joah, son of Asaph, an official chronicler, all went out to talk to the Rab-shakeh. The Assyrian official said to them, Go tell this Hezekiah that the great king of Assyria wants to know what kind of a fool he is for thinking the king of Egypt will help him? The great king of Assyria wishes to inform Hezekiah of the uselessness of his strategies and conferences on war. Who in the world will be able to help him now that he has rebelled against the great king of Assyria? Egypt is not just a useless ally, she is a dangerous one. She is like a broken but sharp stem of the reedshe will pierce your hand if you lean upon her. Now before you say to me, We are trusting in Jehovah our God, let me ask you, is not this the God Hezekiah defied by tearing down all the altars you people built to your God in the high places and groves and made everyone worship only at the altar in Jerusalem? My master, the king of Assyria, wants to make a wager with youthat you dont have 2000 cavalrymen in your whole army. If you do, the king of Assyria will give you 2000 horses for them to ride on! Now with a tiny army like that, how do you propose to make war on even the smallest and worst section of my masters army? With so little to offer, how do you expect to get help from Egypt? Furthermore, do you think I have come here without the help of your own God, Jehovah. Let me tell you, your own God, Jehovah, spoke to me and told me to make war on this land and destroy it. Then the three Hebrew men representing king Hezekiah said, with much consternation in their voices, Speak, O Rab-shakeh, I beg you, in the Aramaic language; we understand it. Please do not continue to speak these threats in Hebrew because our countrymen there on the citys walls will hear and chaos will fill the city. But the Rab-shakeh said, Do you think my master has sent me just to threaten Hezekiah? I was sent to threaten the whole Jewish nation and warn them they will suffer atrocious and inhuman degradations if they do not surrender. They will eat their own dung and drink their own urine if they force my master to war against them.
COMMENTS
Isa. 36:1-5 RABSHAKEHS INQUIRY: This section of Isaiah is one of three different historical records of these events. The other two records are 2 Kings 18, 19, and 2 Chronicles 32. These three records do not contradict, but supplement one another. Chronicles seems to be, in these events, as it is in so many other parallel events, a condensation of what actually took place because Chronicles is the theological view of the theocracy while Kings is the historical view.
One might wonder why Isaiah would insert an historical narrative squarely in the middle of a series of grandly soaring and majestic prophecies. Without doubt his purpose is to give proof of his prophetic call and mission. The rapid fulfillment of Isaiahs prediction concerning the deliverance of Jerusalem, the restoration of Hezekiah and the death of the Assyrian king would prove conclusively that he was sent from Jehovah and spoke Jehovahs word!
There is a minor problem with the year of Hezekiahs reign. The campaign of Sennacherib against the cities of Judah took place from 703 to 701 B.C. This would at first glance indicate Hezekiahs reign to begin about 717715 B.C. According to 2Ki. 18:1-2 it began in the 3rd year of Hoshea of Israel and lasted for 29 years. Hoshea was king of Israel when Shalmanezer began his siege of that kingdom. That was in Hosheas seventh year and Hezekiahs fourth. Three years later Hoshea was carried captive (cf. 2Ki. 18:9-10). Israel fell to Shalmanezer in 722721 B.C. (2Ki. 18:9 ff). This means that Hezekiah began to reign six years before the downfall of Samaria, i.e., 728727 B.C. Edward J. Young submits the possibility of an early emendation to the Hebrew texta slight change in one of the characters in a specific Hebrew word. Only a slight alteration could change the Hebrew word eseryis (twenty-four) to esereh (fourteen) and thus create the apparent discrepancy here. If this were the 24th year of Hezekiahs reign (703 B.C.) it would place the beginning of it 728727 B.C. Young, however, offers no manuscript evidence for this possibility. Another possible explanation is that 703 B.C. may be noted as the fourteenth year in which Hezekiah was the sole ruler of Judah! It has been proven by ancient records uncovered by archaeologists that kings of antiquity often ruled a number of years in a co-regency with their aged father-kings. In other words, Hezekiah may have ruled the first 1012 years with his father, and without his father from 717715 B.C. for the next fourteen years. This would explain calling 703701 B.C. Hezekiahs fourteenth year of rule. (see also, Old Testament History, Smith/Fields, College Press, p. 556561).
The king of Assyria took 46 cities of Judah, as we have mentioned elsewhere. Now he, himself, is occupied with an assault upon Lachish, some 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem. The king sends his Rab-shakeh to inquire of Jerusalems intentions toward his campaign of conquest in Judah. Rab means chief, and shakeh probably is a military officer. The Rab-shakeh was probably the emperors personal, most trusted military commander much like the American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who may be depended upon for absolute allegiance to carry out very important military/political functions the President himself cannot attend to. When he spoke it was with direct and absolute authority from the king himself. To make his mission more ominously impressive, he came to Jerusalem with a great army.
Now Hezekiah had been busily restoring true and holy religion to Judah. He had been breaking down idolatrous altars, reinstituting the Passover, rebelling against paying tribute to a pagan Assyrian empire, and defeating Philistine enemies, (2Ki. 18:1-8; 2 Chronicles 29-31). When the king of Assyria came marching into Judah with his campaign of conquest, it appears Hezekiah had second thoughts about his refusal to pay tribute to Assyria and sent an apology to the king at Lachish (2Ki. 18:13-16) and stripped the gold from the doors of the temple and took silver and gold from the treasury of the temple and the palace and gave it to the Assyrian emperor. What was Hezekiahs motive for such an apparent reversal of courage, faith and godliness being demonstrated by his unique and amazing religious reform? Perhaps he rationalized, The throne of David is in imminent danger of being overthrown and the House of David extinguished; I am old, my days are numbered, I have no child to succeed me and the king of Assyria must be placated awhile longer until a royal successor to Davids throne is produced. Or, perhaps, Hezekiah, like many rulers, compromised his convictions simply from fear,
Lachish is approximately 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem (see Map #1) and would take the Rab-shakeh two days of marching, setting up camp at night, to reach Jerusalem. Upon arriving at Jerusalem the Assyrians probably set up their bivouac in the Kidron Valley or on the slope of the Mt. of Olives, eastward from the main gates of the city. Located there also is the Gihon Spring and the Upper Pool with its new secret conduit hewn out of solid rock by Hezekiahs workmen to hide Jerusalems chief water supply from the Assyrians (cf. 2Ch. 32:1-8). It was probably Hezekiah who first extended the wall to the western hill (known as Modern Zion). In 1970, Professor Nachman Avigad of Hebrew University unearthed a massive portion of ancient wall in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. This wall was 25 feet thick in some places and located opposite the Temple area (see Map #3). The reader may research this information in The Biblical Archaeology Review, September, 1975. Archaeologists date this wall in the late 8th century B.C. This is probably Hezekiahs outer wall of 2Ch. 32:5. Hezekiahs underground conduit (through which tourists can walk today) enabled the city successfully to withstand the Assyrian siege. A second unprotected earlier conduit has been traced from Gihon Spring, directly southward, outside the walls of Davids city, discharging its waters through a short tunnel behind a dam built across the mouth (lower end) of the Tyropoeon Valley. This was the Old Pool of Isa. 22:11 and was the pool probably enlarged later by Hezekiah and called the reservoir between the two walls and was probably intended to take the overflow of his new conduit (see Map #3). Here by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fullers field Ahaz had rejected the word of God and the promises of the true King and had turned to the Assyrians (cf. Isa. 7:3). Now, the Assyrians are here on this same spot, a terrifying, threatening consequence of the disobedience of the rulers of Gods people.
Accompanying the Rab-shakeh were officers called the Tartan and the Rab-saris (2Ki. 18:17) and upon their arrival at the upper pool they called for the king (2Ki. 18:18). It was a calculated show of insolence and contempt for Hezekiah. But Hezekiah did not come in person. He was represented by Eliakim, Shebna and Joah. Eliakim has assumed the duties formerly assigned to Shebna, chief of the kings house (see our comments on ch. Isa. 22:20 ff). Shebna has been demoted to scribe. What the Rab-shakeh has to say will be recorded.
It is interesting to note the Rab-shakeh always speaks of his own king with proper respect, calling him the great king, but not once does he refer to Hezekiah as king. There is probably some psychological-warfare intended here as well as outright contempt. The Rab-shakehs entire speech is masterfully, though rudely done.
The Assyrian begins by challenging the confidence of Judah. The Jews apparently had demonstrated a measure of military-political confidence in something. Perhaps Hezekiahs rebellion (2Ki. 18:7) is referred to; perhaps Rab-shakeh knows of an alliance with Egyptperhaps the Assyrian intelligence department has discovered such an alliance between Judah and Egypt. Whatever the case the Rab-shakeh is trying to destroy this confidence for he uses the word trust and rely over and over in his speech. The Rab-shakeh also evidently knows something of the details of Hezekiahs basis for confidence. He intimates that he knows even of the words (counsel) and the preparations (strength) the Jews have made to war against the Assyrians! He arrogantly classifies them as useless.
Isa. 36:6-12 RABSHAKEHS INTIMIDATION: After a rhetorical question, the Rab-shakeh gives his own answer. Judah has trusted in Egypt which he characterizes as a bruised reed. Egypt was a land of reeds. For a man to try to lean on a reed was foolish, but to lean on a bruised reed was stupid. Isaiah has already characterized Egypt as big mouth who does nothing (Isa. 30:7). King Hoshea of Israel had relied on Egypt for help against Assyria, but Egypt did not come to his aid (2Ki. 17:4). Actually, to trust in Egypt caused nations to suffer worse disaster than if they had not relied upon her. So the figure of a man trying to lean on a bruised reed and having his hand pierced! Perhaps the battle of Eltekeh, between the allied armies of Egypt-Philistines and the Assyrians, had been fought already. Egypt was soundly defeated at this battle near Ekron, according to the annals of Sennacherib. So the Rab-shakeh makes his boast of the inferiority of Egypt.
Having cut the ground from under the Jews in respect to their cherished military alliance with Egypt, the Rab-shakeh turns his sarcasm upon their religious confidence. Implied is a certain knowledge among the Assyrians of the importance attached by the Jews to their worship and reliance on Jehovah. The Assyrians reference to Hezekiahs reform manifests his misunderstanding of the One True God. Hezekiah caused to be hewed down the Asherim (2Ki. 18:4-5; 2Ch. 31:1) and the Nehushtan (the bronze serpent the people had begun to burn incense to). The altars he tore down were evidently Canaanitish places of worship along with some altars the Jews had made for themselves contrary to Gods command that He was to be worshipped in only one place. Yet, in spite of the truth of Hezekiahs reform, the rank and file of the people of Judah had become so accustomed to worshipping in the high places at the half-idolatrous altars, they were probably impressed with Rab-shakehs argument that Jehovah was displeased with them.
The Assyrian commanders next form of intimidation is a dare. He dares the Jews to barter, negotiate (Heb. arav), or, one might translate make a wager with the king of Assyria that they have 2000 men to ride war horses. If they can prove they have only that many, the king of Assyria will give them 2000 horses! The Rab-shakeh has no doubt already determined that Hezekiah does not have that many cavalrymen. He then continues his tirade of contempt by boasting the Jews are unable to offer reasonable opposition to the smallest and least significant of one of Assyrias divisions of fighting-men. This would be as frightening as were the boasts and sabrerattling of Adolph Hitler when he intimidated Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s.
Adding to the trepidation of the Jews would be the announcement of the Rab-shakeh that he had come up to Jerusalem with Jehovahs commission to destroy it. He represents Jehovah as speaking directly to him a command to go against Judah and destroy it! The Rab-shakehs claim is interesting, to say the least. There are indications that Jehovah would call the Assyrians to chasten the Jews (Isa. 5:26 ff; Isa. 7:18 ff; Isa. 10:5 ff; Isa. 28:11 ff). God spoke to a number of pagan emperors through dreams, visions and prophets. We are more inclined to believe in this case, however, the Rab-shakeh is self-deceived and thinks he has been sent by the Hebrew God, or is deliberately lying to the Hebrews and received no call whatsoever. There is an inscription of Cyrus, king of Persia, claiming that the Babylonian god, Marduk (Bel), was with him in his conquests of Babylon. It was apparently a widely practiced bit of psychological-warfare among the ancients.
This so unnerved the Hebrew officials for fear his arguments would spread from the mouths of those upon the walls who were listening to the ears of all in the city, exaggerated with each telling, of course, they insist that the Rab-shakeh speak to them in aramiyth, Aramaic, and not in yehudiyth, Jewish. Though Aramaic was the common language of diplomacy at this time, it is probable that most of the Jews could not understand it. After their captivity in Babylon they could only understand Aramaic and not Hebrew. The Hebrew language is called here Jewish after Judah since the northern kingdom has already gone into captivity and Judah is the only Hebrew nation left. The people of Judah may have been calling themselves Yehudiyth for a long time to distinguish themselves from the northern kingdom. It is interesting to note the Rab-shakeh knew the Hebrew language. He was not only the chief military man, a master psychologist and well versed in world affairs; he was also a linguist.
In Isa. 36:12 the Rab-shakeh makes it plain in the crudest and most humiliating language his purpose for coming to Jerusalem was not diplomacy but intimidation. He did not come to banter pleasantries and subterfuge with Hezekiah or his noblemen. He says bluntly his purpose was to intimidate the common people of the city, threatening them with the most degrading threats. He warns them in their own language they will eat their own dung and drink their own urine if they dare to go to war and resist the Assyrian conquest of their city. People besieged in ancient cities for three and four years in succession often resorted to atrocities such as this and worse for survival (see Josephus account of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.).
The Rab-shakeh has thoroughly intimidated the populace. They have heard him ridicule their counsels for war as if he knew every move they were making; they have heard him ridicule their dinky army as if he knew how few soldiers they really had; they have heard him claim a divine commission from Jehovah for destroying their city; they have heard terrifying threats of human privationall in their own language. And to impress them with his power to carry out his threats, he brought along a great number of troops. The Rab-shakeh is a skillful propagandist. He will make a psychological turn from intimidation to indulgence. He knows how to psych people.
QUIZ
1.
What is the fourteenth year of Hezekiahs reign?
2.
What had Hezekiah done, according to II Kings, to attempt to appease the king of Assyria?
3.
Where, most likely, did the Rabshakeh set up camp upon his arrival at Jerusalem?
4.
Name four different areas in which the Rabshakeh attempted to intimidate the people of Jerusalem.
5.
Why did the Hebrew officials wish Rabshakeh to speak in Aramaic?
6.
Evaluate the Rabshakehs ability as a psychologist?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XXXVI.
(1) It came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah . . .In the judgment of nearly all Assyriologists (Sir Henry Rawlinson, Sayce, Hinckes, Lenormant, Schrader, Cheyne), we have to rectify the chronology. The inscriptions of Sennacherib fix the date of his campaign against Hezekiah in the third year of his reign (B.C. 700), and that coincides not with the fourteenth, but with the twenty-seventh year of the king of Judah. The error, on this assumption, arose from the editor of Isaiahs prophecies taking for granted that the illness of Hezekiah followed on the destruction of Sennacheribs army, or, at least, on his attack, and then reckoning back the fifteen years for which his life was prolonged from the date of his death. Most of the scholars named above have come to the conclusion that the illness preceded Sennacheribs campaign by ten or eleven years, and this, of course, involves throwing back the embassy from Babylon (Isaiah 39) to about the same period. Lenormant (Manual of Ancient History, 1:181) keeping to the Biblical sequence, real or apparent, of the events, meets the difficulty by assuming that Hezekiah reigned for forty-one instead of twenty-nine years, and that Manasseh was associated with him in titular sovereignty even from his birth, and the fifty years of his reign reckoned from that epoch.
Sennacherib king of Assyria.According to the Assyrian inscriptions, the king succeeded Sargon, who was assassinated in his palace, B.C. 704, and after subduing the province of Babylon which had rebelled under Merdach-baladan, turned his course southward against Hezekiah with four or five distinct complaints(1) that the king had refused tribute (2Ki. 18:14); (2) that he had opened negotiations with Babylon and Egypt (2Ki. 18:24) with a view to an alliance against Assyria; (3) that he had helped the Philistines of Ekron to rise against their king who supported Assyria. and had kept that king as a prisoner in Jerusalem (Records of the Past, i. 36-39).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Now it came to pass The parallel passage in 2 Kings is preceded by a summary account of Hezekiah’s reforms, the extirpation of idolatry in Judah, and the complete apostasy and consequent capture and deportation of the ten tribes of Israel by Shalmanezer of Assyria.
In the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah Rawlinson ( Monarchies, 2: 161) asserts a discrepancy of date from the fourteenth (here and in 2 Kings) to the twenty-seventh of the Assyrian Inscriptions. (See SMITH’S Bible Dictionary, art. “Sennacherib.”) But nothing is more common than mistakes found in Scripture numbers; nor, from the cause (generally that of transcription) of such mistakes, is the matter of them very material.
Sennacherib The son of Sargon, and the second king from Shalmanezer IV. He was among the mightiest of the Assyrian kings. (See George Smith’s Tables in his Assyrian Inscriptions of 1874, according to which Sennacherib reigned from B.C. 705 to 681 twenty-four years.) He came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them That is, the numerous cities or villages between Lachish and Jerusalem, on the southwest and west of the latter. For the occasion of this, see the comments of Terry in 2 Kings xviii, 19.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it came about in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.’
Compare for this Isaiah 36: 2Ki 18:13 where the verse precedes the description of the surrender of Hezekiah and the paying of tribute mentioned above. This would strongly support the idea that the actual siege of Jerusalem followed closely on that affair. But it may be that the authors of Kings had Isaiah’s scroll before them and simply inserted Isa 36:14-16 as a parenthesis.
‘The fourteenth year of king Hezekiah.’ This was in 701 BC, which appears to conflict with 2Ki 18:1; 2Ki 18:9 which would make this the twenty eighth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The probable explanation for this is that 729/8 BC was when Hezekiah began to reign as co-regent with his father, his father dying around 715 BC. Co-regency was favoured by the kings of Judah as it ensured a secure succession, the successor thus already being in a position of authority and recognised as the heir. This then assured the preservation of the line of David.
Sennacherib records this in his annals as follows: ‘But as for Hezekiah the Judean, who did not bow in submission to my yoke, forty six of his strong-walled towns and innumerable smaller villages in their neighbourhood I besieged and conquered, by stamping down earth-ramps and then by bringing up battering rams, by the assault of foot soldiers, by breaches, tunnelling and sapper operations. — he I shut up like a caged bird within Jerusalem, his royal city. I put watch-posts strictly around it, and turned back to his harm any who went out of its city-gate.’
Archaeology bears testimony to the strong fortifications of cities of Judah at this time. Sennacherib thus had to engage in a drawn out campaign, and was clearly proud of his achievement. Note that he only mentions a watching brief on Jerusalem, a process of slow starvation. The larger part of his army was busy elsewhere. The tough fighting for Jerusalem itself was intended to take place later when everywhere else had been subdued.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Prophecies of Isaiah to Hezekiah Inserted between prophecies of judgment (Isaiah 1-35) and restoration (Isaiah 40-66) is the story of two major events in the life and ministry of Hezekiah king of Judah. Isa 36:1 to Isa 39:8 tells the story of Hezekiah’s confrontation with Sennacherib, who tried to conquer Jerusalem, and God’s miraculous deliverance. This passage of Scripture is almost the same in content to 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19. Thus, the same author probably penned both two passages and one served as a copy of the other.
Note the proposed outline:
Sennacherib Besieges Jerusalem Isa 36:1 to Isa 37:38
Hezekiah’s Illness Isa 38:1-22
The Visit of the Babylonians Isa 39:1-8
If we compare the narrative material of Elijah and Elisha (1Ki 17:1 – 2Ki 9:37), there is a similarity in structure in that they both bear witness to the testimony of the prophets of the Lord. This becomes evident by the fact that both passages end with a testimony of the fulfillment of the words of the prophets Elijah and Isaiah. For example, the story of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem ends with the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of Isa 37:7 (Isa 37:36-38). The story of Hezekiah’s illness ends by reflecting upon the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 38:21-22). The story of the visit of the Babylonians closes by noting the fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 39:8).
Isa 36:1 Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them.
Isa 36:1
Isa 36:2 And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field.
Isa 36:2
[52] Edward Robinson, ed., Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible, as Published by the Late Charles Taylor, with the Fragments Incorporated (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1832), 774; Adam Clarke, Isaiah, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Isaiah 36:2.
[53] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 49.
AmpBible, “And the king of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh [the military official] from Lachish [the Judean fortress commanding the road from Egypt] to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem with a great army. And he stood by the canal of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field.”
BBE, “And the king of Assyria sent the Rab-shakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem to King Hezekiah with a strong force, and he took up his position by the stream of the higher pool, by the highway of the washerman’s.”
NIV, “Then the king of Assyria sent his field commander with a large army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. When the commander stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field.”
Isa 36:11 Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews’ language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.
Isa 36:11
[54] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 49-50.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Assyrians Threaten Jerusalem.
Rabshakeh’s Mockery
v. 1. Now, it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah that Sennacherib, king of Assyria, came up against all the defensed cities of Judah, v. 2. And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh, the commander-in-chief of his army, from Lachish, v. 3. Then came forth unto him, v. 4. And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? v. 5. I say, sayest thou, (but they are but vain words v. 6. Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt, v. 7. But if thou say to me, We trust in the Lord, our God, v. 8. Now, therefore, give pledges, I pray thee, v. 9. How, then, wilt thou turn away, v. 10. And am I now come up without the Lord against this land to destroy it?
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
PART II. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF EVENTS IN THE REIGN OF HEZEKIAH (CH. 36-39.).
SECTION I. SENNACHERIB‘S ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE JUDAEA, AND HIS OVERTHROW (Isa 36:1-22; Isa 37:1-38.).
EXPOSITION
IF the Book of Isaiah be regarded as the result of a gradual accretion (see the General Introduction), whether that accretion is to be ascribed to the action of the prophet himself or to that of later editors, we may equally consider the present chapters (ch. 36-39.) to have been originally an “Appendix,” attached, as furnishing illustration to the preceding prophecies, and at one time terminating the book. They will thus stand to the preceding chapters in much the same relation as that in which the last chapter of Jeremiah stands to the rest of that prophet’s work, differing only in the fact that they are almost entirely the prophet’s own composition. Isaiah wrote the history of the reign of Hezekiah for the general “Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (2Ch 32:32). From this “book” the account of the reign which we have in 2 Kings (18-20.) is almost certainly taken (2Ki 20:20). The close verbal resemblance between the present chapters and those in Kings, and the differences, which are chiefly omissions, are best accounted for by supposing that both are abbreviations of a more extensive narrative. such as that composed for the original “Book of the Chronicles” probably was. The abbreviation here inserted may have been made either by the prophet himself, or by a “co-editor.” The point is one which is not very important, and which it is quite impossible to determine, unless arbitrarily.
Isa 36:1
It came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah. There is an irreconcilable difference between this note of time, in the passage as it stands, and the Assyrian inscriptions. The fourteenth year of Hezekiah was b.c. 714 or 713. Sargon was then King of Assyria, and continued king till b.c. 705. Sennacherib did not ascend the throne till that year, and he did not lead an expedition into Palestine till b.c. 701. Thus the date, as it stands, is cloven or twelve years too early. It is now the common opinion of critics that the chronology of the Books of Kings, speaking generally, is “a later addition to the Hebrew narrative”. It is uncertain when the dates were added; but it would not be long from the time when the addition was made before “Isaiah“ would be brought into accord with “Kings.“ Another view is that the date belongs to the original writings, but that it has suffered corruption, “fourteenth” having been substituted for “twenty-sixth,” from an overstrict rendering of the expression, “in those days,” which introduces the narrative of Isa 38:1-22. That narrative undoubtedly belongs to Hezekiah’s fourteenth year. A third view is that of Dr. Hincks, who suggests a derangement of the text, which has attached to an expedition of Sennacherib a date originally belonging to an attack by Sargon. He supposes the original text to have run thus: “And it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah that the King of Assyria came up (against him). In those days was King Hezekiah sick unto death, etc. (Isa 38:1-22; Isa 39:1-8.). And Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them,” etc. (Isa 36:1-22; Isa 37:1-38.). The subject has been treated at considerable length by Mr. Cheyne, who has accidentally ascribed to Sir H. Rawlinson the second of the above theories, which really originated with the present writer. Sennacherib, King of Assyria. The Hebrew rendering of the name is Sankherib, the Greek Sanacharibus or Senacheribus. In the Assyrian the literation is Sin-akhi-iriband the meaning” Sin (the moon-god) multiplies brothers.” Sin-akhi-irib was the son and successor of Sargon. His father was murdered, and he ascended the throne in b.c. 705. Came up against all the defenced cities; rather, all the fenced cities, as in 2Ki 18:13,or “all the fortified cities” (Cheyne). And took them. Sennacberib tells us that, in the campaign of his fourth year, he “captured forty-six of the strong cities” belonging to Hezekiah, King of Judah, while of the “fortresses and small cities” he took “a countless number”. (On the causes of the war and its general course, see the Introduction to the book.)
Isa 36:2
And the King of Assyria sent Rabshakeh with a great army. It is inconceivable that, immediately after the grant of terms of peace and their acceptance, Sennacherib should have renewed the war; there must have been an interval, and a fresh provocation. The interval can have been only a short one, since Hezekiah died in b.c. 697. It may have been a couple of years, or perhaps no more than a year, or possibly only a few months. The fresh provocation probably consisted in an application for aid, made by Hezekiah to Tir-hakah, or to the subordinate Egyptian kings, which is glanced at in Isa 36:6. The Assyrian annals, which never record any reverse or defeat, are wholly silent as to this second expedition. The only profane confirmation of it is to be found in Herodotus (2.141). From Lackish. Laehish, an ancient city of the Amorites (Jos 10:5), was assigned by Joshua to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:39), and seems to have been still a Jewish possession (2Ki 14:19). It occupied “a low round swell or knoll” in the Shefelch, or low tract between the Judaean highland and the Mediterranean, and lay near, if not directly on, the direct route which armies commonly followed in their march from Syria into Egypt. The site is now known as Um-Lakis; it lies between Gaza and Ajlan (Eglon), about two miles west of the hitter. Sennacherib represents himself as engaged in its siege on a bas-relief in the British Museum (see Layard, ‘Monuments of Nineveh,” second series, pl. 21). The conduit of the upper pool (see the comment on Jos 7:3). The spot was that at which Isaiah had been commanded to meet Ahaz some forty years previously. It was probably on the north side of Jerusalem, not tar from the Damascus gate.
Isa 36:3
Eliakim: Hilkiah’s son (see above, Isa 22:20). Eliakim had now taken the place of the Shebna who was “over the house” when Isaiah prophesied his downfall (Isa 22:19) and Eliakim’s advancement (Isa 22:21-23). Shebna the scribe. It is not quite certain that this is the same “Shebna” as the former prefect of the palace, but the uncommonness of the name is a strong argument for the identity. The post of “scribe” or “secretary “(marginal rendering) was one of some importance (see 1Ki 4:3), though inferior to that of palace prefect. Joah the recorder. We learn from Kings that Sennacherib sent in reality three envoys (2Ki 18:17) to Hezekiahthe Tartan, or “commander-in-chief;” the Rabsaris, or “chief eunuch;” and the Rabshakeh, or “rab-sak,” the “chief captain,” the second in command after the tartan. Hezekiah thought it right to appoint an equal number of officials to meet and confer with them.
Isa 36:4
And Rabshakeh said. Of the three Assyrian envoys Rabshakeh alone obtains mention in Isaiah, probably because he was the spokesman. He was probably chosen for spokesman because he could speak Hebrew fluently (infra, verses 11, 13). The great king. “The great king” (sarru rabbu) is the most common title assumed by the Assyrian monarchs in their inscriptions. It is found as early as b.c. 1120.
Isa 36:5
I say. In 2Ki 18:20 we read, “Thou sayest” for “I say,” which gives a better sense. Dr. Kay holds the two forms to be “complementary.” I have counsel and strength for war. Either the words of Hezekiah had been reported to Sennacherib, or he rightly divined Hezekiah’s thoughts. It was, no doubt, in reliance on the “counsel” of Eliakim and the “strength” of Egypt that the Jewish monarch had a second time provoked his suzerain.
Isa 36:6
This broken reed; rather, as in 2Ki 18:21, this bruised reed (comp. Isa 42:3). A reed may be “bruised,” and wholly untrustworthy as a support, while it appears sound. A “broken” reed no one would lean on. Egypt. There had been times when Egypt was a strong power, feared and respected by her neighbours, and a terror even to Assyria. But these times were long past. For the last fifty years the country had been divided against itself (see the comment on Isa 19:2), split up into a number of petty principalities, Recently the neighbouring kingdom of Ethiopia had claimed and exercised a species of sovereignty over the entire Nile valley, while allowing tributary princes to govern different portions of it. Of these princes the most important at the time of Rabshakeh’s embassy seems to have been Shabatok, who reigned in Memphis, probably from b.c. 712 to b.c. 698. Egypt is likened to a “bruised reed” on account of her untrustworthincss. “So” (Sabaco) had given no substantial help to Hashes. Shabatok was little likely to imperil himself in order to assist Hezekiah. Even Tirhakah would probably avoid, as long as he could, a conflict with the full power of Assyria. Pharaoh, King of Egypt. Sennacherib uses the generic term, “Pharaoh,” instead of mentioning any of the petty princes by name, because he means to speak generally. The King of Egypt, under present circumstances, whoever he may be, is no better than a bruised reed. In his own inscriptions, Sennacherib about this time uses the expression, “the kings of Egypt”.
Isa 36:7
If thou say to me, We trust in the Lord. “The Assyrians,” it has been observed, “had a good intelligence department” (Cheyne). It was known to Sennacherib that Hezekiah had a confident trust, which seemed to him wholly irrational, in Jehovahthe special God of his people. It was also known to him that Hezekiah, in the earlier portion of his reign (2Ki 18:4), had “removed the high places” and broken down the altars, where Jehovah had for centuries been worshipped throughout the length and breadth of the land. He concludes that, in so doing, he must have offended Jehovah. He is probably ignorant of the peculiar proviso of the Jewish Law, that sacrifice should be offered in one place only, and conceives that Hezekiah has been actuated by some narrow motive, and has acted in the interests of one city only, not of the whole people. Ye shall worship before this altar. The parallel passage of 2 Kings (2Ki 18:22) has “this altar in Jerusalem.“ The brazen altar in the great court of the temple is, of course, meant. Hezekiah had cleansed it front the pollutions of the time of Ahaz (2Ch 29:18), and had insisted on sacrifice being offered nowhere else (2Ch 29:21-35; 2Ch 30:15-24; 2Ch 31:1, etc.). Such a concentration of worship was unknown to any of the heathen nations, and may well have been unintelligible to them.
Isa 36:8
Now therefore give pledges; i.e. “bind yourselves under s-me penalty.” Rabshakeh here interrupts his message’ to introduce an offer of his own. Intent on ridiculing the absurdity of Hezekiah’s resistance of Assyria, he promises to make him a present of two thousand horses, if he (Hezekiah) can find two thousand trained riders to mount them. It is quite likely that he was safe in making this promise, and that, notwithstanding the abundant use of chariots and horses by the Jews of the time for purposes of luxury (Isa 2:7), they were destitute of a cavalry force and unaccustomed to the management of war-horses.
Isa 36:9
How then wilt thou turn away the face, etc.? i.e. “How wilt thou be able to defeat, and cause to retreat, a single Assyrian captain at the head of his squadron?” And put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen; rather, but thou trustest in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen. Consciousness of the weakness, with which Rabshakeh had just reproached them, had led to their application to Egypt for a chariot and a cavalry force. Egypt was well able to furnish both, and had sent a large force of both to the help of Ekron a short time previously. That force had, however, suffered defeat at the hands of Sennacherib.
Isa 36:10
The Lord said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it; literally, Jehovah said unto me, Go up, etc.. The heathen monarchs frequently represented themselves as directed to make war on a nation by God, or by some particular god. Piankhi Mer-amman says, “I am born of the loins. created from the egg, of the Deity I have not acted without his knowing; he ordained that I should act”. Mesha, King of Moab, declares, “Chemosh said to me, Go and take Nebo [in war] against Israel”. Asshur is generally represented as commanding the expeditions of the Assyrian kings. Still, it is surprising that Sennacherib should mention “Jehovah” as the God from whom he had received the order to attack Hezekiah, and we may suspect that the term which he actually employed was Ilu, “God,” and that either Rahshakeh, or the reporter of the speech, substituted “Jehovah” as more intelligible to the Jews.
Isa 36:11
Speak unto thy servants in the Syrian language; literally, in the Aramaic language. Aramaeans were widely spread over the entire region between the Lower Tigris and the Mediterranean; and their language seems to have been in general use, as a language of commerce. “Private contract tablets in Aramaic and Assyrian have been found in the remains of ancient Nineveh” (Cheyne). Rabshakeh had, perhaps, spoken “in the Jews’ language ” without any ill intent, thinking that it was the only tongue which Jewish envoys would understand; but his so doing was calculated to affect the minds of the common people, and to shake their allegiance to Hezekiah. The envoys, therefore, requested him to employ a foreign tongue, and suggested Aramaic as one which was familiar to them, and which they supposed that he would understand. His employment of Hebrew had shown them that he was a linguist. In the Jews’ language. There was no language peculiar to the Jews as Jews, that is to say, different from the ordinary speech of the Israelites. Both alike spoke Hebrew. In the Old Testament, however, this corn-men language is never called “Hebrew,” but either “the tongue of Canaan” (Isa 19:18) or “the Jewish language” (2Ki 18:26, 2Ki 18:28; 2Ch 32:18; Neh 13:24). Similarly, our own tongue is called “English,” though spoken also in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, America, and Australia. In the ears of the people that are on the wall; i.e. of the soldiers placed on the wall to defend it. We must suppose that the conference took place immediately outside the fortifications, so that some of those on the wall could hear.
Isa 36:12
Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall? Rabshakeh was contravening all diplomatic usage, and no doubt was conscious of it. But the pride and arrogance of the Assyrians rendered them as careless of diplomatic etiquette as, at a later date, were the Romans (see Polybius, 29:11, 6; Liv; 45:12). That they may eat, etc.; rather, to eat. That is, with no other result than that of being reduced, together with you, to the last extremity of famine, when the siege comes.
Isa 36:13
Then Rabshakeh stood; i.e. “rose from a sitting or reclining posture”to attract attention, and the better to make himself heard. He continued his speech in Hebrew, and at the same time purposely raised his voice to a loud pitch. The envoys would have been justified in ordering the archers to shoot him from the wall. But they seem to have been struck of a heap, as Epiphanes was by the audacity of Popillius (see the comment on the preceding verse).
Isa 36:14
Thus saith the king. It is scarcely probable that Sennacherib had expressly empowered Rabshakeh to make a speech to the Jewish people, much less that he had dictated its words. But the envoy regards himself as having plenary powers to declare the king’s mind. Let not Hezekiah deceive you. By vain hopes of resisting the Assyrian arms successfully (comp. Isa 36:5-7).
Isa 36:15
Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah. There is nothing improbable in Rabshakeh’s having thus spoken. Isaiah had long been encouraging Hezekiah to resist Sennacherib by promises of Divine aid (Isa 30:31; Isa 31:4-9). Hezekiah would naturally repeat these premises to the people, and could not give their effect in simpler words than by saying, “Jehovah will surely deliver us: this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria.” Spies and deserters would naturally tell the Assyrian envoys what he had said.
Isa 36:16
Make an agreement with me by a present; literally, make a blessing with me. Delitzsch paraphrases, “Enter into a connection of mutual good wishes with me.” Vance Smith translates boldly, “Make peace with me;” and Mr. Cheyne, “Make a treaty with me.” There seems to be no doubt that b’rakah, besides its primary sense of “blessing,” had two secondary senses, “present” and “treaty.” Here “treaty” is no doubt intended. Come out to me; i.e. “come out of Jerusalem, and surrender yourselves” (comp 1Sa 11:3; Jer 38:17). And eat ye drink ye. Peace being made, the Jews could leave the protection of their walled cities, and disperse themselves over their lands, where they could live in plenty and security, at any rate for a time. They would be safe front the terrible extremities hinted at in Isa 36:12, and might confidently await the great king’s ultimate disposal of them, which would be determined widen the war in these parts was over. The waters of his own cistern; rather, of his own well. All cultivators had wells in their plots of ground. Cisterns, or reservoirs, in which the rain-water was stored, were comparatively uncommon.
Isa 36:17
Until I come and take you away. It was so much thee usual policy of Assyria to remove to a new locality a conquered people, which had given them trouble, that Rabshakeh felt safe in assuming that the fate in store for the Jews, if they submitted themselves, was a transplantation. Sargon had transported the Israelites to Gozan and Media (2Ki 18:11), the Tibarcni to Assyria, the Commageni to Susiana. Sennacherib himself had transported into Assyria more than two hundred thousand Aramaeans. It might be confidently predicted that, if he conquered them, he would transplant the Jews. Rabshakeh tries to soften down the hardship of the lot before them by promises of a removal to a land equal in all respects to Palestine. To a land like your own land. This was certainly not a general principle of Assyrian administration. Nations were removed from the far north to the extreme south, and vice versa, from arid to marshy tracts, from fertile regions to comparative deserts. The security of the empire, not the gratification of the transported slaves, was the ruling and guiding principle of all such changes. A land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards. The writer of Kings adds, “a land of oil olive and of honey.” (On the productiveness of Palestine, see Num 13:27; Num 14:7; Deu 1:23; Deu 8:7-9; Deu 11:11, Deu 11:12.)
Isa 36:18
Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you; rather, seduce you (comp. Deu 13:6; 1Ki 21:25). Sennacherib claims to be entitled to the people’s allegiance, and represents Hezekiah as a rebel, who seeks to draw them away from their duty. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land? The successes of the Assyrians, and the religious character of their wars, justified this boast. The pervading idea of the inscriptions is that wars arc undertaken for the glory of the Assyrian deities, particularly of Asshur, for the chastisement of his enemies, and with the object of establishing in each country, as it is brought under subjection, the laws and worship of Asshur. The nations fight under the protection of their own gods, and thus each war is a struggle between the Assyrian deities and those of the nation with which they arc contending. Hitherto, undoubtedly, Assyria had met with almost uniform success (see Isa 10:5-14).
Isa 36:19
Where are the gods of Hamath? (comp. Isa 10:9). Sargon had reduced Hamath in his third year, b.c. 720. He had “swept the whole land of Hamath to its extreme limit,” taken the king prisoner, and carried him away captive to Assyria, where he flayed and burned him; removed most of the inhabitants, and replaced them by Assyrians; plundered the city of its chief treasures, and placed an Assyrian governor over it. Among the treasures taken were, no doubt, the images of the Hamathite gods, which were uniformly carried off by the Assyrians from a conquered city. And Arphad. Arphad, or Arpad (Isa 10:9), had joined with Hamath in the war against Assyria, and was taken by Sargon in the same year. Of Sepharvaim. Scpharvaim, or Sippara, was besieged and captured by Sargon in his twelfth year, b.c. 710. A severe example was made of the inhabitants. A discovery made by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, in 1881, is thought to prove that Sippara was situated at Abu-Habbah, between Baghdad and the site of Babylon, about sixteen miles from the former city. “Hena” and “Ivah,” joined with Sepharvaim by the author of Kings (2Ki 18:31), seem to be omitted by Isaiah as unimportant. They are thought to have been towns upon the Euphrates, not very distant from Babylon, and have been identified respectively with Anah and Hit. But the identification is in both cases uncertain. Have they delivered Samaria? Delitzsch and Mr. Cheyne translate, “How much less have they delivered Samaria?” Kay, “Verily have they delivered,” regarding the sentence as ironical. Sennacherib can see no distinction between the cities where Jehovah was worshipped, and those which acknowledged any other tutelary god. As Samaria fell, why should not Jerusalem fall?
Isa 36:21
They (i.e. the people, as in 2Ki 18:36) held their peace. Rabshakeh’s attempt to shake their fidelity had, at any rate, no manifest effect. For the king’s commandment was, saying, Answer him not. Hezekiah can scarcely have anticipated that Rabshakeh would so far depart from ordinary usage as to make a speech to “the men on the wall.” But he may have been in the immediate neighbourhood, and, when apprised of the envoy’s proceedings, may have sent the order. We are not to suppose that the Jewish king was at a loss for an answer. He did not choose to bandy words with an envoy who had behaved himself so outrageously.
Isa 36:22
With their clothes rent. Garments were “rent,” not only as a sign of mourning, but whenever persons were shocked or horrified (see Gen 37:29; 1Sa 4:12; 2Sa 1:2; Ezr 9:3; 2Ch 34:19; Mat 26:65). The Jewish officials meant to mark their horror at Rabshakeh’s blasphemies.
HOMILETICS
Isa 36:4-9
Wise and foolish trust.
Rabshakeh laughed to scorn equally all the grounds of trust which he regarded Hezekiah as entertaining. His ridicule was just with respect to two of them, wholly unjust and misplaced, with respect to the third.
I. IT IS A FOOLISH TRUST TO PUT CONFIDENCE IN WISE COUNSELLORS. Princes, no doubt, do well to seek advice from the wisest among their subjects, and, speaking generally, cannot do better than follow such advice when it has been deliberately given. But to place absolute confidence in the wisest of human counsellors is sheer folly. “The wisdom of the wise is foolishness with God” (1Co 3:19); “God casteth out the counsel of princes.” The wisest of men are liable to err, to misinterpret the past, to misconceive the future. The best of counsellors are “blind guides,” and are liable to “fall into the pit” with those who are guided by them. It is the truest wisdom to mistrust all human advisers, and to look elsewhere for an infallible guidance.
II. IT IS A FOOLISH TRUST TO PUT CONFIDENCE IN AN ARMED FORCE, however strong it may seem to be. “It is nothing to the Lord to help, whether with ninny, or with them that have no power” (2Ch 14:11). “It is no hard matter” with him “for many to be shut up in the hands of a few; and with Heaven it is all one, to deliver with a great multitude, or a small company: for the victory of battle standeth not in the multitude of an host; but strength cometh from heaven” (1 Macc. 3:18, 19). Even a heathen could remark that “ofttimes a mighty host is discomfited by a few men, when God in his anger sends fear or storm from heaven, and they perish in a way unworthy of them” (Herod; Isa 7:10, 6). The children of this world put their trust in “big battalions;” but the entire course of history testifies to the frequent triumph of the weak over the strong, of small over large armiesPlataea, Cunaxa, Issus, Arbela, Magnesia, in the ancient; Soissons, Mortgarten, Cressy, Poitiers, Waterloo, Inkerman, in the modern world, are cases in point. “The race is not to the swift, neither the battle to the strong.” At any rate, it is foolish to trust implicitly in “strength for the war” (Isa 36:5), since such trust is often the forerunner of a dire calamity.
III. BUT IT IS A WISE TRUST TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE LORD GOD. Rabshakeh ridicules this trust no less than the others (Isa 36:7, Isa 36:15-20); but wholly without reason. He imagines, indeed, that Jehovah is only a godone of many. He has no conception of one Supreme God, “Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible.” For want of this fundamental idea his whole reasoning is confused and mistaken. Theists know that, while all other trust is vain, absolute reliance may be placed on God
(1) to perform his promises;
(2) to succour all them that flee to him for aid with faith and penitence;
(3) to abase those that proudly lift themselves up against him, if not immediately, at any rate in his own good time. Hezekiah’s trust was based on all three grounds: God had promised to deliver Jerusalem from the Assyrians (Isa 31:5-8); Hezekiah had given up his trust in Egypt, and turned to God (Isa 36:18) in sincerity; and Rabshakeh’s own boastings had placed both himself and his master in the category of God’s open enemies, on whom judgment was almost sure to fall.
Isa 36:10
The false boastings of the wicked confuted by the event.
The Goliaths and Sennacheribs of the world are rarely content with silent endeavours to accomplish the ends that they set before them. They delight in boasting beforehand of their coming achievements, and are not very scrupulous as to the language they employ, so that it seems to exalt them above their fellows. “Come to me,” said the Philistine champion to David, “and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field” (1Sa 17:44). “With the multitude of my chariots,” said Sennacherib, “I am come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon, and will cut down 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” (2Ki 19:23); and again, “Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?” (Isa 10:11). It was of a piece with these boasts to give the Jews to understand that the voice of God had ordered the expedition, which, therefore, was certain to be successful. In all probability this boast was a purely gratuitous one, not grounded upon any even supposed oracle or announcement. It was hoped that it might alarm some of the Jews, and induce them to go over to the enemy, or at least stand aloof from the contest. A few weeksperhaps a few daysshowed the baselessness of the assertion. Had God ordered the expedition, he would have prospered it; had he “given the Assyrians a charge,” he would have caused them “to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread Judah down like the mire of the streets” (Isa 10:6). But the boast was wholly false. God had, in fact, declared himself against the expedition (Isa 31:8), and had promised his protection to Jerusalem (Isa 31:5). The event was in the fullest accord with these announcements, and put to shame the Assyrian, with his vain boasts (Isa 37:36). In all ages, boasters have declared that they would destroy the Church. Epiphanes, Galerius, Julian, Mohammed, designed and attempted the extirpation of true religion. They boasted beforehand that they would succeed. In the event they egregiously failed. So, in our own day, pseudo-science declares that it is just about to sweep away Christianity front the earth. The wretched effete religion is, the scientists maintain, on its last legs, dwindling, dying, just about to disappear. But year by year, month by month, day by day, facts give their predictions the lie. The Church remains firm upon its Rock, against which the gates of hell will never prevail. Christianity declines to disappear at the scientist’s bidding, and, as time goes on, seems continually to obtain a firmer grasp upon the mind of the age. Scientific extravagance provokes a religious reaction, and these are signs in various quarters of a real “Nemesis of Faith.” If the tree has contracted its shadow, it has struck its roots more deeply; and is more capable of resisting storms and tempests than of yore. Christians may calmly await the verdict which events will pronounce, and meanwhile will do well not to let themselves be greatly alarmed by the proud boasts and confident predictions of their adversaries. Sennachcrib’s boasts had an unsatisfactory issue.
Isa 36:21
Silence the best answer to many an argument.
“Speech is silvern,” it has been said; “but silence is golden.” “Answer not a fool according to his folly,” says the wise king (Pro 26:4)an injunction no doubt balanced to some extent by the counter-phrase, “Answer a fool according to his folly”which immediately follows (Pro 26:5). into universal rule can be given. “There is a time to speak, and a time to keep silence” (Ecc 3:7); and the wisdom of the wise is shown in few things more strikingly than in their faculty of discerning the right time for each. But the tendency to err is on the side of speech, and the practical want with most men is to know when they should refrain from uttering the words which rush so readily to their lips; and keep silence, “though it be pain and grief to them” (Psa 39:2, Prayer-book version). A few suggestions on this point may be serviceable.
I. SILENCE IS TO BE PREFERRED TO SPEECH WHEN THE “FOOL” IS ALONE, AND IS EVIDENTLY AWARE OF THE WORTHLESSNESS OF HIS OWN ARGUMENTS. Great numbers of persons argue merely for the sake of arguing, having no care for truth, and no belief in the validity of their own reasonings. It is a waste of time to argue with such; they have no real convictions, no seriousness; and it is impossible to impress them, however clearly we prove them to be in the wrong.
II. SILENCE IS TO RE PREFERRED TO SPEECH WHEN WE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SPEECH ON OUR PART WILL ONLY DRAW FORTH IMPIETY AND BLASPHEMY FROM OUR OPPONENTS. The principle here is that involved in our Lord’s injunction: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine” (Mat 7:6). The truth is desecrated by being put before persons wholly unfit for it, as avowed infidels and blasphemers. They are provoked by opposition to further sins, which are an offence to God, injurious to themselves, and shocking to others.
III. SILENCE IS TO BE PREFERRED TO SPEECH WHEN WE FEEL OURSELVES ILL EQUIPPED FOR CONTROVERSY, AND KNOW THE GAINSAYER TO BE WELL EQUIPPED. It is difficult to estimate the injury done to the cause of truth by well-meaning persons, of little natural ability and less acquired learning, who attempt to answer the attacks of well-read and clever sceptics. The best cause may be not only injured, but lost, so far as the immediate occasion goes, by the unskilfulness of its advocates. Ordinary unlearned persons should decline to argue with educated unbelievers, and refer them to those skilled defenders of the truth, who have never been lacking in any age, and who are numerous in the present. In a court of justice a man is regarded as a fool who pleads his cause in person against a professional lawyer. He should equally decline to plead the cause of religion against a professional impugner of it.
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Isa 36:1-22
Hezekiah and the Assyrian.
The Assyrian king made a campaign against Judah, Lachish was taken, and the event was commemorated on bas-reliefs in Sennacherib’s palace. The place commanded the direct road from Egypt to Judah. Hence the Rabshakeh, one of the chief officers of the Assyrians, was sent against Hezekiah, and by the “conduit of the upper pool”the very spot where Ahaz had spoken with Isaiah (Isa 7:3)he took up his quarters. “Unbelief was then represented by an Israelite, now more naturally by an Assyrian” (Cheyne). To meet him there go forth Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, disciple of Isaiah; Shebna, the secretary (cf. Isa 22:15-25); and Joah, the annalist.
I. THE PRIDE AND POWER OF THE ASSYRIAN. It seems to be the very type of worldly pride and power.
1. His title. He is the sarru rabu, the great king, or the strong king, or the king of hosts. The ruler of Judah is no king at all in his thought, but a name and shadow, or a mere puppet in the hands of a giant.
2. His contemptuous trust in force. Hezekiah trusts in a “mere word of the lips,” according to the insolent conqueror. What of the alliance of Egypt? On the banks of the Nile grow abundance of reeds; a “cracked reed” is the symbol of that alliance, and of the Pharaoh’s help (cf. Eze 29:6, Eze 29:7). The Assyrian predicts that the alliance will be broken asunder, and that crushing defeat will follow. But what of the protection of Jehovah? The Assyrian taunts Hezekiah with inconsistency, and turns his own conduct as a reformer against himself. The latter had abolished the “high places” (2Ki 18:4; 2Ch 31:1), and had centred worship at Jerusalem. To a superficial observer it looked as if the God of Israel had been robbed of his altars and a part of his due rites. How, then, could Judah expect the countenance of Jehovah? A reformation is always attended by evils, and it is a weapon in the hands of the enemy to charge these evils upon the reformation itself, instead of upon the human passions stirred up in the course of any great change. So the heathen charged the calamities of the Roman empire on Christianity, and the disorders attending the great Reformation of the sixteenth century were laid at the door of the reformers. Against these weaknesses in the position of Hezekiah, as the Assyrian deems them, he himself opposes brute force. He is strong in cavalry, and Judah is weak. Judah may have two thousand horses if she can find riders for them. How can she resist the attack of a single Assyrian satrap? She may well look to Egypt for chariots and horsemen.
II. HIS APPEAL TO THE WEAKNESS OF DOUBTFUL MINDS.
1. The Assyrian pretends that he has even an oracle from Jehovah himself to destroy the land of Judah, because of the violation of the high places. Our spiritual enemies would not be so mighty if we were not so weak. In times of trial, it is the doubtful conscience which makes us weak; the self-betraying heart. The reaction and revival even from righteous efforts may be felt by good men. What if when they thought to serve God they have been displeasing him? And now, when danger and opposition have to be encountered, suppose that these assume the aspect, not of obstacles to be overcome in his strength, but of judgments sent in his wrath, to be withstood? There is, after all, no enemy to be feared like the traitor in our bosom, no force against us so formidable as that which is cloudily projected from an uneasy imagination; no bulwark so strong as a conscience void of offence toward God.
2. He endeavours to undermine the source of spiritual confidence. Hezekiah had encouraged the people, as he himself was encouraged by Isaiahby pointing to the Divine Saviour of the nation: “Jehovah will surely deliver us, and the city shall not fall into the Assyrian’s hands” (cf. Isa 37:35). How typical this of spiritual temptation! If the devil can get men to question the words of God, his victory is assured. It is not so much the open warfare, the battles about the outposts and fortifications of the faith, that we have to dread, as the sapping and mining operations directed at the very principle and seat of faith itself. Is this world governed? Has it a righteous constitution and administration? Does all repose upon the mind and will of a just and holy Being? Then faith may live, and the weakest may be strong. Or is all the effect of chance? and are we at the mercy of some blind and fatal power, which neither loves nor knows? Then the stoutest knees will be loosened, anti the bravest heart will quail.
3. He holds out enticing promises. Let the people make a treaty with the Assyrian. Let them surrender to him, and he will secure them a happy future. They will be removed from their own land, it is true; but they shall find another home in a land equally goodly, abounding in corn and grapes, in bread-corn and orchards. There each family shall possess its vine and its fig tree and its cistern. Here, again, worldly hopes are made to take the field against the instincts of religious faith. Why cling to Judah? Because it was sacred soilthe land of the fathers, the land whose holy centre was Jerusalem, the altar Of God, the meeting-place of the tribes, the earthly mirror of heaven. But was not this mere charm of imagination? Were not other lands as fair and as fertile? Could not a peaceful and a happy home be found in distant lands? Perhaps they are clinging to a pleasing illusion, a vain dream, and are blind to the good which lies at their feet. Perhaps they are defending themselves against their own happiness.
4. He appeals to seeming facts of history. The “gods of the nations” appear to have gone down before the victorious Assyrian. They, in the struggle, had not manifested a power to save. In ancient thought, religion and political power were closely connected. If a city or a nation stood, it was because of the protecting presence of the national god; its wanderings were his wanderings, its victories the effect of his prowess, its failures the signs of his defeat. Now, the gods of Hamath were captive in Assyrian shrines. And what probability was there, from a heathen point of view, that it would be otherwise with Jehovah, the national God of Israel? Such a rivalry between the long-vanished, power and religion of the Assyrian, and that of the living God, whom we at this day own, not only as national God of Israel, but as the Eternal himselfmay seem strange. To the eve of the heathen, and from the heathen view of politics and history, it was not so. Time alone can discover the short-sightedness of human calculation, and expose the superficiality of worldly views of history.
III. THE ANSWER OF SILENCE. It was by Hezekiah’s command that no answer was returned. “For they had nothing that would seem, from an Assyrian point of view, a satisfactory answer.” And the rent clothes of the Jewish officials confess the last extreme of helpless grief. And may not the facts of this situation remind us of spiritual situations? There are hours of perplexed thought when the mind turns its own weapons against itself. All circumstances conspire against us, or seem to do so. We seek for the “bright side” of the situation, but there is no bright side to look upon. We turn to the east, hoping for a ray of light: all is darkness. The known is distinct and threatening; the unknown veiled and, to the depressed imagination, more threatening still. We are cowed by our own reason, quelled by the pressure of our most fixed habits of thinking. Tim problem is without solution to the intelligence. But there is a secret sympathy of our being with the Unseen. There is a secret channel by which we may communicate with the Unseen, and pierce behind the veil. When temptations close around us like the serried ranks of the Assyrian host, shutting out from view every possible way of escape, we may, nevertheless, believe that there is such a waya passage into the clear light, which Jehovah has made, and which he will presently reveal.J.
HOMILIES BY W.M. STATHAM
Isa 36:6
The broken staff.
“Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, in Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it.” Man must lean. He is constituted to rest on some object outside himself, and it would be a wise though painful study to review the false resting-places of the human heart. Egypt stands in the Scripture for the world outside Godits pleasure, its skill, its science, its entire wealth of means and appliances. For Egypt was once the repository of the world’s wealth, and skill, and science, and beauty, and glory.
I. THIS IS HISTORICAL TRUTH. How eagerly the Jews turned from the true God to idols! Their life was dishonoured during a long part of their history by idolatry, for which they were punished by captivities, and against which they were warned by prophets. Still they rebelled against God, and vexed and grieved his Holy Spirit. Delivered from Egypt and its slaveries and wrongs, as their fathers were, they yet turned in heart to all that was represented by Egypt.
II. THIS IS SYMOBLIC TRUTH. Men lean still on reeds, that in time become broken reeds. They trust in wealth, friendship, fortune; and these at last give way, and the reed pierces them to the heart. This is the story often told of the world’s disappointed conditionsbroken health and lost fortunes. Having no God to turn to, men are left desolate and deserted in the hour when heart and flesh faint and fail. We see all this in Byron and Shelley, and in the “Midases” of the world, who love wealth and all that wealth can bring. Nothing in the world answers to the deep necessities of man’s immortal nature, and the “rest under the shadow of Egypt” is not broad and deep enough for the soul of man.
III. THIS IS SURPRISING TRUTH. “Lo!” we may well exclaim. Is this world a lunatic asylum, alter all, full of men and women who have lost the fine balances of judgment? or is it a blind asylum, where they have lost the clear vision of truth? After all the records of observation and of history, has it come to thisthat each succeeding generation takes up the old lie and forsakes the living God? Even now and here, where the Saviour says, “Come unto me and rest,” how many seek “rest” out of God! Some find human love itself a broken reed, and in their hours of sad discovery turn cynical and despairing, whilst to others friendship itself has proved superficial and fickle. There are many who have drawn out the broken reed, and dressed the wound as well as they may; but it remains unhealed. What they really want is the balm of Gilead and. the great Physician of souls.W.M.S.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Isa 36:4-21
Contemptuousness.
An air of intolerable arrogance breathes in almost every sentence of this “railing Rabshakeh.” It comes out in insolent characterization (Isa 36:5, Isa 36:6), in disdainful challenge (Isa 36:8), in haughty self-confidence (Isa 36:9), in contemptuous disregard of the conventionalities of war (Isa 36:12), in a reprehensible vulgarity (Isa 36:12), etc. From this incident, or from other parts of Scripture, we conclude respecting it
1. THAT IT IS APT TO DE VERY IGNORANT. Rabshakeh made a large and even ludicrous mistake respecting the action of Hezekiah in his iconoclastic policy. He thought the Jewish king was doing that which would excite the anger of Jehovah, when he was really securing his Divine favour (Isa 36:7). Contemptuous men are often found to be ignorant: and, naturally, if not necessarily, so; for they imagine themselves to be above the necessity to inquire and ascertain, and their assumptions are soon discovered to be false. Those who are too proud to learn must be content to be numbered with the foolish.
II. THAT IT SINKS INTO IMPIETY. Rabshakeh held up to derision the idea that Jehovah could preserve Jerusalem (Isa 36:15), and classed the Lord of heaven with the helpless deities of Syria (Isa 36:18-20). The arrogant spirit is essentially an irreverent one. Men that look with scorn upon the human soon come to regard themselves as independent of the Divine. They are not deified in the daring and presumptuous form which was once known; but they assume to themselves a power, a control, a providence, which belongs only to the Lord of our hearts and lives. Hence we find
III. THAT IT MAKES FATAL BLUNDERS. The king for whom Rabshakeh was speaking and whose haughty determination he was announcing never did “come and take away” to his own land these despised Jews who were on the walls of Jerusalem. He returned with haste and humiliation into his own land. The scornful will find that events do not fill up their bold outlines; on the contrary, they will entirely traverse them: their pretensions will be overthrown, and their promises and their threats left unfulfilled.
Expel the contemptuous spirit from the heart: it is an evil thing in itself, and it works evil to him that cherishes it.
1. It is exceedingly unlovely; it is utterly unbecoming in any child of man who, be he what he may, stands on the same level of fallibility on which his fellows stand.
2. It meets with the deep displeasure, and will bring down the strong rebuke, of God. He resists the proud and humiliates them.
3. It is only worthy of the disregard of man; all wise people, when they are treated with arrogance, return a rebuking silence, like these sensible sons of Jerusalem (Isa 36:21).C.
Isa 36:6
Treacherous trusts.
The arrogant language of Rabshakeh was full enough of falsehood, but it had one grain of truth. Egypt was but a broken reed on which to lean, and any trust reposed in its aid would be attended with disaster and humiliation. The imagery which is here used is forcible enough, and it admirably describes the character and the consequences of an ill-founded confidence. Of these treacherous trusts are
I. OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING.
1. We are expressly warned of God not to lean on this (Pro 3:5).
2. Our known weakness, our incapacity to penetrate the hearts of men and to foresee the issue of events, our liability to make deplorable and ruinous mistakes,this should teach us to forbear.
3. And the many lamentable instances, recorded in histories and witnessed by our own eyes, of the evil consequences of men trusting to their own sagacity, should also dissuade and deter us.
II. HUMAN FRIENDSHIPS. The language of Scripture on this subject is remarkably, is significantly, strong (Jer 17:5). When we consider how often it has happened, as the consequence of human insufficiency, not only that men have failed to secure what they were expecting, but that they have been thereby plunged into the deepest distress and even into irremediable ruin; thatto use the image of Rabshakehthe staff has not only broken under them, but pierced the hand that leant on it;we may well feel that this scriptural language is not a whir too strong. Human friendship breaks down and wounds us by its fracture,
(1) through the limitations of our faculty;
(2) through inconstancy, and even treachery;
(3) through moral or spiritual shipwreck.
III. TEMPORAL ADVANTAGES. Riches, rank, official position and the power it confers,these are things on which we are prone to place reliance. But woe unto the man who has no firmer ground on which to build! In the day of his calamity, in the hour of bereavement, in the time of desolation, in the hour of death, those things will fail him; and to have trusted in any or in all of them, to the negligence of a hope that is surer than they, will add unspeakable bitterness to the sense of failure and of need. The broken reed will pierce the hand that holds it.
Only in a Divine Saviour, whose wisdom will never be found wanting, whose faithfulness will never fail, whose power to succour and befriend in the saddest sorrows and darkest hours will continually sufficeonly in him will be round the support which “cannot be broken.” “Our God is a Rock;” and blessed is the man who rests all the weight of his joy and of his hope on his inviolable word, on his irrefragable power.C.
Isa 36:16, Isa 36:17
The invitation of the enemy.
The King of Assyria, by the mouth of his general, appeals to the citizens of Jerusalem to abandon their allegiance to Hezekiah. and “go out to him,” promising them great advantages for their disloyalty. It is closely analogous to the invitation of our spiritual enemy to go over to him and receive the wages of sin which he offers to our souls.
I. IT IS A VERY PLAUSIBLE OFFER.
1. Under the circumstances in which they then were, loyalty was threatened with decided disadvantage:
(1) with privation, for there was the probability of a long siege and its attendant scarcities;
(2) with suffering, or even death, for attacks would be made and missiles would be hurled against the city.
2. On the other hand, surrender promised material good:
(1) present exemption from exigency and assault (Isa 36:16); and
(2) abundance of comfort in future days (Isa 36:17). So is it in the spiritual realm. Our great Adversary seeks to allure us from the true citizenship, and he has a plausible proposal to make. He says
(1) that to serve God is to suffer loss; is to be shut out from many sources of wealth and joy; is to be starved and beggared; is to be exposed to the dislike, the derision, the hostile action of those who are the strongest and most numerous among men. He says also
(2) that to be on the side of evil is to be in the way of prosperity; that its land is “a land of corn and wine,” of strength and joy, of material prosperity and sensual enjoyment: be selfish and unscrupulous, and the prizes of life and the pleasures of sense are yours. But in regard to each of these proposals, the historical and the existing, it must be considered that
II. IT IS ESSENTIALLY FALSE.
1. Rabshakeh and his royal master were both mistaken in their calculations. Jerusalem was not to be reduced to the severe straits of a protracted siege, was not to be taken by assault; neither want nor sword was to devastate the city. And they left the most important consideration out of their account; for even if their military projects had succeeded, and if the Jews had been defeated and ]lad found the plains of the Tigris as fruitful as the valley of the Jordan, yet would they have missed and mourned the liberty, the sacred services, the natural independence of their own beloved country,they would have hung their harps upon the willows, instead of making them sound the joyous strains of patriotism and piety.
2. Our spiritual enemy is also essentially wrong in his representations; he, too, leaves the principal considerations out of his reckoning.
(1) All that we lose by our loyalty to God is that which no wise man would acceptiniquitous gain, injurious friendship, demoralizing pleasure, etc.; it is well, indeed, to be without these.
(2) All that we could gain by subservience to his unholy will would leave us unblessed with the true richeswith the favour and friendship of God, with a sense of moral and spiritual integrity, with the power of rendering holy service to our kind, with the joy of sacred intercourse with a Divine Redeemer and with like-minded fellow-servants, with the elevating and sustaining hopes that “enter within the veil.”C.
Isa 36:2
Right attitude in times of threatening.
This general of the Assyrian army seems to have been a rude, violent, boastful man, who thought to do his work by means of great swelling words. He was big in threatening; and it is not often that such men prove big in deeds. Dean Plumptre says that “his words, in their brutal coarseness, have hardly a parallel in history, till we come to Bismarck’s telling the Parisians that they may ‘stew in their own gravy.'” The Rabshakeh, it should be observed, stood in the position, while he thus threatened, which intimated his power to destroy the aqueduct which supplied the city with water. Times of threatening are to be clearly distinguished from times of actual calamity. Trouble threatened is apt to relax our natures and weaken us with fears. Trouble actually come calls out our powers of endurance, and braces us for bearing and battling. And so, sometimes, trouble threatened, taking bigger shape in appearance than it ever can take in reality, has a special work of testing to do. He must be well centred in God who holds fast his calmness and trust, even in times of fright. Society is peculiarly liablemore especially highly civilized societyto sudden fears, which very easily become helpless panic. A few criminals in a great city get an hour’s licence, and loot the shops in one district, and the whole city goes into a panic, stops its business, and pours its wealth into a fund to quiet the people who had little or nothing to do with the looting. So it has been again and again in the world’s history. Threatenings have been more morally mischievous than actual calamity. The godly man should be easily master even of such circumstances.
I. HE KNOWS WELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOAST AND PERFORMANCE, Observation teaches him that the man who threatens much accomplishes little; the man who swears and yields to passion is always weak in action. There is “sound, and nothing more.” There is always room for this good advice, “Let not him that putteth on his armour boast as he that putteth it off.”
II. HE KNOWS THAT THIS CONDITION APPLIES TO ALL THREATENINGS AND ALARMS: “IF THE LORD WILL.” Men cannot, any more than tidal waves, go beyond their appointed bounds. Threats may do the Lord’s will, but they can do nothing beyond the Lord’s will. The godly man, therefore, waits to read God’s will behind the threats or the fears, and can afford to be quite calm, and master of all circumstances.
III. HE KNOWS THAT GOD IS ALWAYS ON THE SIDE OF THE PERMANENTLY GOOD, AND IS ALWAYS WORKING TOWARDS IT. The way to the good is often like the twisting and winding of the stream of Jordan; but the godly man does not make too much of the rushes and rapids in the twists and fallshe knows Jordan moves steadily on to the sea, and life, however ruffled may be its surface, moves on to fulfil the good purpose of God. We may do as did the apostolic company when its leaders were threatenedwe may bend before our God, and pray, “Now, Lord, behold their threatenings” (Act 4:29, Act 4:30).R.T.
Isa 36:6
Satire on our human confidences.
Evidently the Rabshakeh was informed concerning the parties that divided the people of Jerusalem at this time. Hezekiah seems to have been so far persuaded as to give his reluctant assent to sending the embassy to Egypt. The complaints which Sennacherib had to make against Hezekiah were
(1) that he had refused tribute (2Ki 18:14);
(2) that he had opened negotiations with Babylon and Egypt (2Ki 18:24), with a view to an alliance against Assyria;
(3) that he had helped the Philistines of Ekron to rise against their king. The second of these is dealt with in this verse. The Rabshakeh satirizes the helplessness of Egypt, likening that nation to a cracked, not broken, reed, which breaks suddenly, and pierces the hand of him who leans hard on it as a supporting staff. The keenness of the satire lies in the truth of it. Of the hopelessness of leaning on Egypt Isaiah had already warned the people (Isa 30:7, see the true reading). Egypt, in relation to Israel, is the type of the human confidences to which men turn so readily in their distress, forgetful of the Divine confidence in which alone they can be secure.
I. THE SATIRE OF GOD‘S MINISTERS. Illustrate from the Prophet Isaiah, who dealt so vigorously with this trusting to Egypt. Sometimes he gave serious and solemn warnings; sometimes grave reproaches; and sometimes keen criticism and biting satire, as if he would shame them into giving up the foolish and hopeless scheme. He put the character of Egypt into a word, almost an offensive word. Cheyne suggests that he wrote this word Rahab, “utter indolence,” “helpless inaction,” in large characters, and set it up in a public place. That was his idea of Egypt. So, still, Christian ministers must not hesitate to wither up men’s self-trusting and man-trusting with the keenest satire. It is a fair weapon for destroying self-confidences.
II. THE SATIRE OF RIVALS. Such was the satire of Assyria, through its Rabshakeh. At this time Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt were each seeking the alliance of Judah, and the jealousy of the one that did not succeed found expression in descriptions of the one that did. We can often get some self-knowledge through the things our rivals say of us in the bitterness of their disappointment. It is often surprising, it should be always helpful, to “see oursel’s as ithers see us.”
III. THE SATIRE OF EVENTS. Ridiculous indeed was the help Egypt afforded to Judah. The strength of Egypt at this time was one of appearance only. Egypt never has been a country that could be relied on. It did not save Judah. Its alliance only hurried on the fate of Judah. The cracked reed broke, and pierced the hand. “Experience is a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.” The logic of events soon shows up the folly of all confidences in man. Impress, in conclusion, from the figures of the very striking passage, Jer 17:5-8.R.T.
Isa 36:7
Mistakes concerning him whom we trust.
The explanation of this taunt is well given by Sayce and Cheyne. “Sennacherib had heard of the reformation of worship undertaken by Hezekiah. This, from his heathen point of view, was an act of gross impiety towards Jehovah; for had not Jehovah from time immemorial been worshipped at most, if not all, of the ‘high places’? The local sanctuaries designated by the latter phrase appear from the inscriptions to have been known in Assyria and Babylonia, as well as Palestine; indeed, they go back to Accadianthat is, pre-Semitic times.” As he had passed through the country, the Rabshakeh had found the “high places” desecrated; so he assumed that the God of the country must he offended with Hezekiah. One of our gravest difficulties in witnessing for God in the world arises from men’s mistakes concerning him. They do not understand us, or feel the force of our pleadings, because they do not apprehend God as we do. This subject may be very practically illustrated and enforced from three spheres of modern religious activity and servicemissions, apologetics, preaching.
I. THE MISTAKES OF THE HEATHEN CONCERNING OUR GOD HINDER MISSIONS. They have notions of God, or the gods, and attach them to the God we reveal to them. Much missionary labour is necessarily expended in correcting the mistakes which prevent the acceptance of the way of salvation by Christ Jesus. God pure, God love, God hating sin, God a Spirit, God our Father, God in sacrifice that he might save,these are all most strange and confusing to men who must think amidst heathen associations. It is eternal life to know the only true God.
II. THE MISTAKES OF THE OPPONENTS OF REVELATION HINDER OUR ARGUMENTS FROM PRODUCING DUE CONVICTIONS. The atheist, infidel, agnostic, sceptic, make as grave mistakes about our God as the Rabshakeh did about Jehovah. They have created figures and representations of him which we can join them in declaring make him unworthy of trust. Only those figures do not represent our God. We cannot acknowledge them. If the mistakes could but be corrected, and our God be known as he is, they would “preach the faith” who now “seek to destroy it.” Grave, indeed, is the sin of those who, professing to believe in God, nevertheless misrepresent him, and so give occasion to the enemy to blaspheme.
III. THE MISTAKES OF SECTS AND CREEDS HINDER RELIGIOUS WORK AMONG PROFESSORS. There is the Calvinistic God, and the Arminian God, the God who is exacting Judge, Moral Governor, august King. There are vague, repellent notions cherished in ignorant minds; and the preacher often speaks of a God who is really to the people an “unknown God.” The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth to bring the full, last, all-satisfying revelation of God to men. We are still making hindering mistakes about God, because we will not receive his revelation. He taught men to lift up holy hands, and say, “Our Father, which art in heaven.”R.T.
Isa 36:10
Claims to speak for God.
“The Lord said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.” The inscriptions of Sennacherib are remarkable for similar assertions to this. He delights, apparently, to claim a Divine sanction for the wars in which he was engaged. Some think that he may have heard of Isaiah’s declaration, that Jehovah was using the King of Assyria as his instrument (see Isa 7:17, Isa 7:18). We are bound to receive the messages of God, in whatsoever form they may come to us; but we are bound also to test the credentials of every messenger who brings them. For testing the messengers, adequate provisions have been made. We can “prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.” A suggestive illustration may be found in the narrative of the disobedient prophet (1Ki 13:1-34.). The old prophet claimed to speak in the name of God, and so over-persuaded the younger man. But that young man might reasonably have argued thus: “I have my instructions direct from God; they are definite and, clear, and I must have the most convincing evidence before I turn aside from fulfilling the instructions given me.” It was right to doubt even Christ so far as to require satisfactory signs and proofs that he had come from God. Men may make claims, as fanatics and enthusiasts do in every age; we shall not heed until they prove the claim. Illustrate by Johanna Southcote, Swedenborg, Irving, etc. We suggest some tests for judging claims to speak for God.
I. REASONABLE PROBABILITY. We suspect many things because they are not likely. It was very suspicious to assume that Jehovah had given direct and audible commands to Sennacherib. Many of the visions and mysteries of Swedenborg are judged by their unreasonableness and improbability. God’s ways may be beyond reason, but they are not foolish to the view of reason. The test of reason is carried too far when a full and accurate understanding is demanded, but it may fairly be applied to decide what is probable.
II. BOOK OF THE LAW. The Israelites were required to test all who claimed to be prophets by the harmony between their spoken word and the existing written Word. “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 Scriptures have a tone and character which is even more important than their precise details. Apply these to claimants, and they will test, as do chemical solvents. All who know and love God’s Word become sensitive to that which is in harmony with it.
III. RESPONSE OF CONSCIENCE. This test may be illustrated by Jonah’s mission to Nineveh. Jonah had no credentials. He might have been treated as an impostor. But the conscience of Nineveh responded to his message, and conscience guaranteed faith. All messages from God that come as warnings, reproaches, awakenings, threatenings, can be tried by conscience, and its “accusings and excusings.” So none of us need be uncertain whom to believe.R.T.
Isa 36:16
Security of stable government.
“The fig tree affords a thick shade, and is, on this account, a favourite resort of the family, where they may often be seen seated on mats, partaking of a meal or entertaining friends. The expression, ‘to sit under one’s own vine and fig tree,’ denotes at once security, domestic enjoyment, and competence.” The expression is either a common Eastern, proverb, or the Rabshakeh takes up the language of the people he addresses, in his chaffing, taunting, satirical way. The sentence and figure are found also in 1Ki 4:25; Zec 3:1-10 :50. Mr. Thomas Jenner, writing of a dwelling just outside Jerusalem, says, “Mr. Azam’s house is approached through a gateway of considerable width, from which to the door a broad path leads through the garden. This path is spanned by a wooden trellis, upon which a vine is trained, and at the time of our visit delicious grapes were hanging from it. As I contemplated this scene from within doors, or took the morning and evening air, sauntering between gate and door, I could but recall this striking figure of security and peace.” The point before us is, that the Rabshakeh promises the people that safety which comes from the rule of a strong and stable government. He scarcely veils his taunts at the parties and political commotions which were destroying the sense of security, and making foreign complications, for the people of Judah. We too seldom realize the importance of strong, stable government in a country. It may be illustrated in the following directions.
I. STABLE GOVERNMENT CHECKS PARTY FEELING. If the government be weak, its enemies are active, public opinion is kept agitated, demagogues appear and exaggerate public disabilities and public claims. Men are diverted from their proper pursuits to engage in political wrangle; the relationships of life are embittered by party divisions; and valuable national time is lost in unprofitable contentions. If the government be strong, the anarchical forces subside. Blessed is the land that is generally free from political strife.
II. STABLE GOVERNMENT VIGOROUSLY REPRESSES EVIL–DOERS. And on this the security and prosperity of a country most directly depends. Business can only be carried on where there is security for property and security for rights. Illustrate from the condition of Israel when “there was no king in the land, and every one did that which was right in his own eyes.”
III. STABLE GOVERNMENT CAN ENCOURAGE THE ARTS OF PEACE AND ACCOMPLISH JUDICIOUS REFORMS. It holds foreign relations with firm band, and so preserves peace. It can crush the agitator and heed the reformer. Spared from contention, it has time and means for aiding internal development. And it can stand by and preserve the liberties of those who, in a thousand ways, would spread among the people the knowledge of the true God and the eternal life. Therefore every good Christian and good citizen should strengthen the government of his day. “The powers that be are ordained of God.”R.T.
Isa 36:18
Insult offered to our God.
It is an insult to class Jehovah with the idol-gods created by heathen imaginations and presented in heathen symbolic figures. Jehovah is like none else; he is God alone. The impertinence of this Rabshakeb is seen in that he sets Jehovah among the petty and inferior gods of small nations, and assumes that Asshur and Ishtar, the gods of Assyria, were supreme above them all. Cheyne says, “The Assyrian is inconsistent. In his first speech he had stated himself to be the obedient instrument of Jehovah. Here he represents the wars of the Assyrians as inspired by a religious hostility to all the gods of the nations.” The point which may be illustrated isWhat should be our attitude in the presence of such insults? For they are offered now. The scoffer still lives. The sceptic still flings over God the dark shadow of his doubtings. Literature, too, often thinly veils its insults. We should variously meet the occasions, adapting our response to the nature of the insult and the character of him who offers it. Three forms of response may be considered.
I. CALM INDIFFERENCE. Very many of the bravely uttered scepticisms of our time are only designed to draw attention to those who utter them. They are in the nature of personal advertisements. Leave them alone. They are nothing; we must take care not to swell them into something by directing attention to them. Sometimes these insults are petty and nagging, but continuous. Again, indifference is the best treatment. Those who have faith in God make grave mistakes when they too vigorously defend God against the arrows of mere children. To noisy antagonism we may calmly say, “It doesn’t matter.”
II. NOBLE TESTIMONY. There is a time to speak. When insults have grown to such power that the faith of the young, or the work of grace in the world, is imperilled, we must speak out. The Christian apologist has his time and his sphere, especially when a kind of mania of unbelief seems to seize upon a people. Illustrate from the three Hebrew youths; the apostles before the Sanhedrini; Paul before Agrippa; Luther at the Diet of Worms, etc. Firm testimony of our personal convictions will often silence the scoffer.
III. ACTIVE VINDICATION. By reasonable judgments on those who offer the insult. Blasphemy ought to he a crime. By withdrawal from association with those who thus walk disorderly. The man who has no reverence for God has no basis of character which makes friendship with him safe. And by using all available means for clearing the outraged name, and upholding the imperilled honour of him who is our “All and in all.”R.T.
Isa 36:21
The strength of silence.
“They held their peace, and answered him not a word.” The readiest thing is to meet taunt with taunt, and rouse each other’s worst passions with mutual recriminations. The noblest thing is to meet undeserved and unworthy reproach and insult with the dignified silence which is born of trust in God as our Vindicator. But worthy silence must be carefully distinguished from the dumbness of the sulky temperament, which is a sign of the uncultured and ungoverned nature. We should never confuse the silence of stupidity with the silence of self-restraint. Matthew Henry quaintly and wisely says, “It is sometimes prudent” not to answer a fool according to his folly. “These Jews had reason enough on their side, but it would be hard to speak it to such an unreasonable adversary without a mixture of passion; and, if they should fall a-railing like him, Rabshakeh would be much too hard for them at that weapon.” Fixing attention on the two factsthat the people kept silence, and that they did so in obedience to Hezekiah, we get the following two points for illustration.
I. SILENCE IN AN EVIL TIME INDICATES SELF–MASTERY. Remember what the Apostle James says of the unruliness of the tongue. Observe how readily we are excited to answer again. Recall the anxiety of the psalmist about keeping the door of his lips. Notice how speakers are carried to the utterance of imprudent things by the heat of discussion. Estimate the mischief done by careless, cruel, or passionate words. And see the sublime example of our Lord when on his trial. “He answered nothing” “He held his peace.” This last expression suggests that silence is a sign of strength of will; the man who can keep silence is master of his actions, and master of himself Silence is oftentimes, in its effect, the truest and most powerful speech. It shames men; it quiets men; it reproaches men; it conquers the opposition of men; it shows the right to all bystanders and onlookers. It has been said that there is such a thing as a “Divine dumbness;” and Carlyle calls “speech silvern, silence golden.” The sublime self-mastery of Heaven is suggested in the declaration that “there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.”
II. SILENCE IN A PUBLIC EVIL TIME SHOWS POWER OF COMMAND OVER OTHERS. It was a great thing for Hezekiah to keep silence himself; anti it was a great thing also for him to command silence in the people. Only the man who can control himself can ever have the power to control others. Illustrations of the importance of this power of checking speech in others may be taken from family life and Church life. It is of special value in excited, irritating, quarrelsome times.R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Isa 36:1. Now it came to pass This famous expedition happened in the year of the world 4001, seven hundred and thirteen years before Christ. Concerning Sennacherib, see Univ. Hist. vol. 2: p. 79 vol. iv. 162, &c. All the defenced cities, must mean all those which were in the way; for it is plain that he had not taken all. See chap. Isa 37:8 and the Note.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
FIFTH SUBDIVISION
THE HISTORICAL PIECES: CONTAINING THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSYRIAN AND THE PREPARATION FOR THE BABYLONIAN PERIOD.
Isaiah 36-39
These four chapters run parallel with 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19. It is not hard to see why they are here. Chaps. 36 and 37 represent to us the contemporaneous fulfilment of the prophecies relating to Assyria. Chaps, 38 and 39 show how from afar () was begun the spinning of the first threads of that web of Babylonish complications that were at last so fatal. There is good internal ground for putting side by side these two retrospective and prospective histories, which Delitzsch aptly compares to the head of Janus. It is, moreover, natural that the retrospective should come before the prospective piece. But researches among the Assyrian monuments have established beyond doubt that the overthrow of Sennacherib did not occur in the fourteenth, but in the twenty-eighth year of Hezekiah; therefore not in 714 B. C., but in 700 B.C.
According to the annals and according to the Canon of Ptolemy, Sargon ascended also the throne of Babylon in 709 B. C. (see on Isa 38:1). For the latter calls the year 709 the first of , i.e., Sargon, Therefore Sennacherib cannot possibly have reigned as early as 714. The lists of regencies (comp. Schrader, p. 331, 268 sqq.) say distinctly that Sennacherib, after the murder of his father on the 12th Ab (July) of the year 705, ascended the throne. Lenormant, as learned as he is positive in his opinions (Les prem. civilis, 2. p. 237) says: In fact the attack of Sennacherib on the kingdom of Judah is fixed in a precise way at the third campaign of that king and at the year 700 B. C. by the text of the annals of his reign inscribed on a cylinder of baked earth possessed by the British Museum. It is said, in fact, that it precedes by one year the installation of Asurnadinzum as viceroy in Babylon, an event which, in the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy, is inscribed in 699. Consequently the expedition against Judah took place in the twenty-eighth and not in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. It appears not clearly made out whether Sennacheribs expedition against Judah occurred in 701 or in 700. Lenormant says 700, but Schrader (l. c.) is still in doubt. The difference is unessential. It appears to be occasioned by different computations of the beginnings of the years. I will follow that of Lenormant.
Now while it appears that chaps. 36 and 37 relate the events of 700 B. C., or of the twenty-eighth year of Hezekiahs reign, it is equally certain chaps 38 and 39 relate the events of 714, or of the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. For according to Isa 38:5 (see comm. in loc.) the Lord prolongs Hezekiahs life fifteen years. We know also from 2Ki 21:1 (2Ch 33:1) that Manasseh was twelve years old when he succeeded his father Hezekiah. From this results that he could only have been born after the seventeenth year of Hezekiahs reign. In the fourteenth then he was not yet born. And this explains both the grief of Hezekiah (Isa 38:3) and his great joy (Isa 38:19). But the following considerations show that Hezekiahs sickness and recovery and the embassy from Babylon did not occur before Sennacheribs overthrow: 1) The treasury chambers, still full, in contrast with 2Ki 18:14 sqq. (see Isa 39:2 and comm.). Had this been the spoil of an enemy, Hezekiah would have displayed it as such, and the Prophet (see comm. at Isa 39:6) would not have called it that which thy fathers have laid up in store. 2) The deliverance from Assyria is spoken of as in the future (Isa 38:6). 3) We do not find in Hezekiahs psalm (Psa 39:10 sqq.) the slightest reference to the miraculous deliverance spoken of in 36 and 37 which would be inexplicable if that glorious event were a thing of the past.
Accordingly it appears that chaps. 3639 are not chronologically arranged, but according to their contents, as already explained. [On the misunderstandings to which this has led and the possible change of the captions, see Introduction, 3,4.] The important question arises: which of these records is the original onethis in Isaiah 36-39, or the parallel one in 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19? It seems to me that no impartial reader can remain in doubt on this subject. The text of the Book of Kings is the older.
This appears probable from the fact that it is more comprehensive and stands in an historical book. For as certainly as prophecy needs history, so certainly it needs only such facts as verify its fulfilment. And the presumption is that this in Isaiah being the shorter, has been abbreviated for the ends of a prophetic book. Moreover it is better to think, if any alterations must be admitted, that they are of the nature of abbreviations, rather than arbitrary additions, which is the alternative, if the shorter text be regarded as the older. These probabilities become certainties when we view the difference in these passages in concreto. The differences on the part of Isaiah form two chief classes, abbreviations and corrections. Additions, i.e., where the text in Isaiah gives something more than the Book of Kings, there are none, except the psalm of thanksgiving, Isa 38:9-20. But this exception proves the rule. For it proves that the author of each book had in view his own object. Such a psalm suits better in a prophetic book to which song and prayer are kindred elements, than to historic annals. Moreover this psalm is so far important that it proves that, beside the two writings before us, there must have existed a third, that probably served as the source of both.
The abbreviations in Isaiahs text are of two sorts. They are partly the omission of historical data that seemed unsuited to the aim of the prophetic book. To this sort belong Isa 36:1-2; Isa 37:36; Isa 38:4-7 (where the whole text is much contracted). And partly also they are omissions of rhetorical and grammatical redundancies. Such are Isa 36:2; Isa 36:6-7; Isa 36:11-14; Isa 36:17; Isa 37:4 (comp. Isa 36:17; Isa 39:2), 11, 21, 25; Isa 39:2. I will refer for the particulars to the following commentary. But here I will call special attention to a few passages. Can any one deny that the accumulation of predicates in 2Ki 18:17 b are contracted into one word in Isa 36:2, wherein, besides, must become because Isaiah leaves out two of the three ambassadors? Or can it be denied that the picturesque, circumstantial of Kings has been contracted to the simple , Isa 36:13? Or must the editor of 2Ki 18:29 have added the surprising ? Did not rather the editor of the Isaiah text leave that word out because it was superfluous for him and seemed harsh?
But still more common are the differences that are due to corrections. They are the following: Isa 36:5; Isa 36:7; Isa 36:10-11; Isa 36:13; Isa 36:15; Isa 36:19; Isa 36:21; Isa 37:2; Isa 37:6; Isa 37:9; Isa 37:12-15; Isa 37:17-19; Isa 37:23-24; Isa 37:26-27; Isa 37:29-30; Isa 37:32; Isa 37:34-37; Isa 38:2-3; Isa 39:1-3; Isa 39:5-8. I will notice here the following: Isa 36:5 we have instead of . The latterthough at first sight strangeis undoubtedly correct (see comm.). Can have come from (2Ki 18:25 and Isa 36:10), or 2Ki 18:36, have come from , Isa 36:21? Is the of Isa 39:8 changed into 2Ki 20:19? These few examples and the others that are commented on more at length in the exposition below seem to prove irrefragably that we have in 2 Kings a more original text. Delitzsch (in Drechslers Comm. ii. p. 151 sqq. and in his own Comm., p. 373) is certainly right in saying that our chapters were not composed by the author of the Book of Kings himself, or drawn from the annals of the kingdom. I agree perfectly with his explanation of the difference between annalistic and prophetic writing of history, and according to which he ascribes our chapters to a prophetic source. I also quite agree with him, that an account composed by Isaiah must essentially be that source. For he justly appeals to the fact that, according to 2Ch 26:22, Isaiah wrote a history of king Uzziah, and elsewhere weaves historical accounts into his prophecies (7, 8, 20), and in them speaks of himself partly in the third person, as he does in 3639 I moreover willingly admit that the mention of the locality Isa 36:2, on account of almost literal agreement, connects with Isa 7:3, in fact presupposes it. And finally I have no objection to the statement that the author of 2 Kings had Isaiahs book before him, and that 2Ki 16:5 compared with Isa 7:1, may be adduced as proof. I even add to this that the two passages now reviewed are proof of this. For the author of 2 Kings could have accepted for his book the arrangement according to the contents and contrary to the chronology, only on the ground of the book of prophecy that lay before him. But I must controvert the view that 2Ki 18:13-30 is drawn from Isaiah 36-39 as its source. For reasons already given I think the text of 2 Kings the more original and better.
Isaiah may have written down an account of the remarkable events of which our chapters treat, a matter that is at least highly probable. From this source was first drawn what we have in 3639. These chapters are so suitable and even necessary where they are, that we may refer the idea of them to the Prophet himself, and even admit that he directed his account to be adopted into his book of prophecy, not unaltered, but with a suitable transposition of events and abbreviation of the text. Both were done, but the latter not quite in the sense of the Prophet. The result was as described in the Introduction, 3, 4 (at the end). But we must not suppose the false dates of Isa 36:1; Isa 38:1; Isa 39:1 were put by this first editor. The author of the Book of Kings, too, who wrote in the exile (probably 562536 B. C.) must have known the right relations of these chapters and the proper dates. For he had at the same time before him that historical account of the Prophet as his source, and reproduced it more perfectly and unaltered than his predecessors that had used it for the prophetic book. Possibly, while following the order of Isaiah, he may have retained the original dates of their common source. But in time, and for reasons easily conjectured, his text would experience the same alterations as to dates as did the parallel passages in Isaiah, and perhaps by the same hand. And if, in respect to chronological arrangement of the account, the Book of Kings differed from the prophetic book and agreed with their common original source, then it is probable that a later hand, perhaps the same that changed the dates in Isaiah, brought the Book of Kings in this respect into accord with the prophetic book.
Thus it is found, that the transposition of events in the prophetic book for material reasons has become the origin of that discrepancy between the Assyrian and Bible chronology of this historical epoch. We have seen in respect to the taking of Samaria that these two sources completely agree. Also for Manassehs time the agreement is satisfactory. Only for Hezekiahs time there existed this fatal difference of fourteen years in reference to the all-important event of Sennacheribs overthrow. This difference is seeming. It dissolves when we consider the misunderstandings occasioned by the transposition of the chapters.
So it can have been. I do not say that it must have been so. For in these ancient matters we will hardly be able ever to make out the exact course things have taken. Only that chap 3639 are not derived from Isaiah in their present form, but have proceeded by alteration and abbreviation from the original account of Isaiah seems to me certain.1
Delitzsch, in proof of the authenticity of the present text of Isaiah, appeals to 2Ch 32:32 : in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, (and) in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. He finds in this that an historical account of Hezekiah out of the collection of Isaiahs prophecies with the superscription passed over into the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. I admit that the words of the Chronicler have this sense, which is favored by 2Ch 20:34. But what is gained by that? Only that then, when the Chronicler wrote, the books of Isaiah and Kings were in existence, and that he supposed the text in Kings to be taken from Isaiah. He might have been moved to take this view by the recognized priority of Isaiahs book, and by the conviction that Isaiah was certainly the author of the text contained in his book. But this view of the Chronicler does not weaken the fact that the text in 2 Kings is more original and purer than that in Isaiah.
It has been objected to the claim of originality for the text in 2 Kings, that 2Ki 24:18 to 2Ki 25:30, although the original text, is still more corrupt than the parallel text, Jeremiah 52. This is in general true (see my comm. on Jer 52:1). But there one sees that the text of 2 Kings, being the older and more disintegrated, is, on account of adverse experiences, less preserved. But the text of Isaiah 36-39, on the contrary, has not become worse in process of time and by unfavorable circumstances, but it is from its origin worse through the faulty epitomizing and unfortunate emendations of its author.
The division of the chapters is very simple. Embassies play a great part in them. Chapters 36 and 37 contain the conclusion of the relations between Israel and Assyria. This first part has six subdivisions. 1) The embassy of Sennacherib to Hezekiah, chap. 36. 2) The embassy of Hezekiah to Isaiah, Isa 37:1-7. 3) The writing of Sennacherib to Hezekiah, Isa 37:8-13. 4) Hezekiahs prayer, Isa 37:14-20. 5) Isaiahs message to Hezekiah, Isa 37:21-35, 6) The deliverance, Isa 37:36-38. The second part that paves the way for the relations to Babylon has three subdivisions: 1) Hezekiahs sickness and recovery, chap. 38. (a. sickness, Isa 36:1-3; b. recovery, Isa 36:4-8; psalm of thanksgiving, Isa 36:9-20 [22]). 2) The Babylonian embassy, Isa 39:1-8.
____________________
I.THE CONCLUSION OF THE RELATIONS OF ISRAEL TO ASSYRIA
Isaiah 36, 37
1. THE EMBASSY OF SENNACHERIB TO HEZEKIAH
Isa 36:1-22
1Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them. 2And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish unto Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fullers field. 3Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiahs son, which was over the house, and Shebna the23scribe, and Joah, Asaphs son, the recorder.
4And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great 5king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou 4trustest? 5I say, sayest thou, (but they are but6 vain words) 7I have counsel and strength for war: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? 6Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this 8broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him. 7But if thou say to me, We trust in the Lord our God: is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, 8Ye shall worship before this altar? Now therefore9 give pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able 10on thy part to set riders upon them. 9How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my masters servants, 11and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? 10And am I now come up without the Lord against this land to destroy it? The Lord said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.
11Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants 12in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us 13in the Jews language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall. 12But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
13Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice iin the Jews language, and said, Hear ye the words of the great king, the king of Assyria. 14Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you. 15Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us: this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. 16Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, 1415Make an agreement with me by a present, 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 the waters of his own cistern; 17Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and 18wine, a land of bread and vineyards. Beware lest Hezekiah 16persuade you, saying, The Lord will deliver us. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out 19of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arphad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim? and 17have they delivered Samaria out of my 20hand? Who are they among all the gods of these lands, that have delivered their land out of my hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand? 21But they held their peace, and answered him not a word: for the kings command ment was, saying, Answer him not. 22Then came Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, that was over the household, and Shebna the 1ascribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rabshakeh.
TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL
Isa 36:2. The form occurs only here and 2Ki 18:17 as stat. absol. Yet comp. , which differs in meaning Isa 26:1. in the sense of considerable for number, comp. Num 20:20; 1Ki 3:9; 1Ki 10:2; 2Ki 6:14., abbreviated compared with 2Ki 18:17 b.; see introduction to this chapter. 2Ki 18:18 begins with And when they had called to the king, which are wanting here in accordance with the tendency to abbreviate.
Isa 36:5. Instead of 2 Kings has . I regard the latter as the correct reading, and that in Isaiah to be a correction, occasioned by not knowing that is parenthetical, and thus not understanding how Hezekiah could speak words that in the mouth of the Assyrian king could have good sense, but in Hezekiahs none. According to the question Isa 36:4, what confidence, etc.? the contents of this confidence is set forth: thou sayest namely: counsel and strength for war. The words are parenthetical, and words of the Assyrian, by which he gives his opinion of the expression imputed to Hezekiah. This expression is put as an exclamation, thus as a clause without explicit predicate. This is a somewhat pathetic form of sentence. It reveals an intention of making Hezekiahs words appear to be empty pathos, absurd boastfulness. If the entire first clause of verse 5 were to be construed as the utterance of the Assyrian, then the second clause must begin with instead of . For then a reason would need to follow showing Hezekiahs words to be empty boast. But if Isa 36:5 a contain in its chief clause Hezekiahs words, then is perfectly in place. For then by means of it Hezekiah is summoned to establish his (so-called) boast. Come, now! in what dost thou trust that thou rebellest against me?
Isa 36:6. before , and after are missing here for abbreviations sake. is paratactic.
Isa 36:7. for and the omission of at the end of the verse are further marks of simplifying and abbreviating.
Isa 36:8. after evidently means to thy advantage. It is dat. commodi: meaning, thou mayest use these horses for your advantage against me, in case you can mount them with riders.
Isa 36:9. elsewhere means to turn away, refuse, in reference to suppliants (comp. 1Ki 2:16-17; 1Ki 2:20). Only here is it used of turning away an attack. But comp. Isa 14:27., which occurs first 1Ki 10:15, of Solomons , i.e., governors of the land, has been since Benfey (Monatsnamen, p. 195), derived from the Sanscrit, from pakscha, socius, amicus. But Schrader (p. 88 sq.) places the Semitic origin of the word beyond doubt. He lays stress on its appearance in such ancient Hebrew documents, and maintains that this is proved by the Assyrian documents. In Assyrian the word is used and modified like any other word of pure Semitic origin. From a singular pahat is formed a plural pahati; not less immediately from the root the abstract pihat = satrapy. The word does not occouragain in Isaiah; but does in Jer 51:23; Jer 51:28; Jer 51:57; Eze 23:6; Eze 23:23; Hag 1:1; Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2; Hag 2:21; Mal 1:8.Preceding there is no explicit verbal form on which the vav consecutive can support itself; but the Prophet connects it with the implied affirmation thou canst thyself do nothing.
Isa 36:10. 2Ki 18:25 begins without. The here is likely imitated from Isa 36:7-9. But Isa 36:10 is not parallel with what precedes. For the Assyrian here turns their weapons against them. Hence the reading in 2 Kings is the correct one. Moreover the first clause of Isa 36:10 has instead of 2Ki 18:25, which also appears to be a correction, occasioned either by the thought that Sennacherib did not come up merely against Jerusalem, or by the fact that stands also in the second clause, or both. That is exchanged here for is of inferior significance (comp. Isaiah 39:9).
Isa 36:12. The consonants of the Kthibh, according to the view hitherto prevalent (comp. e.g., Fuerst in the Propylaea Masor, p.1366), are to be pointed (2Ki 18:27 ) which word implies a singular . But Delitzsch points or taking as the ground form, which is quite possible. The word occurs beside only 2Ki 6:25, where perhaps simply is to be read. The meaning is stercus, excrementum. For the Masorets the expression is indecent. Hence they substitute (from = exeuntia, comp. Isa 4:4; Isa 28:8; Pro 30:12); as immediately afterwards for (from Plur. , urina, only here and 2Ki 18:27) they put .
Isa 36:11-12. The differences between the present readings and 2 Kings are inconsiderable. In verse 11 son of Hilkiah is omitted, before instead of (a correction because the latter seemed too familiar). In verse 12 is omitted before Rabshakeh; we have instead of before (in order to restore likeness of expression when there is likeness of meaning; 2 Kings however would avoid the many ) instead of (the in Isaiah being intended likely to make the etymology more noticeable). Here then appears a tendency to abbreviate and correct.
Isa 36:13-14. , unused in Kal, may be used in the Hiph., also in the direct causative sense, and hence may mean to cause , i.e., fraudem, deception, which explains the construction (here and Jer 29:8) with the dative, along with the construction with the accusative (Gen 3:13; Jer 37:9; 2Ki 19:10, etc.).In Isa 36:13 the of 2Ki 18:28 omitted as superfluous: we have, instead of because they are many words. Isa 36:14 does not end as 2Ki 18:29 with , which is both abbreviation and removal of the harshness of combining let not Hezekiah deceive, which are the words of the king and from his hand, which are spoken by the ambassador.
Isa 36:15. gives an easier construction than 2 Kings 18, though the latter is the correct reading. As to the third pers. fem. see 1Sa 30:6; 2Sa 13:2; Psa 33:9; Lam 3:37. On comp. Jer 28:15; Jer 29:31.
Isa 36:16. are imperatives by attraction of those preceding and supply the place of Futures.
Isa 36:17-18. The end of the verse shows considerable abbreviation compared with 2Ki 18:32, which see. Isaiah omits the description of the land of exile as superfluous, and also the repetition of the warning against Hezekiah. beginning Isa 36:18, (occasioned by the omission last mentioned), stands here independent of any foregoing verb, of which there are other examples (Job 36:18; Jer 51:46). or properly means stimulare, to incite, set on, from which develops the meaning seduce, deceive (comp. Jos 15:18; 1Sa 26:19; 2Sa 24:1).The omission of found in the parallel of 2Ki 18:33 is again a plain proof of abbreviation.
Isa 36:19. If the text of the second clause be correct ( here instead of the simple 2Ki 18:34), the construction is bold and unusual. The subject of is wanting and must be supplied from what precedes. It might be, say: or ?Isaiah omits the words that appear in 2Ki 18:34. These words are in both texts, Isa 37:13 and 2Ki 19:13. Delitzsch supposes they are patched into 2 Kings from Isa 37:13. Tome it seems more probable that they were purposely omitted in our verse. For consider that Isa 37:10-13 Hezekiah is addressed. There it is said: Let thy God not deceive thee; where is the king of Hamath, etc.? Thus the sense there is: it will be no better for thee, king Hezekiah, than for the king of Hamath, etc. But Isa 36:14-20 the people are addressed: Let not Hezekiah deceive you by pointing you to Jehovahs help. Where are the gods of Hamath, etc.? Readers that construed the words as verbs (see on Isa 37:13) must have found it as improper to say: deos expulit et subvertit, as they found it proper to say: regem expulit et subvertit.
Isa 36:20. The plural does not conflict with , for this interrogative is found only in the singular: this singular may be taken as collective., after a question referring to the future, may be taken in the sense of ut; but fundamentally it means quod, and has a causal sense: Who has delivered? Are there any way gods (beside the Assyrian gods) that deliver? because (according to your opinion) Jehovah will deliver Jerusalem.[The parallel 2Ki 18:35 omits these before lands; another exception to the general statement that the narrative of Isaiah is an abridgement.J. A. A.].
Isa 36:21. instead of of 2Ki 18:36. Hezekiah had commanded his representatives to make no response. With that corresponds. The reading of 2 Kings is usually translated: and they kept silence, the people, being construed in apposition. Rather than this strange construction I think a more probable rendering is: and they hushed the people. means mutum esse, silere (Psa 28:1; Psa 35:22; Psa 1:3, etc). Hiphil means first mutum reddere, ad silentium redigere aliquem. Yet it is true that it occurs seldom in this sense (Job 11:3). Usually Hiphil is direct causative=mutitatem facere, to make silence, to be silent. Here, they made the people be silent would imply that many of them wanted to reply to the words of Isa 36:12 sqq., but that Hezekiahs messengers, even before Rabshakeh had finished, had commanded silence and themselves made no response. According to this the perfect does not merely continue the recital, but states an accompanying circumstance that had already occurred before Rabshakeh had done speaking. But the reviser of Isaiahs text was not acquainted with this meaning of the Perfect [!]. He thought the word meant only to continue the recital. Therefore he changed it to the Imperfect with Vav consec.
Isa 36:22. , the participle in the construct state retains the construction of its verb with the accusative; comp. 2Sa 13:31.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. In the fourteenth year (after the sickness of) Hezekiah Sennacherib conquered all Judea excepting the capital. He sent Rabshakeh from Lacish with a considerable array to demand the surrender of the latter. Rabshakeh first seeks to convince the messengers of Hezekiah that they could rely neither on Egypt (Isa 36:6), nor on Jehovah (Isa 36:7), nor on their own might (Isa 36:8-9), especially as the king of Assyria had undertaken his expedition against Judea by Jehovahs express commission (Isa 36:10). These words he had spoken in the dialect of Judea. Hezekiahs messengers having requested him to speak in Aramaic (Isa 36:11), Rabshakeh answered that his mission was properly just to the dwellers of Jerusalem hearkening there on the city wall (Isa 36:12). Then he calls with a loud voice to them (Isa 36:13) not to let Hezekiah deceive them by any illusion about their own power, or about the aid of Jehovah (Isa 36:14-15). Let them rather give themselves up to the king of Assyria. He will for the present leave them in peaceful possession of their own (Isa 36:16), till He shall come for the purpose of deporting them to a good land like their own (Isa 36:17). They must the less expect help from Jehovah seeing no god had been able to protect his land from the power of Assyria (Isa 36:18-20). By Hezekiahs command the messengers made no reply, but with rent garments, in token of dismay at what they heard, they conveyed the message to the king (Isa 36:21-22).
2. Now it cametook them.
Isa 36:1. According to the Assyrian monuments Sennacherib (Assyrian Sin-ahi-irib or Sin-ahi-ir-ba, i.e., Sin (=Luna) multiplicat fratres, Heb. ) became king in the year 705 B.C, on the 12th of the month Ab (Schrader, p. 331). He was the son and successor of Sargon, and reigned to the year 681. Sennacherib relates to us the events of his third campaign on two monuments with nearly identical inscriptions, viz.: an hexagonal clay cylinder, and the bulls at the portal of the palace at Kuyyundschik. Their contents is chiefly as follows. Sennacherib moved first against Phnicia. King Eluleus of Sidon fled to Cyprus. The Assyrians conquered all Phnicia, and Sennacherib installed Etobal as king. The kings Menahem of Samaria (?), Etobal of Sidon, Abdilit of Arvad, Urniski of Byblos, Mitinti of Ashdod, Puduil of Amnion, Kamosnadab of Moab, Malikram of Edom, the whole of the kings of the westland (?) did homage and brought presents. But Zidka of Ascalon would not do homage. Hence he was expelled and another put in his place. Also the cities of his territory (?) Bet-Dagon, Joppa, Benebarak, Azur were conquered. The inhabitants of Ekron had imprisoned their king Padi, who held faithfully to the Assyrians, and in the shadow of the night had delivered him to Hezekiah. But the kings of Egypt and Meroe, as allies of the Palestinian opponents of Assyria, had led up a great army. In the vicinity of Altaku (Eltekeh Jos 19:44; Jos 21:23 in the territory of Dan, between Timnat and Ashdod) there was a battle. The Assyrians claimed the victory.
Thus it appears that what was undertaken against Judah formed merely an episode of this expedition. Sennacherib relates that he took forty-six of the fortified cities of Judah, and shut Hezekiah up in his capital like a bird in its cage. He then threw up fortifications against Jerusalem and caused the exit of the great gate to be broken through. The conquered cities he gave to Mitinti of Ashdod, Padi of Ekron, and Ismibil of Gaza. Thereupon Hezekiah was greatly alarmed and agreed to pay tribute, and by his messengers payed thirty (30) talents of gold and eight hundred (800) talents of silver. So far the Assyrian inscriptions.
One sees how accurately they agree with the Bible account, in our text and in 2 Kings 18. The Bible account says three hundred talents of silver (2Ki 18:14). This difference is only apparent. For 800 Assyrian talents are exactly equal to 300 Palestinian (Schrader,l. c. p. 197, 25).
But with this agreement there is a considerable discrepancy in these two accounts in respect to chronology. Both accounts agree in giving the year 722 B.C, for the taking of Samaria by Sargon. But before and after this the statements diverge. According to the monuments Sennacherib became king only 705 B.C, while the Biblical account places this expedition which he himself calls his third in the year 714. This difference between the Assyrian and Biblical chronology is limited for the time after 722 to the date of expedition of Sennacherib against Palestine and Egypt. For, as Schrader (p. 300) expressly says, in respect to the time of Mannasseh both reckonings agree satisfactorily: [For the Authors method of reconciling this discrepancy in date, see the general Introd. 3, and the introduction to chapters 3639]. The omission of three verses 2Ki 18:14 sqq., relating to the payment of ransom show the designed abbreviation of this account.
3. And the kingthe recorder.
Isa 36:2-3. Schrader (p. 199) remarks on Rabshakeh that there occurs no mention on the monuments of the chief cup-bearer, as a high dignitary and officer of state. But rab–sak is mentioned. That however is not the chief cup-bearer. For sak means chief, captain, collective chiefs. Therefore rab-sak is the chief of the captains (comp. rab sarisim, rab tabbachim), perhaps the chief of the generals staff. Then the form is a Hebraizing occasioned by accordance of sound with Gen 40:1 sqq. Chald. or which means pincerna, pocillator. The names Tartan and Rabsaris 2Ki 18:17 are omitted here. Lacish, whence this detachment of troops came, is the modern Umm-Lkhis, in the S. W., of Judea near the border of Philistia, on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza. This was the extreme southern point to which Sennacherib penetrated at that time. On the approach of the Egyptian army he retired to Altaku (Eltekeh) that lay N. E. of Lacish. There is a bas-relief (Schrader, p. 170) with the inscription: Sennacherib, the king of the nations, the king of the land of Assyria, sits on an exalted throne and receives the spoil of the city Lacish.
And he stood,etc. The locality is described by exactly the same words that Isa 7:3 describe the place where Isaiah was to meet Ahaz. That now the Assyrians stand in such threatening attitude by the conduit of the upper pool is the fruit of Ahaz having so insolently rejected the promise given him at that time, and in the same place, and having preferred to call Assyria to his aid. We do not err, therefore, in understanding by this literal agreement of the naming of the place in both passages, that an intimation of the divine nemesis is intended. On Eliakim the chamberlain and Shebna the scribe see Isa 22:15; Isa 22:20 sqq. The scribe appears as a state officer first under David, 2Sa 8:17, where he is distinguished from several other officers. He was the kings secretary, who wrote all that the kings service demanded. Thus his office would lead him to meddle with every branch of government, and we find him expressly mentioned in matters of finance (2Ki 22:3 sqq.), and of war (2Ki 25:19; Jer 52:25). The (LXX. , , Vulg.,a commentariis), is certainly not the monitor (Thenius), but the one that was charged with recording the res gestas of the king, and of the kingdom, and preserving them for posterity (comp. 2Sa 8:16; 2Sa 20:24; 2Ki 4:3; 2Ch 34:8). As is well-known, national archives are found not only among civilized but also among uncivilized people. Of Joah, Asaphs son, nothing more is known. Both the names are Levitical, comp. 1Ch 6:6; 1Ch 29:12; 1Ch 26:4. In 2Ch 34:8 is mentioned a Joah son of Joahaz, who was recorder to king Josiah.
4. And Rabshakehdestroy it.
Isa 36:4-10. On the Assyrian monuments the kings designate themselves, or are designated, great king, mighty king, king of the nations. The Assyrian seeks to prove to Hezekiah that his only recourse is to yield himself unconditionally to the great king. That thou rebellest. It may be asked: does this refer to the matter mentioned 2Ki 18:7, or to that mentioned 2Ki 18:14 sqq., viz.: the refusal to surrender the city in addition to the ransom? Both must be understood. For to the Assyrian, that refusal was only a symptom that the rebellious disposition was not sufficiently broken.
In showing further, how nugatory every thing was on which Hezekiah relied, he calls Egypt a bruised reed, that breaks when one rests on it and pierces the hand. This reproach was well founded. Isaiah himself says the same Isa 30:3; Isa 30:5; Isa 30:7 in other words. Eze 29:6-7, employs this figure, amplifying it. In another sense and connection Isaiah uses the image of the bruised reed Isa 42:3, where and used together show that the former word does not mean broken but bruised. What the Assyrian says Isa 36:6 is an undeniable truth. But he omits making it general as the prophets did. For what was true of Egypt was equally true of Assyria, and of any other world-power. They do no favor for nothing, but sell their aid so dear, that it becomes doubtful whether friend or foe harms the most. [The charge of relying on Egypt may be true, or it may be a malicious fabrication, or a shrewd guess from analogy.J. A. Alexander.]
Isa 36:7. As proof that even Jehovah cannot be expected to help; the Assyrian appeals to the fact that Hezekiah has done away with all the high-places and altars of Jehovah, and has left remaining only a single spot for worship in Jerusalem. As is well-known Hezekiah did away with all high-places in Judea, even those that were monotheistic, consecrated to Jehovah (2Ki 18:4, comp. J. G. Muller in Herz.R.-Encycl., VI. p. 176), and thus had stringently carried out the principle of the one, and only authorized central sanctuary. In 2Ch 32:12 it reads ye shall worship before one altar, and burn incense upon it, instead of, as here, ye shall worship before this altar. The Assyrian, ignorant of the higher commandment that had prompted Hezekiahs obedience, saw in this conduct a reduction, an arrest of Jehovah-worship. Less probable is the explanation that the Assyrian has in mind what is related 2Ki 16:10-17, and has confounded Ahaz and Hezekiah. For such confusion is hardly credible. Isa 36:8. He next holds up to contempt Hezekiahs own power. His derisive proposition intimates both the abundance of Assyrias cavalry and war chariots (comp. Isa 5:28) and the weakness of Judah in this respect. is to pledge, then to pledge for others, i.e., go security, and in fact in the double sense of a benefit to be done to a third party (e.g., 38:14, Gen 43:9) or of a performance incumbent on a third party. But there is a pledging when two or more bind themselves to a performance in common, even when the pledging is not specifically made prominent or is silently presumed. Thus the word acquires the meaning, to enter into, become one, to mix oneself in with. Here the notion sponsio appears evident: pledge thyself, i.e., unite thyself by a mutual pledge with the king of Assyria. But as under the present circumstances the one party pledged himself to conditions he thinks impossible to the other, the pledging acquires the significance of a wager, in which sense also Clericus has taken the word.
Isa 36:9. Two inferences are drawn from the representation of Isa 36:8; the positive, that Hezekiah cannot hope to resist the least captain of Assyria, and the negative, that this personal inability explains how Judah must be leaning on Egypt. The relation of to what follows is not simple genitive of the subject (commander of the small servants, Knobel), but is a partitive genitive: of one captain from among the most inferior servants of my lord, i.e., who belongs to the most inferior servants of my lord. Isa 36:10. The Assyrian feigns to have received a commission direct from Jehovah to go against Judah and destroy it. That this was false appears from Isa 37:6; Isa 37:21 sqq., where the Lord Himself pronounces the words of the Assyrian blasphemous, and takes Judah in protection after a grand fashion. The Assyrian may possibly have heard something of Isaiahs prophecies, who, he may have known, was then in Jerusalem, which prophecies treated of a subjection of Judah to Assyria (comp. Isa 7:17 sqq., Isa 10:5 sqq.). These and similar prophetic utterances may have afforded the occasion for this pretext. But no prophecy go up against this land and destroy it, nor anything like it exists in Isaiah, or any other Prophet.
5. Then said Eliakimwords of Rabshakeh.
Isa 36:11-22. Hezekiahs messengers had so far hearkened in silence. But apprehensive of the effect of the words of Isa 36:10 on the people assembled on the wall, they beg the messenger of the Assyrian not to speak the Jewish tongue but to speak in Aramaic. The people might easily take this pretended mandate for reality. Had not the Lord Himself called Assyria the rod of mine anger (Isa 10:5)? Discouragement might arise from this among the people, and paralyze every effort at self-defense. means primarily the dialect of the tribe of Judah. It was thus spoken in Jerusalem and was the purest and best Hebrew. Rabshakeh spoke this dialect. A considerable time had elapsed since that fatal resort of Ahaz to Assyria spoken of in chap. 7, certainly more than twenty-five years. During this time the Assyrian rulers were in constant intercourse with Judah, and were properly attentive to Jewish affairs. This explains how there would be in their court persons that could speak the dialect of Judah. Besides the Assyrian and Hebrew languages were daughters of the same Semitic stem, and an Assyrian would find no great difficulty in learning Hebrew. See the Assyrian Grammars of Oppert 1859 and of Menant, 1868. Eliakim would not have called the dialect of the northern Israelites, Jewish had Rabshakeh spoken that. For at that time the name Judah had not become the national name as it did after the exile. At the latter period comprised all that was Hebrew, even what had perhaps attached itself to the tribe of Judah from the isolated elements of the other tribes (comp. Neh 13:24). By Eliakim understood, not the mother-tongue of the Assyrian, but the Syro-Chaldaic-Aramaic, thus the language whose territory lay between that of the Hebrew and of the Assyrian and that was suited for mediating between them. According to Alex. Polyhistor. in Eusebius,Chron., arm. I. p. 43, Sennacherib erected a monument to himself with a Chaldaic inscription, and with the later Persian kings Aramaic seems to have been the government language for intercourse with the nations of western Asia (Ezr 4:7). Our passage shows that Aramaic would not be known to all people of Judah without study and of course.
Eliakims remonstrance only exposed a weak place, of which Rabshakeh immediately took advantage. He noticed, that his words were regarded as likely to produce an impression among the people prejudicial to Hezekiahs intention, and at once he acts as if his mission were to the people, and not at all to Hezekiah, though Isa 36:4 and 2Ki 18:18-19 show the contrary. He proceeds therefore to warn the people to save themselves from the dreadful fate that impended, and to beware of letting Hezekiah deceive them. In , with you, end of Isa 36:12, there is emphasis implying reproach for those addressed. The Assyrian means: those sitting on the wall will fare well with us (comp. come out to me Isa 36:16), but they will have to endure the dreadfulest distress with you. Isa 36:16-17. Rabshakeh makes definite proposals in the name of the king of Assyria, in opposition to the designs of Hezekiah against which he warns them. Make with me a blessing, i.e., an alliance of blessing, he says. is not merely the blessing itself, but also, by metonymy, either what the blessing involves (comp. Gen 12:2 ), or what the blessing produces (e.g., a rich gift 1Sa 25:27, etc.). Thus here the alliance, the treaty is called because, in the opinion of the Assyrian, it would be a source of blessing. The word occurs in this sense nowhere else. with often occurs in the sense of deditio:1Sa 11:3; 1Ki 20:31; Jer 21:9; Jer 38:2; Jer 38:21. To eat his vine and his fig tree, and drink his waters (metonymic expressions, comp. on Isa 1:7; Isa 5:18) is a figurative description of a peaceful and undisturbed existence (comp. Mic 4:4; 1Ki 5:5). On Isa 36:17 Schrader remarks: Such a recommendation of surrender to the Assyrian were even for an Assyrian a little maladroit. I cannot see that. The fate that Rabshakeh proposed was relatively a mild one. Humanly speaking, there was no hope of deliverance. If the Assyrian would revenge the revolt of Hezekiah on the capital, who would hinder him? Even after a glorious defence, which was sure to be attended with much suffering, they must prepare for entire destruction attended with great cruelties. This or the proposition of Isa 36:16-17 were the alternatives to the Assyrian. It certainly never entered into his mind to treat them with sentimental mildness. A land of bread and vineyards is a more comprehensive expression than a land of corn and wine. For bread (see Isa 28:28) represents here every sort of vegetable that gives bread, and in vine-yards not only vines grow, but also other noble trees (comp. Jdg 15:5).
Isa 36:18-20. Rabshakeh repeats the warning against illusive hopes of help from Jehovah, and would prove that they are illusive by appealing to facts that showed how the heathen gods had been unable to save their lands. The question where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad?etc., is not meant as denying the existence of these gods generally, but only to demonstrate their inability and unworthiness to let themselves be seen, i.e., to show themselves in a clear light. They are brought to shame and must hide themselves. On Hamath and Arpad see Isa 10:9. According to the Assyrian monuments (see Schrader, p. 152), Sargon, in the second year of his reign, therefore a year after the conquest of Samaria, conquered king Ilubid of Hamath, and took as the royal share of the spoils 200 chariots and 600 horsemen. From this is inferred that he transported most of the rest of the inhabitants. And in fact we read 2Ki 17:24 that, among others, people from Hamath were transplanted in Samaria. Arpad, that is never named except with Hamath, does not appear in the inscriptions after Sargon (Schrader, p. 204). It likely shared therefore the fate of Hamath. Rabshakeh does not mean to enumerate here the conquests of Sennacherib. But he would remind the men of Judah of examples of transplanted nations well-known to them. By which Assyrian king it was done was unimportant. It was enough that Assyrian kings could do this. The words Isa 36:18-19, are, besides a fulfilment of the prophecy Isa 10:7-11.
Isa 36:21-22. Hezekiahs prohibition of any reply was wise. A single incautious word might occasion great harm, as was in fact proved by Eliakims blundering interruption Isa 36:11. Every reply needed to be maturely considered. Those were serious and significant moments in which only he ought to speak who was qualified, and authorized to represent the entire nation.
Footnotes:
[1][The reader versed in studies belonging to the general subject of Introduction will be reminded by the foregoing of the Urevangelium, the original Gospel, the fascination of German critics of the New Testament. Its foundation is conjecture, and nothing better than probability at best. Though one accumulate a mountain of such conjectural probabilities, they will no more sustain a fact or make a fact than a cloud will sustain a pebble or condense into a pebble. The same may be said of the Authors original Isaiah history. On the general subject treated of in the foregoing, J. A. Alexander, in his introduction to chapter 36, says: The simple, common-sense view of the matter is, that since the traditional position of these chapters among the writings of Isaiah corresponds exactly to the known fact of his having written a part of the history of Judah, the presumption in favor of his having written both the passages in question cannot be shaken by the mere possibility, or even intrinsic probability of other hypotheses, for which there is not the least external evidence. And again on Isa 38:1 he says: Why may we not suppose that the overthrow of Sennacherib occurred in the interval between Hezekiahs sickness and the embassy from Merodach-baladan? It is altogether natural that the Prophet, after carrying the history of Sennacherib to its conclusion, should go back to complete that of Hezekiah alsoTR.]
[2]Or, secretary.
[3]the chancellor.
[4]confidest.
[5]I say it is mere lip work the counsel and strength for carrying on war.
[6]Heb. a word of lips.
[7]Or, but counsel and strength are for war.
[8]bruised.
[9]make a wager.
[10]for thee(i. e., for thy advantage).
[11]And trustest thou, etc.?
[12]in Aramaic.
[13]in Judaic.
[14]Or, seek my favor by a present.
[15]Heb. make with me a blessing.
[16]incite.
[17](where were your gods) that delivered Samaria, etc.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
In this, and the three following chapters, the prophet is relating somewhat of the history of the Church, and not delivering a prophecy. He relates in this chapter, the descent of the king of Assyria upon Judah; and dwells largely upon the arrogant blasphemy of his general, Rabshakeh.
Isa 36
As the great object of this Commentary is to bring the scriptures in a way of explanation to the humblest capacities, and at the same time to suit the scantiest pockets; I think it unnecessary to say more on this chapter, than to Make reference to what hath been already offered on this same history, in the Poor Man’s Commentary, on the Second Book of the Kings. If the Reader will consult what was said on 2Ki 18 ; 2Ki 19 , and 2Ki 20 he will find what I hope the Lord will bless to his perusal; to that scripture, therefore, and the observations upon it, I refer him: I only beg him to remark the importance of the scripture itself, as a history, in the Church of God, which cannot be more evident than from this one circumstance, that God the Holy Ghost hath caused it to be twice recorded. My motive for passing it over here, without further observations, I hope the Reader will not mistake; it is to avoid unnecessary repetitions, and rather to lead to the seeking of divine teaching. May the Lord, again and again, bless the perusal of it, both to writer and Reader, to the divine glory, and to our furtherance in salvation.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Blasphemy of Rabshakeh
Isaiah 36-39
The prophecies of Isaiah constitute a threefold division: first, Isaiah 1-35; second, Isaiah 36-39; third, Isaiah 40-46. We have just considered the noble words which formed the peroration of Isaiah’s political eloquence. The four chapters (Isaiah chapters 36-39), were possibly not written by Isaiah himself; they may, it is thought, have been appended by some disciple or editor in the time of Ezra. In proper chronology Isa 38 , Isa 39 should come first. For our purpose it will be enough to pause here and there at some point of direct spiritual utility. For example, here is a man, a chief officer or cupbearer, Rabshakeh by name, who represents the king of Assyria, and embodies the brutality and blasphemy which have ever distinguished the enemies of truth and righteousness. Rabshakeh began his communications with Hezekiah by a taunt. He reminded the king that he had trusted in the staff of a broken reed, that is, upon Egypt; “whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him” ( Isa 36:6 ). Rabshakeh had the advantage of truth on this occasion, and he wished to push it to undue uses or extract from it fallacious inferences, on the supposition that Hezekiah being able to confirm his testimony upon one point would be predisposed to accept it on another. Rabshakeh offered to lay a wager when he said, “Now therefore give pledges” ( Isa 36:8 ). The proposition is marked by extreme ludicrousness, being nothing less than to find two thousand horses for the use of Hezekiah if the king on his part should be able to set riders upon them. This was the taunt of defiance; this has about it all the brutality of men who know that their proud offers cannot be accepted. Where there is great weakness on the one side, it is easy to boast of great pomp and power on the other.
Rabshakeh continued his empty boast either personally or representatively, when he said, “I now come up without the Lord against this land to destroy it” ( Isa 36:10 ). Here we have an instance of a perverted truth. Isaiah had distinctly taught that it was Jehovah himself who had brought the king of Assyria into Judah, and they who were opposed to the people of God were prepared to say that such being the case it was evident that the king of Assyria was really the representative of the God of heaven, and now Rabshakeh or the king of Assyria may be said to assume the character of a defender of the faith.
Rabshakeh made a bold appeal to the people when he said, “Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, 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 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” ( Isa 36:16-17 ). How eloquent was Rabshakeh in the telling of lies! Hezekiah’s people had only to leave the besieged city, and to go into the Assyrian camp, and they would be allowed the greatest privileges; thus Rabshakeh adds the torment of sarcasm to the sufferings of war, and actually proposes to the people to accept the doom of exile as if it were a change for the better! It is supposed that the taunt and the promise may perhaps be connected with Senra-cherib’s boast that he had made the water supply of the cities of his empire.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXVII
THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST IN ISAIAH
The relation between the New Testament Christ and prophecy is that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. To him give all the prophets witness. All the scriptures, the law, the prophets, and the psalms, testify of him. And we are fools, and slow of heart to credit adequate testimony when we distrust any part of the inspired evidence.
Of the ancient prophets Isaiah was perhaps the most notable witness of the coming Messiah. An orderly combination of his many messianic utterances amounts to more than a mere sketch, indeed, rather to a series of almost life-sized portraits. As a striking background for these successive portraits the prophet discloses the world’s need of a Saviour, and across this horrible background of gloom the prophet sketches in startling strokes of light the image of a coming Redeemer.
In Isa 2:2-4 we have the first picture of him in Isaiah, that of the effect of his work, rather than of the Messiah himself. This is the establishment of the mountain of the Lord’s house on the top of the mountains, the coming of the nations to it and the resultant millennial glory.
In Isa 4:2-6 is another gleam from the messianic age in which the person of the Messiah comes more into view in the figure of a branch of Jehovah, beautiful and glorious. In sketching the effects of his work here the prophet adds a few strokes of millennial glory as a consummation of his ministry.
In Isa 7:14 he delineates him as a little child born of a virgin, whose coming is the light of the world. He is outlined on the canvas in lowest humanity and highest divinity, “God with us.” In this incarnation he is the seed of the woman and not of the man.
The prophet sees him as a child upon whom the government shall rest and whose name is “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6 ). This passage shows the divinity of Christ and the universal peace he is to bring to the world. In these names we have the divine wisdom, the divine power, the divine fatherhood, and the divine peace.
In Isa 11:1-9 the prophet sees the Messiah as a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, i.e., of lowly origin, but possessing the Holy Spirit without measure who equips him for his work, and his administration wrought with skill and justice, the result of which is the introduction of universal and perfect peace. Here the child is presented as a teacher. And such a teacher! On him rests the seven spirits of God. The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and the fear of the Lord. He judges not according to appearances and reproves not according to rumors. With righteousness he judges the poor and reproves with equality in behalf of the meek. His words smite a guilty world like thunderbolts and his very breath slays iniquity. Righteousness and faithfulness are his girdle. He uplifts an infallible standard of morals.
In Isa 40:3-8 appears John the Baptist, whom Isaiah saw as a voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way for the coming King.
In Isa 11:2 ; Isa 42:1 ; Isa 61:1-3 the prophet saw the Messiah as a worker in the power of the Spirit, in whom he was anointed at his baptism. This was the beginning of his ministry which was wrought through the power of the Holy Spirit. At no time in his ministry did our Lord claim that he wrought except in the power of the Holy Spirit who was given to him without measure.
In Isa 35:1-10 the Messiah is described as a miracle worker. In his presence the desert blossoms as a rose and springs burst out of dry ground. The banks of the Jordan rejoice. The lame man leaps like a hart, the dumb sing and the blind behold visions. The New Testament abounds in illustrations of fulfilment. These signs Christ presented to John the Baptist as his messianic credentials (Mat 11:1-4 ).
The passage (Isa 42:1-4 ) gives us a flashlight on the character of the Messiah. In the New Testament it is expressly applied to Christ whom the prophet sees as the meek and lowly Saviour, dealing gently with the blacksliding child of his grace. In Isa 22:22 we have him presented as bearing the key of the house of David, with full power to open and shut. This refers to his authority over all things in heaven and upon earth. By this authority he gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter one for the Jews and the other for the Gentiles who used one on the day of Pentecost and the other at the house of Cornelius, declaring in each case the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God. This authority of the Messiah is referred to again in Revelation:
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying. Fear not: I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore and I have the keys of death and of Hades. Rev 7:17
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphis write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and shutteth and none openeth. Rev 3:7
In Isa 32:1-8 we have a great messianic passage portraying the work of Christ as a king ruling in righteousness, in whom men find a hiding place from the wind and the tempest. He is a stream in a dry place and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
In Isa 28:14-18 the Messiah is presented to w as a foundation stone in a threefold idea:
1. A tried foundation stone. This is the work of the master mason and indicates the preparation of the atone for its particular function.
2. An elect or precious foundation stone. This indicates that the stone was selected and appointed. It was not self-appointed but divinely appointed and is therefore safe.
3. A cornerstone, or sure foundation stone. Here it is a foundation of salvation, as presented in Mat 16:18 . It is Christ the Rock, and not Peter. See Paul’s foundation in 1 Corinthians:
According to the grace of God which was given unto me; as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1Co 3:10-11 .
In Isa 49:1-6 he is presented as a polished shaft, kept close in the quiver. The idea is that he is a mighty sword. In Revelation, Christ is presented to John as having a sharp, twoedged sword proceeding out of his mouth.
In Isa 50:2 ; Isa 52:9 f.; Isa 59:16-21 ; Isa 62:11 we have the idea of the salvation of Jehovah. The idea is that salvation originated with God and that man in his impotency could neither devise the plan of salvation nor aid in securing it. These passages are expressions of the pity with which God looks down on a lost world. The redemption, or salvation, here means both temporal and spiritual salvation salvation from enemies and salvation from sin.
In Isa 9:1 f. we have him presented as a great light to the people of Zebulun and Naphtali. In Isa 49:6 we have him presented as a light to the Gentiles and salvation to the end of the earth: “Yea, he saith, It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”
In Isa 8:14-15 Isaiah presents him as a stone of stumbling: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.”
The prophet’s vision of his maltreatment and rejection are found in Isa 50:4-9 ; Isa 52:13-53:12 . In this we have the vision of him giving his “back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.” We see a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. His visage is so marred it startled all nations. He is a vicarious sacrifice. The chastisement of the peace of others is on him. The iniquity of others is put on him. It pleases the Father to bruise him until he has poured out his soul unto death as an offering for sin.
The teaching of Isaiah on the election of the Jews is his teaching concerning the “holy remnant,” a favorite expression of the prophet. See Isa 1:9 ; Isa 10:20-22 ; Isa 11:11 ; Isa 11:16 ; Isa 37:4 ; Isa 37:31-32 ; Isa 46:3 . This coincides with Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11.
In Isa 32:15 we find Isaiah’s teaching on the pouring out of the Holy Spirit: “Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be esteemed as a forest,” and in Isa 44:3 : “For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring.”
In Isa 11:10 he is said to be the ensign of the nations: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting place shall be glorious.”
Isa 19:18-25 ; Isa 54:1-3 ; Isa 60:1-22 teach the enlargement of the church. The great invitation and promise are found in Isa 55 .
The Messiah in judgments is found in Isa 63:1-6 . Here we behold an avenger. He comes up out of Edom with dyed garments from Bozra. All his raiment is stained with the blood of his enemies whom he has trampled in his vengeance as grapes are crushed in the winevat and the restoration of the Jews is set forth in Isa 11:11-12 ; Isa 60:9-15 ; Isa 66:20 . Under the prophet’s graphic pencil or glowing brush we behold the establishment and growth of his kingdom unlike all other kingdoms, a kingdom within men, a kingdom whose principles are justice, righteousness, and equity and whose graces are faith, hope, love, and joy, an undying and ever-growing kingdom. Its prevalence is like the rising waters of Noah’s flood; “And the waters prevailed and increased mightily upon the earth. And the water prevailed mightily, mightily upon the earth; and all the high mountains, that are under the whole heavens, were covered.”
So this kingdom grows under the brush of the prophetic limner until its shores are illimitable. War ceases. Gannenta rolled in the blood of battle become fuel for fire. Conflagration is quenched. Famine outlawed. Pestilence banished. None are left to molest or make afraid. Peace flows like a river. The wolf dwells with the lamb. The leopard lies down with the kid. The calf and the young lion walk forth together and a little child is leading them. The cow and the bear feed in one pasture and their young ones are bedfellows. The sucking child safely plays over the hole of the asp, and weaned children put their hands in the adder’s den. In all the holy realms none hurt nor destroy, because the earth is as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the fathomless ocean is full of water. Rapturous vision! Sublime and ineffable consummation! Was it only a dream?
In many passages the prophet turns in the gleams from the millennial age, but one of the clearest and best on the millennium, which is in line with the preceding paragraph, Isa 11:6-9 : “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together: and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.”
The prophet’s vision of the destruction of death is given in Isa 25:8 : “He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of his people will he take away from all the earth: for Jehovah hath spoken it,” and in Isa 26:19 : “Thy dead shall live; my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the dead.”
The clearest outlines of the prophet’s vision of “Paradise Regained” are to be found in Isa 25:8 , and in two passages in chapter Isa 66 : Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn over her; that ye may suck and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory. For thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream: and ye shall suck thereof; ye shall be borne upon the side, and shall be dandled upon the knees, as one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem. And ye shall see it, and your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like the tender grass: and the hands of Jehovah shall be known toward his servants ; and he will have indignation against his enemies. Isa 66:10-14
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith Jehovah, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith Jehovah. Isa 66:22-23
QUESTIONS
1. What is the relation between the New Testament Christ and prophecy?
2. What can you say of Isaiah as a witness of the Messiah?
3. What can you say of Isaiah’s pictures of the Messiah and their background?
4. Following in the order of Christ’s manifestation, what is the first picture of him in Isaiah?
5. What is the second messianic glimpse in Isaiah?
6. What is Isaiah’s picture of the incarnation?
7. What is Isaiah’s picture of the divine child?
8. What is Isaiah’s vision of his descent, his relation to the Holy Spirit, his administration of justice, and the results of his reign?
9. What is Isaiah’s vision of the Messiah’s herald?
10. What is the prophet’s vision of his anointing?
11. What is the prophet’s vision of him as a miracle worker?
12. What is the prophet’s vision of the character of the Messiah?
13. What is the prophet’s vision of him as the key bearer?
14. What is the prophet’s vision of him as a king and a hiding place?
15. What is the prophet’s vision of the Messiah as a foundation stone?
16. What is the prophet’s vision of him as a polished shaft?
17. In what passages do we find the idea of the salvation of Jehovah, and what the significance of the idea?
18. What is Isaiah’s vision of the Messiah as a light?
19. Where does Isaiah present him as a stone of stumbling?
20. What is the prophet’s vision of his maltreatment and rejection?
21. What is the teaching of Isaiah on the election of the Jews?
22. Where do we find Isaiah’s teaching on the pouring out of the Holy Spirit?
23. Where is he said to be the ensign of the nations?
24. What passages teach the enlargement of the church?
25. Where is the great invitation and promise?
26. Where is the Messiah in judgment?
27. What passages show the restoration of the Jews?
28. What is the prophet’s vision of the Messiah’s kingdom?
29. What is the prophet’s vision of the millennium?
30. What is the prophet’s vision of the destruction of death?
31. What is the prophet’s vision of “Paradise Regained?”
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
XVII
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH PAST 9
Isaiah 34-39
Isaiah 34-35 form an appendix to the preceding parts of the book, setting forth the storm of God’s wrath upon the whole world, and the face of nature in its sweetest forms and brightest colors, after the storm is over.
They constitute the counterparts to one great picture. The first part contains a denunciation of divine vengeance against the enemies of God’s people and the second, a description of the glorious state of things after the execution of these judgments is finished. The awful picture, with its dark lurid hues, prepares the way for the soft and lovely portraiture of the blessed condition which follows.
This section opens with a call to all nations and people, the earth and the fulness thereof, the world and all things therein, to hear the prophet’s message concerning Jehovah’s indignation, which shows that the judgments to follow embrace the whole world.
There are three distinct paragraphs in Isa 34 . In Isa 34:1-7 we have announcement of the final judgment upon the whole world, including Edom as the leader. In Isa 34:8-15 we have the details of the judgment upon Edom as the ideal representative of the world. In Isa 34:16-17 the prophet appeals to the written word.
The allegorical view of the use of the word, “Edom,” in this chapter is in no way inconsistent with the existence of a basis of historical fact, therefore we adopt this view for the following reasons:
1. The invitation shows that the message to be delivered was on universal interest arid application, yet the language is parabolical in kind.
2. The allegorical character of Isa 35 is undeniable, but the two chapters are linked together by the very phraseology’. As the Zion of Isa 35 is the ideal “city of God,” so the Edom of Isa 34 must include all who hate and persecute the mystical Zion.
3. The names, “Edom and Bozrah,” occur in another allegorical passage (Isa 63:1-6 ).
4. Edom, the surname of him who “despised the birthright,” was a fitting designation for those who profanely slighted their privilege as God’s special people.
5. The context is admittedly figurative, but if the lambs, bullocks, and goats be symbolical, then the unclean animals that are to occupy their places should be so, too.
6. In Heb 12:16-17 Esau stands as the type of profane and sensual-minded men, who are identified with those against whom Moses warned Israel in Deu 29:18-23 . The idea is further carried out in the next paragraph. In Isa 34:8-15 we have the more detailed account of God’s vengeance against the enemies of Zion, which is likened unto that upon Sodom and Gomorrah. This, of course, is not literal, but typically represents the punishment of God’s dreadful vengeance upon all his enemies while Edom is here again made the type. Isa 34:10 shows that this curse is to be everlasting in its typical aspect while the following verses show that Edom, as an example of such destruction, was to be literally and perpetually laid waste, and history verifies this prophecy respecting Edom.
The book referred to in Isa 34:16 is the book of Moses and perhaps includes the earlier prophets which had written in them the threatenings against the ungodly. At this time the Pentateuch and history of Joshua and Judges, and the history of the reigns of the kings up to this time had been written and preserved, but the reference is very likely to the Pentateuch, primarily, which was complete in one book and kept in the ark of the covenant. This appeal to the book by Isaiah is to prove that he was in line with the threatenings and judgments which preceded his time and that his prophecies were to be regarded as equal in inspiration and authority with the other scriptures of his day.
Isa 35 is a glorious counterpart of the judgment on Edom in Isa 34 and is distinctly messianic. The outline of these contents consists of three items. In Isa 35:1-2 we have the blessings on the land pronounced which reverses the corresponding desolation of Lebanon, Carmel, and Sharon, because of “the glory and excellency of our God.” This is a general statement of the reversal of the judgments before predicted. In Isa 35:3-4 is a general announcement of the hope and good cheer on account of the recompense of God. Then in Isa 35:5-10 the prophet particularizes these blessings which were literally fulfilled in the ministry of Christ. Then the prophet shows us the highway that shall be there, the way of holiness, with no unclean person, no fools and no ravenous beasts walking therein, over which the redeemed shall walk and the ransomed of Jehovah shall return with songs of joy to Zion, where they shall have everlasting joy upon their heads and where sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Thus commencing with the restoration to their land, then passing on to the coming and healing work of the Messiah the prophet closes with the blessing of their conversion. This hope is kept constantly before the holy remnant of Israel by Isaiah, stimulating them in these dark and gloomy hours, just As when the weary traveler gains The height of some o’er-looking hill, The sight his fainting spirit cheers, He eyes his home, though distant still.
This section, Isaiah 36-39, in our outline of Isaiah is called “The Historical Interlude,” sometimes called “The Book of Hezekiah.” There is a reference to this section in 2Ch 32:32 , thus: “Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.” as a matter of history almost all this section is embodied in 2 Kings 18-20, which should be carefully studied in connection with this passage in Isaiah.
This section may be regarded as the history of how Hezekiah stood the test applied to him. A like test was put to Ahaz (Isa 7:3-17 ), and he, an unbeliever as he was, simply put the offered grace from him, as swine would deal with pearls cast before them. But Hezekiah’s test reveals a different character, one vastly more interesting and instructive for God’s people in all ages. He proves to be a man of faith in God and, in a large measure, wins out in the conflict, but fails in the matter of the Babylonian messengers and the pride of his heart. Yet again he shows that he was a child of God in that he humbled himself so that the threatened wrath of Jehovah came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah. The case of David and Solomon, in which the consequences of Solomon’s sins were deferred till after his death for the sake of David, is similar to this.
This section divides itself into two parts, viz: (1) Sennacherib’s invasion (Isaiah 36-37) ; (2) Hezekiah’s sickness, and the embassy from Babylon (Isaiah 38-39).
Isaiah 36-37 contain a history of an event which had been predicted long before and frequently alluded to afterward (see Isa 8:5-10 ; Isa 10:12-19 ; Isa 10:33-34 ; Isa 30:28-31 ; Isa 31:8 ). It was stated definitely that the stream of Assyrian conquest, after it had overflowed Samaria, would “reach even to the neck” of Judah, and then be suddenly turned back. The fact of the prediction is unquestionable. The actual overthrow of the Assyrian power is as certain as any event in the world’s annals. These two chapters are thus the historical goal of tile book from Isaiah 7-35. So this part of the book is as inseparable from the preceding part of the book as fulfilment is inseparable from prediction itself.
Isaiah 38-39 are, on the other hand, the historical starting point for the rest of the book. These two chapters tell of the failure of the man who had checked the stream of national corruption; who suppressed idolatry, restored the Temple worship, and followed the guidance of the prophetic word; who had been rescued, both from a fatal malady and from the assault of the Assyrian king. When such & one fell away, no higher proof could be given that Judah must be subjected to the severe discipline of the captivity. With this dark foreshadowing there was a necessity for the following chapters of comfort.
The date of Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem is significant. The record tells us that this event was in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah, which was forty-six years after the vision of Isa 6 . This taken in connection with Isa 37:30 indicates that they were on the threshold of the Jubilee Year which, with its blessings, should be the sign unto Hezekiah that God would make the Jubilee laws effective at this time and deliver the land from the hand of Sennacherib.
From 2Ki 18:13-16 we learn that the immediate cause of Sennacherib’s invasion at this time was Hezekiah’s refusing to pay tribute. But the record also tells us that Hezekiah righted this wrong to the king of Assyria by sending the tribute and begging his pardon. This did not satisfy Sennacherib because he had a motive beyond that of getting the tribute, for we see him demanding the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem avowedly to be followed by deportation. This was an act of perfidy, as well as of cruelty and arrogance. Undoubtedly Sennacherib’s motive was not merely political, but he was bent on proving that Jehovah was on a level with the gods of other nations. Assyria had become a great power and, as she thought, had overcome the gods of all the other nations, including Samaria whose God was Jehovah. Just one more step now was needed to make Assyria the lord of the world, and that was the capture of Jerusalem. This evidently was his ulterior motive in this invasion.
In Isaiah 36-37 we have the details of this history which is a thrilling account of a conflict between the true and the false religion, similar to that of Moses and Pharaoh, or Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Here it is the Assyrian gods versus Jehovah. The items of this history are as follows: Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib from Lachish against Jerusalem with a great army which stopped at the upper pool near the Joppa gate, where Isaiah met Ahaz some forty years before.
Messengers from Hezekiah at once went out to meet Rabshakeh through whom he sent a message to Hezekiah belittling his confidence in Egypt and in Jehovah, saying that Egypt was a bruised reed and could not be depended upon, and that Jehovah had commissioned him to destroy the land of Judah. Then the messengers asked Rabshakeh to speak in the Assyrian language so the people on the wall could not understand, but he deliberately refused to comply, saying that he was sent to speak to the people on the wall. Then he grew bold and made a strong plea to those who heard him to renounce allegiance to Hezekiah and come over to Sennacherib, but they held their peace as they had been instructed to do. Upon this came the messengers to Hezekiah with their clothes rent and told him the words of Rabshakeh. Hezekiah when he heard it rent his clothes, covered himself with sackcloth and went into the house of Jehovah.
Then he sent messengers to Isaiah to ask him to pray for the remnant. Isaiah returned word that there was no need of fear, for Jehovah would send Sennacherib back to his own land and there he would die. Rabshakeh returned to find his master pushing the conquest on toward Egypt and hearing at the same time that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, was coming out to help Hezekiah. This seemed to provoke Sennacherib and he sent a letter to Hezekiah to warn him again putting his trust in Jehovah, reminding him also of the Assyrian victories over the gods of the other nations. Then Hezekiah took the letter and spread it before Jehovah and prayed.
For pointedness, faith, and earnestness, this prayer has few equals on record. Just at this time came another message from the Lord through Isaiah, assuring Hezekiah of the Lord’s intervention, as in very many instances before, to deliver his people from this Assyrian, whom he would lead by the nose back to his own land. Then follows the sign of Jehovah to Hezekiah assuring him that the remnant should prosper under Jehovah’s hand, reannouncing also the defeat of the plan of Sennacherib to take Jerusalem. The rest of Isa 37 is an account of the destruction of the Assyrian army by the angel of Jehovah and the death of Sennacherib in his own land.
Isa 38 opens with the statement, “In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death,” which is far from being a precise date, but the promise of fifteen years added to his life and the twenty-nine years of his reign in all, fixes the date in the fourteenth year of his reign, which is the date given in Isa 36:1 . In Isa 38:5-6 the two deliverances are coupled together in a way which suggests that they stood in some close relation to each other. Thus we are led to look on these two pairs of chapters, not as successive in point of time, but as contemporaneous.
In the record here Hezekiah’s malady is called a boil, but we learn that it was a special disease marked by the signs of leprosy. The same word occurs in Exo 9:9-11 to describe the Egyptian plague of “boils,” in Lev 13:18-20 to describe the boil out of which leprosy sprang, in Deu 28:27 ; Deu 28:35 to describe the “boil of Egypt” and the “sore boil that cannot be healed,” and in Job 2:7 to describe the “sore boils” with which Job was smitten. So, humanly speaking, his disease was incurable.
When the prophet announced that Hezekiah must die he prayed and wept. The prayer, as recorded here, is very brief but pointed, pleading his own faithfulness to Jehovah, an unusual petition though allowable in Hezekiah’s case because it was true and was in line with the promise made to Solomon (1Ki 9:4 ).
It was no weak love of life that moved Hezekiah to pray for recovery. It was because that he, who had followed God with all sincerity, appeared to be stricken with the penalty fore-ordained for disobedience. Leprosy means “a stroke,” and was believed to be a stroke from God. That was what made the stroke so exceedingly bitter. He was not to witness that great exhibition of God’s truth and mercy toward which the faithful had been looking for almost thirty years. Such was a sore trial to Hezekiah.
Upon the direction of the prophet, a cake of figs was applied. This remedy is said to be employed now in the east for the cure of ordinary boils. But it was quite an insufficient cure for this incurable “boil” from which Hezekiah was suffering. In miraculous cures, both the Old Testament prophets and our Lord himself sometimes employed means, insufficient in itself, but supernaturally rendered sufficient, to effect the intended cure. (See 1Ki 17:21 ; 2Ki 4:34 ; 2Ki 4:41 ; 2Ki 5:14 ; Joh 9:6 ; Mar 7:33-8:23 , etc.) These are examples of the natural and the supernatural working together for the desired end.
The sign given Hezekiah was the turning back of the shadow on the dial ten degrees. The dial was, perhaps, a large structure consisting of steps upon which the shadow of a great shaft was allowed to fall, which indicated the position of the sun in the heavens. In this case the shadow was made to run back, instantly, ten degrees. How this miracle was performed the record does not say, but it may have been seen by the law of refraction which does not make it any less a miracle. Hezekiah wrote a song of thanksgiving for his recovery, which in the first part looks at the case of his sickness from the standpoint of the despair and gloom of it, while the latter part treats the case from the stand point of the deliverance and wells the note of praise. In the middle of this poem we find his prayer which he prayed in this dark hour.
Hezekiah made a great mistake in the latter part of his life in allowing himself to become exalted in his prosperity and not humbling himself before the Lord as in former years (2Ch 32:24-33 ). So when God tested him again in the matter of the messengers from Babylon, he failed because he had not the spirit of discernment so as to know their purpose to spy out the land. He showed them everything and thus prepared the way for the capture of Judah by the Chaldeans.
The closing part of this section shows the necessity for the second division of the book. This part closes with the announcement of the captivity and gives us a very dark picture which calls for the opening sentence of comfort in the next division. Hezekiah is reconciled to it as we see from his language, but evidently it is to be understood in this connection that the prophet had already revealed to him that there should be peace and truth in his days. Now, if Hezekiah had his message of comfort and was thereby able to joyfully acquiesce in the future calamity already announced, should we not expect a message of comfort also for Judah? The last twenty-seven chapters furnish just such comfort for Judah, that she too might not despair in view of the approaching captivity.
From the many lessons that might be selected from the life of Hezekiah I take but one. Though he was upright and so highly commended in the Scripture (2Ki 18:5-7 ) he had a burden of guilt, from which only God’s grace could absolve him. He could not stand as the “Righteous Servant,” who should “justify many” by “bearing their iniquities.” If good Hezekiah could not, what child of man can? Nay, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the relation of Isaiah 34-35 to the preceding parts, especially the preceding section, of the book?
2. What is the relation of these two chapters to each other?
3. How does this section open and what the nature of the prophecy as indicated by it?
4. What is the analysis of Isa 34 ?
5. Why adopt the allegorical view of the use of the word, “Edom,” in this chapter?
6. How is the idea further carried out in the next paragraph?
7. What is the book referred to in Isa 34:16 and what the import of this appeal to the Word?
8. What is the nature of Isa 35 and what the brief outline of its contents?
9. What is the section, Isaiah 36-39, called, where may we find a reference to them and where do we find nearly the whole of them embodied?
10. What, briefly, is the theme of this section, what similar test was applied to a king of Israel prior to this and what the difference in the deportment of the two kings under the test of each, respectively?
11. What case in the history of Israel similar to this?
12. How is this section divided and, briefly, what does each part contain?
13. What is the date of Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem and what the significance of the date in the light of Isa 37:30 ?
14. What is the cause of Sennacherib’s invasion at this time?
15. What are the essential points in the narrative of Sennacherib’s attack upon Jerusalem?
16. What is the date of Hezekiah’s sickness?
17. What was Hezekiah’s malady and what ita nature?
18. What did Hezekiah do when the prophet announced that Hezekiah must die and what plea did he make?
19. Why did Hezekiah pray to be healed?
20. What is remedy did he apply and why?
21. What is the sign given Hezekiah?
22. How was this miracle performed?
23. What expression have we of Hezekiah’s gratitude for this divine deliverance and what the viewpoints from which it deals with the case?
24. What was Hezekiah’s great mistake in the latter part of his life?
25. How does the closing part of this section show the necessity for the second division of the book?
26. What is great lesson from the life of Hezekiah?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Isa 36:1 Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, [that] Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them.
Ver. 1. See 2Ki 18:1-37 2Ki 19:1-37 with the notes; See also 2Ch 32:1-33 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Isaiah Chapter 36
Isa. 36-39 form the next portion, the historical episode which severs the earlier half of the prophecy from its latter half. They are of importance not only for the weighty facts they present (for this is sufficiently done and in a twofold point of view in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles), but for their connection with the great sections of the Book of Isaiah. No doubt the incidents had their value, and so also the record of them, as the most conspicuous seal which could then be affixed on the prophet’s character; for the danger was extreme, the distress of the people intense, the antecedents of the king in opposition to the Assyrian by no means reassuring, the confidence of the enemy boundless. Yet was the word of Isaiah distinct, and soon most punctually verified.
But there are deeper grounds for the introduction of this historical matter into the midst of the prophecy. It was of moment that the believer should have the inspired and therefore sure means of discriminating between the part which was then accomplished and the part which yet awaits its fulfilment. The believer readily sees that the Shalmanesers and the Sennacheribs of the past have not exhausted the terms and scope of the prophecy; we can understand that enough has been done to form an adequate type, an historical basis, for that which is to come, and to make good every word that proceeds from Jehovah. Any mind can judge that the overthrow of the Assyrian – as the precursor of Babylon’s supremacy, of the captivity of Judah, and of the long times of the Gentiles – widely differs from the final judgement of the final foe, when Babylon in its last phase is itself destroyed, and the times of the Gentiles close in the glory of Jerusalem and Israel under the true David, the Beloved, their King, and the new covenant in the pleasant land.
No king since the days of David had shown such trust in Jehovah as Hezekiah. But his faith was much tried. With alacrity of heart he had made Jehovah his object from the day he ascended the throne. “He in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the doors of the house of Jehovah and repaired them” (2Ch 29:3 ). He inspired the Levites and priests with somewhat of his own desire to renounce long indifference for loyalty to Jehovah. “Now they began on the first [day] of the first month to sanctify, and on the eighth day of the month came they to the porch of Jehovah: so they sanctified the house of Jehovah in eight days, and on the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end.” The vessels which were cast away in king Ahaz’s reign were once more prepared. “The king rose early and gathered the rulers of the city, and went up to the house of Jehovah.” Atonement was made for all Israel; “for the king commanded that the burnt-offering and the sin-offering [should be made] for all Israel.” What governed all was “the commandment of Jehovah by His prophets.” He was the first king, since the rent of Ephraim under Rehoboam, whose heart sought that all Israel should come to the house of Jehovah at Jerusalem to keep the Passover to Jehovah, the God of Israel. Godly predecessors felt it too little if they thought of it, they certainly did nothing toward it ungodly predecessors would have desired nothing less, however much they would have seen all Israel re-united under their own sceptre. Hezekiah clave to Jehovah and sought for all Israel the same blessing. Though his overtures were laughed to scorn and mocked by most, “divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. Also in Judah the hand of God was to give them one heart to do the commandment of the king and of the princes, by the word of Jehovah.” The old altars to their false gods, at any rate unhallowed and unauthorised altars, were taken away and cast into the brook Kidron, the images were broken, the Asherahs were cut down, the high places disappeared. The due honour of the house and servants and service of Jehovah was provided for as written in His law. “And in every work that he undertook in the service of the house of God, and in the law and in the commandments, to seek his God, he ‘did it with all his heart, and prospered. “
“After these things and their faithfulness, Sennacherib king of Assyria entered into Judah, and encamped against the fortified cities, and thought to break into them” (2Ch 32:1 ). Was it not strange? A great work had been wrought in restoring the defaced lineaments of the worship of the true God throughout Judah: yet this was no sooner done, than the enemy came to swallow them up! Those who judged not by scripture but by providence would at once be stumbled: was it not plain that Hezekiah had done wrong in rejecting the traditions of his fathers? Was not, God now chastening him and them for his rash reformation? Had he not lifted up his sacrilegious hand to destroy the brazen serpent that Moses made, treating with contempt as a piece of brass the venerable sign of divine grace to their perishing fathers in the desert, to which the children of Israel had till his days burned incense? Was the Assyrian a judgement?
Moreover the pious king did what he could to fortify himself, sent the lowliest message to the proud Assyrian, gave him all the silver in Jehovah’s house, and stripped off for him the gold from its doors and pillars; but in vain. There was little of the simplicity, strength, or wisdom of faith in all this: no wonder that the blessing of God was not with him there, and that the enemy was emboldened to ask all. Rabshakeh is sent from Lachish to insult king Hezekiah, to blaspheme the God of Israel, and seduce the people to surrender at discretion to his master. Along with insolent, deceitful, and profane reproach of all kinds like this, truth is mingled; for there were those (not Hezekiah) who did look to Egypt for help. But the aim of all was to reduce the Jews to despair, and to accomplish the designs of Assyria. Hence the very piety of the king, his zeal for Jehovah in throwing down the altars of false gods, is cunningly perverted into a charge of robbing Jehovah of His honour, from Whom (he pretended) his master had received his charge to come up against Hezekiah. Thus the enemy knows how to give a religious gloss to his own wicked devices as easily as he can blacken the most faithful of God’s servants. What a mercy to have the unerring standard of His word to test and be tested by!
Thus the account stands in the prophecy. “And it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah [that] Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. And the king of Assyria sent Rab-shakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem. to king Hezekiah with a strong force. And he stood by the aqueduct of the upper pool, on the highway of the fuller’s field” (vv. 1, 2). There it was where Ahaz despised the gracious word of Jehovah through Isaiah some thirty years before; there now the Assyrian rudely insulted Jehovah and the king.
“Then came forth to him Eliakim the son of Hilkijah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe (or, secretary), and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder. And Rab-shakeh said to them, Say now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence [is] this wherein thou trustest? I say [sayest thou], Counsel and strength for the war [are but] a word of the lips. Now on whom trustest thou that hast revolted against me? Behold, thou trustest on the staff of that broken reed, 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 that trust in him. But if thou say to me, We trust in Jehovah our God: [is it] not he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath removed, saying to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar? And now, I pray thee, engage with my master, the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master’s servants? And thou trustest in Egypt for horses and chariots! And am I now come up without Jehovah against this land to destroy it? Jehovah said to me, Go up against this land and destroy it.
“And Eliakim and Shebna and Joah said to Rab-shakeh, Speak, we pray thee, to thy servants in Syriac (or, Aramean), for we understand [it]; and speak not to us in the Jewish [language] in the ears of the people that [are] on the wall. And Rab-shakeh said, [Is it] to thy master and to thee that my master sent me to speak these words? [Is it] not to the men that sit on the wall, to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you? And Rab-shakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jewish [language] and said, Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria. Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you, for he shall not be able to deliver you; neither let Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah, saying, Jehovah will certainly deliver us: this city shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. Hearken not to Hezekiah; for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make peace (lit. blessing) 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 his cistern (or, well); 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. Let not Hezekiah persuade you, saying, Jehovah will deliver us. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where [are] the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? Where [are] the gods of Sepharvaim? And have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who [are they] among all the gods of these countries, that have delivered their country out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand? And they were silent and answered him not a word; for the king’s command was, saying, Answer him not.
“And Eliakim the son of Hilkijah, who [was] over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, came to Hezekiah with clothes rent, and told him the words of Rab-shakeh” (vv. 3-22).
The entreaties of Eliakim and others that Aramean should be spoken rather than the Jewish tongue only drew out further and audacious insolence; for Rab-shakeh stood and cried in their own tongue to the people on the walls, warning them against their king and commending to them the hard terms of deportation to the east, in the face of the overthrow of the nations already broken by the Assyrian. Little did the blasphemer think that there listened to his taunting demand whether Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem, not Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah only, nor the men on the wall also, but Jehovah Himself. It was now His affair; and then at length begins to shine once more the faith of Hezekiah, whose commandment it was to answer him not.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Isa 36:1-3
1Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and seized them. 2And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem to King Hezekiah with a large army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool on the highway of the fuller’s field. 3Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, came out to him.
Isa 36:1 in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah It seems from the dating of the reigns of these Judean kings and their relationship to secular history that there is a textual error in the word fourteenth. Because 2Ki 18:1 says that Hezekiah was co-regent with his father between 729 and 715 B.C. and then became king himself from 715 to 686 B.C., it is probable that this should read the twenty-fourth year of King Hezekiah (cf. Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 207,211; E. J. Young, Book of Isaiah, pp. 540-542; The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 234; J. A. Motyer, Tyndale OT Commentaries, vol. 18, p. 222).
In the chart in the Appendix Four, #3 of this volume there is a list of three different dates for Hezekiah’s reign.
1. John Bright – 715-687 B.C.
2. E. J. Young – 727-699 B.C.
3. R. K. Harrison
a. co-reign – 729-716/15
b. reign – 716/15-687/86
These are three well-respected scholars, yet note the variety. Be careful of rigid dating of these reigns and co-reigns. Scholarship is just not in agreement at this point in time. Hopefully new information from archaeology can help clarify the date!
Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and seized them We learn from Assyrian documents that Sennacherib (reigned from 705-681 B.C.) claims to have conquered 46 walled cities. Because of the Assyrian records of Sennacherib’s reign an invasion of Judah in 701 B.C. fits this passage.
Isa 36:2 And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh There are several ways of understanding this word (BDB 913).
1. a proper name (NASB, NKJV)
2. chief steward
3. field commander (Peshitta, NIV)
4. governor or chief of staff (NKJV footnote)
5. cupbearer-in-chief (NJB)
Whichever it is he was a high-ranking official (JPSOA footnote) from the Assyrian camp (cf. 2Ki 18:17).
The NIDOTTE, vol. 3, p. 1029, lists several of these Assyrian titles.
1. Tartn – supreme commander, cf. 2Ki 18:17
2. Rab sris – chief officer, cf. 2Ki 18:17
3. Rab sqh – field commander, cf. 2Ki 18:17
4. Rab Kisri – commander of the army
5. Rab hanse – captain of fifty
6. Rab saqu – cupbearer of the king
7. Akkadian
a. tartan – cf. #1 above
b. rabu sa rsi – chief eunuch or military commander
c. rab sqh – cf. #3 above
d. rab saqu – #6 above
8. Aramaic – rb swq – chief of the march
Lachish This was one of the walled cities on the coastal plain which was captured by the Assyrian army. It was about thirty miles southwest of Jerusalem in the Shephelah.
And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool on the highway of the fuller’s field This is the same location where Isaiah confronted Ahaz in Isa 7:3 with the appeal not to trust in Assyria. There may be a purposeful connecting of the geographical site to the response of Hezekiah (belief, cf. Isa 37:14-20; Isa 37:30) versus the response of Ahaz (unbelief).
Isa 36:3 Eliakim. . .Shebna. . .Joah When one compares Isa 22:15; Isa 22:20-24 it seems that these two men have exchanged offices.
If we can use Egyptian parallels it seems that these men represented different levels of administrative authority in the ANE.
1. Eliakim
a. NASB, NKJV, over the household
b. NRSV, TEV, JPSOA, in charge of the palace
c. REB, the comptroller of the household
d. NJB, master of the palace
2. Shebna
a. NASB, NKJV, JPSOA, the scribe
b. NRSV, NJB, the secretary
c. REB, the adjutant-general
d. TEV, court secretary
3. Joah
a. NASB, NKJV, NRSV, TEV, JPSOA, the recorder
b. REB, the secretary of state
c. NJB, the herald
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
it came to pass. Note the insertion of these historical events in the midst of prophecy, corresponding with those concerning the reign of Ahaz. Compare 2Ki 18:13, 2Ki 20:19, on which Isaiah is not dependent, and 2Ch 32:1-33, which is not dependent on either (see App-56). This history is a proof of Isaiah’s prophetic mission and gifts. History and prophecy are thus combined: for the latter is history foretold, and the former is (in this and many cases) prophecy fulfilled: the two accounts being perfectly independent.
in the fourteenth year: i.e. 628 B.C. See App-50. pp Isa 59:60. After Hezekiah’s reformation (2Ch 29:1 — Isa 32:1). Samaria had been taken by Shalmaneser in Hezekiah’s sixth year (2Ki 18:10). The date (fourteenth year) no “error”.
defenced cities = fortified cities.
and took them. See the list and number of them (forty-six) on Sennacherib’s hexagonal cylinder in the British Museum. See App-67.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Shall we turn to Isaiah chapter 36.
Last week as we completed the thirty-fifth chapter of the book of Isaiah, of course, we got into those glorious prophecies of the future Kingdom Age when Jesus Christ will be reigning over the earth, and how God is going to restore the earth to its Edenic glory. Now we always it seems have sort of curious minds and we wander off on just how God proposes to do the things that He said He is going to do. And in reality, the whys aren’t really our real concern. However, we so often make them a concern. You know, “Well, if He did this or if He did that.” There are many suggestions as to how the earth might be restored to the Edenic glory and beauty. Here in the thirty-fifth chapter there are references to there being streams in the deserts, pools in the dry places, and so forth. And how that the whole earth is going to be more or less restored, as far as the deserts will be gone. They will blossom as a rose and the whole earth will become very fertile and productive.
With the prophecies of Isaiah there are also those prophecies of the earth being moved out of its place, staggering to and fro as a drunken man, and things of this nature, which has caused some people to theorize that it is quite possible that we will have another polar axis shift. And it could very well explain many of the cataclysmic events that are declared to be taking place during the Great Tribulation. As the earth shakes and as the mountains and the islands disappear. And it talks really of a tremendous cataclysmic upheaval of the earth.
At the present time, the earth is tilted at about, as far as the polar axis in its relationship to the sun, it’s tilted at about 23 1/3 degrees, which causes our summer and winter seasons because of this tilt on the polar axis. And now being in the northern hemisphere, the sun is, because of our tilt we are now receiving longer days and will do so up until the twenty-second of June when we come into the summer equinox.
There is a suggestion that there will be another polar axis shift at which time it could be that the earth will come into pretty much a straight alignment with the sun and the earth revolving on its axis. Now if this should result, what would happen is, of course, you would have a medium climate all the way around the earth. You wouldn’t really have your seasons any longer. But you’d have pretty much a medium climate around the earth. It would heat up the earth sufficient to melt the ice pack at the North and the South Pole, which would raise the water level around the entire earth.
With the greater warmth it would cause more evaporation of the water on into the atmosphere and would create a much larger moisture barrier within the atmosphere itself. Because of the polar ice packs being melted, you would not have your tremendous cold air, arctic air moving, so all of your winds would become much more mild than they presently are, as the air would move much slower than it now does as a result of the polar arctic winds and so forth that bring these. You have your warm air rising and the cold air moving in. But it would sort of minimize the air movement, much milder winds and so forth than what we presently have.
Probably increased rainfall upon the… around the earth, of course, would raise the water level on all of the shorelines and it would give us a little bit more of a water-earth ratio, rather than 2/3:1/3. And would result probably in the disappearance of all of the desert regions and also all of your extremely hot zones and extremely cold zones so that you’d have a pretty much of a temperate climate all around the world.
We do know that at one time at the North Pole there was tropical vegetation. Mammoths that had been found encased in ice in Siberia have had tropical vegetation still in their digestive tracts. The mammoths were fast frozen there by some cataclysmic event of the past, quite possibly the flood of Noah. We do know that at one time at the South Pole there were great forests because they have found tremendous deposits of charcoal 200 feet under the ice pack, indicating that there were once forests down there. And, again, it could be accountable back to the flood, that at that time there was a polar axis shift causing the tremendous movement of the waters, the oceans and so forth and creating whole new type of continents and entirely new kind of a geography around the earth.
So there are hints and indications in the scripture that this indeed might be what will cause these changing effects. However God works it out, as I say, we only guess. We really don’t know. But God is going to work it out and the earth is going to be a beautiful place to live. And so it really doesn’t matter. You don’t have to put a claim on Hawaii. I don’t even know if Hawaii will still be here because during the great cataclysmic changes, it talks about the islands disappearing. It would be a shame, I agree, if Hawaii would go, but you know, no matter where you live it will be beautiful and verdant as God restores the earth.
So chapter 35 is prophetic as it looks ahead into that glorious Kingdom Age. Now from thirty-six to thirty-nine, Isaiah just takes out of the historic records and you’ll find that this particular area parallels Second Kings beginning with around chapter 17 or 18. And so he evidently took the historic records. In fact, chapter 37 of Isaiah is identical to Second Kings, chapter 19. So he has just more or less copied the historic records of which Second Kings is a part of the history of the nations of Israel and Judah. And he copied out of the historic accounts these chapters in order to give you the historic background for the prophecies that he has just made of the destruction of the Assyrian forces and so forth. Having prophesied these things, he now gives the historic background that you might see that God’s Word was accurate and true and what God foretold would come to pass did indeed transpire.
So these next four chapters are just out of the Kings and other historic records that he had available to him that we do not have now. And they just covered this period of history over which he has been prophesying, the period of history when the Assyrians would be bringing their armies in an invasion of Jerusalem but would be turned back by the hand of God. So this is the history of it.
Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib the king of Assyria came up against the defensed cities of Judah, and took them. And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh ( Isa 36:1-2 )
Now Rabshakeh is the title. We really don’t know what the name of the man was, but that is the title of this particular person.
from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool. Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, which was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph’s son, the recorder. And Rabshakeh said unto them, Go tell Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What is this confidence wherein you trust? I say, (but they are but vain words) I have counsel ( Isa 36:2-5 )
He said, “You’re saying, actually, that you have counsel,”
and strength for war: now on whom are you trusting, that you would rebel against me? Lo, you are trusting in the staff of the broken reed, of Egypt; whereon if a man would lean, it would go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him. But if you say to me, We trust in Yahweh our God: is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar? ( Isa 36:5-7 )
Now Rabshakeh shows his ignorance of the worship of the God of Israel or the God of Judah. For Hezekiah did indeed destroy the altars and the high places and the groves in which the children of Israel were worshipping the gods of the Canaanites. The worship of Molech and Baal and Mammon was done in these groves and in these high places. And so one of the pluses of Hezekiah is that when he came to the throne, he tore down the altars to the false gods that the children of Israel had been worshipping. But as is so often the case, those that are looking from the outside in presume to know a lot of what is being taught or said and really they know nothing of the truth. And in this case, Rabshakeh was totally wrong in that he is accusing Hezekiah of tearing down the altars or tearing down the high places of Jehovah. Jehovah actually commanded them not to build the high places and all. He spoke out against them. And it was established that there was only one place that they should gather to worship Jehovah and to offer sacrifices and that was in Jerusalem at the temple. And so Rabshakeh shows his total ignorance of Jehovah in his remarks.
Now he also is assuming that the children of Judah had gone to Egypt for help. But Hezekiah had been counseled by Isaiah not to go down to Egypt for help but just to trust in the Lord. Now, the natural thing to do in this situation, the wise natural thing would have been to go down to Egypt to seek their help because Egypt was also being threatened by Assyria. And so it would have made good natural sense to go down to get Egypt’s help. But what often is to us good natural sense isn’t always good spiritual sense. And where naturally it would have been a smart move, from a spiritual standpoint it would have been a bad move and God recommended and counseled them against it. He said, “Trust in Me and not in the arm of Egypt or in the arm of flesh.” And so Rabshakeh shows two cases of his ignorance of the situation.
One is ignorance of their worship of Yahweh. Secondly, his ignorance of the counsel that God had given to them not to trust in Egypt. So they were not trusting in Egypt. They were trusting completely in the Lord through the encouragement of Isaiah to just trust in the Lord to deliver the Assyrian host into their hand. Now he is belittling them. He said, “Look, give me some money and I’ll give you two thousand horses. And let’s see if you can find enough men to sit upon those horses. We’ll help you to fight us.”
Just give us some pledges, and we’ll give you two thousand horses, [if you can put men upon them] if you’re able to set riders on them. How then will you turn away the face of just one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and you put your trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? And do you think that I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? Yahweh said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it ( Isa 36:8-10 ).
So now he is blaspheming God. He is saying, “Hey, God is giving me directions. You think I’d come out up here without God’s instructions? For Yahweh said to me, ‘Come on up and besiege this place.'”
Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language [or in Aramaic]; for we understand it: don’t speak to us in the Jews’ language, in the ears of the people that are upon the wall ( Isa 36:11 ).
Now here are all of the men of Israel sitting there on the wall and so these emissaries have had to kind of figure, “Man, these guys must be demoralizing these people saying, ‘If we gave you two thousand horses you couldn’t put men on them. And how are you ever going to defy us?’ and all.” And so they said, “Hey, don’t talk to us in Hebrew. Talk to us in the Syrian; we can understand your Syrian tongue. We’re Aramaic, we understand that. Speak to us in Aramaic.” But this Rabshakeh picked up on what they were noticing and so he said,
[Hey, wait a minute.] Didn’t the king send me to talk to you men on the wall? ( Isa 36:12 )
I don’t care about your king Hezekiah.
And he stood, and he cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and said, Hear ye the words of the great king, the king of Assyria. Thus saith the king, Don’t let Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you. Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD [or in Yahweh], saying, Yahweh will surely deliver us: for this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Just make an agreement with me by a present [just pay some tribute], and come on out ( Isa 36:13-16 ):
And just work in your fields.
eat of your own vines, and of your own fig tree, drink waters out of your own cistern; Until I come and repopulate you in another land that is just as nice and pleasant as this one ( Isa 36:16-17 ).
Now Sennacherib, the Assyrian king, had the habit or custom of repopulating the peoples from their lands, because as they would move them out of their land, away from their families and away from their friends, they had to learn a whole new culture and were with different people, and it kept them from banding together in a rebellion. And so he’s offering them here. “We’ll just take you away and we’ll give you another land that’s just as pleasant and nice as this. Just pay tribute and just wait for us to come and repopulate you.” And then again he said,
Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you, saying, Yahweh will deliver us. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? ( Isa 36:18 )
So he’s now exalting himself against the God of Jacob.
Where are the gods of Hamath and Arphad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim? and have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they among all the gods of these lands, that have delivered their land out of my hand, that Yahweh should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand? But the men on the wall wisely held their peace, they didn’t answer a word: for the king’s commandment was, Don’t answer him. Then came Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, that was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and they told him the words of Rabshakeh ( Isa 36:19-22 ).
Now it was a custom that when you were very upset or when you were in real trouble, the thing to do is just tear your clothes. And so these guys have been receiving all of these threats now from this emissary of the king of Assyria and it’s been a bad experience, so they tear their clothes and sort of, “Hey, woe is us. We’ve had it,” kind of a thing. And they came in to Hezekiah with their clothes torn.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Isa 36:1-12
Isa 36:1-3
DIVISION V (Isaiah 36-39)
This division is the historical section of Isaiah, corresponding with 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 19:37. “Except for Hezekiah’s psalm, found only in Isa 38:9-20, and for Isaiah’s omission of 2Ki 18:14-16, including part of Isa 36:17 a, much of the material in this Division coincides almost word-for-word with 2 Kings 18-20.
There are some unanswered questions about variations in these two accounts: (1) Samaria fell in 722 B.C., which was Hezekiah’s sixth year (2Ki 18:10); Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah was in 701 B.C., which therefore would have been Hezekiah’s 27th year. Isa 36:1, however, states that Sennacherib’s invasion of Judaea came in the 14th year of Hezekiah. All kinds of “explanations” are proposed by critics, most of them involving emendations in the text, the supposition of errors on the part of editors, co-editors, and redactors, etc., but as Rawlinson pointed out the solution of such problems is “quite impossible to determine except arbitrarily.
We like the bold manner in which Archer handled this problem. He stated that, “The 14th year (Isa 36:1) seems to refer to the Second Reign of Hezekiah, that is, the additional span of fifteen years added to the king’s life after that deadly illness. Archer did not relate just how he came up with that explanation; but a number of scholars agree that Sennacherib’s invasion actually occurred almost exactly in that 14th year following God’s fifteen year extension of Hezekiah’s life. This makes as much sense as any other “explanation” we have encountered. To us such discrepancies in the Word of God are not a problem. There were various ways in which the kingly reigns of that era were calculated. Furthermore, the other minor discrepancies that trouble some analysts are of little or no importance.
“The difference in the two copies is little more than what has manifestly arisen from the mistakes of transcribers. They mutually correct each other, and most of the mistakes may be perfectly rectified by a collation of the two copies.
As Rawlinson pointed out, “Isaiah wrote the history of the reign of Hezekiah for the general Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (2Ch 32:32), from which the account in 2Kings is almost certainly taken; and there is a close verbal resemblance” between this section of Isaiah and the passage in 2Kings. Isaiah is evidently the author of both narratives.
Some have been impressed by the fact that there are certain particulars in which the Assyrian inscriptions which have thus far been deciphered differ here and there with the Biblical account of Sennacherib’s invasion. As might have been foreseen, those inscriptions make no mention whatever of the loss of 185,000 soldiers on a single night. The Assyrians also might have inflated the number of cities taken and also most probably were in error on other points. We have no patience whatever with scholars who seem to think that the word of Isaiah needs to be confirmed by the boastful, arrogant, and inaccurate monuments erected by some wicked pagan king. Even our own monuments in the U.S.A. are not always correct. In the old Trinity Church Yard at the foot of Wall Street on lower Broadway, New York City, one may read on the monument over the grave of Robert Fulton that he was “the inventor of the steamboat,” which he most certainly was NOT, a fact attested by a corrective monument erected by the United States Government in Berea, Kentucky, on which the REAL inventor, a certain John Fitch, is memorialized.
In this light, who should be concerned that Sennacherib’s inscriptions in some instances claim that the ruthless invader did some things at Jerusalem which Isaiah’s prophecy had foretold that he would not do. All one needs to remember in such an instance is that Sennacherib, am ong other things, was a very wicked man. Any allegation that monuments he erected would always have been truthfully inscribed is a postulation that we cannot possibly accept.
RABSHAKEH THREATENS JERUSALEM (Isaiah 36)
On the “14th year” see the chapter introduction. The invasion of Sennacherib referred to here took place in 701 B.C., at which time the Assyrian ruler did indeed ravage all of the outlying cities of Judaea, laying them waste, depopulating and carrying into captivity their peoples and despoiling them of vast quantities of booty.
It looked as if there would be little or no opposition to him; but suddenly Tirhakah, one of the Ethiopian rulers of Egypt appeared to confront Sennacherib; and that was the principal reason why he wished to bring about the surrender of Jerusalem in order to avoid fighting on two fronts at once. Sennacherib was engaged at the moment in destroying Lachish; and Isa 36:1 here states that it was from that city that Sennacherib sent an envoy to demand the surrender of Hezekiah.
Isa 36:1-3
“Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field. Then came forth unto him Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph, the recorder.”
The narrative in 2Kings points out that Hezekiah had requested this envoy by a message sent to Sennacherib during the siege at Lachish, “I have offended; that which thou puttest on me I will bear” (2Ki 18:14). Sennacherib demanded and received from Hezekiah 300 talents of silver, and 30 talents of gold, which Hezekiah at great cost had paid. Sennacherib had already carried away over 200,000 captives at the time when he sent this envoy to Hezekiah, which was composed of three men of high rank: Tartan, Rabsaris and Rabshakeh. Rabshakeh, the commanding general of the invading army, seems to have been the most important; at least, he was the speaker and was alone mentioned in this chapter.
Hezekiah responded by sending three important officers of Judah: Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah. It is interesting that Eliakim’s replacement of Shebna as the officer over the king’s household, as prophesied in Isa 22:20-22 had, at this time already occurred, Shebna, at this time being demoted to scribe. “It is also of interest that the spot where this meeting occurred was the very place where Isaiah some forty years earlier had been commanded to meet Ahaz. It was probably on the north side of Jerusalem, not far from the Damascus gate (Isa 7:3). God’s message to the king of Judah would be the same as it was then, “Do not fear the Assyrians.”
Isa 36:4-10
“And Rabshakeh said unto them, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria. What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? I say, thy counsel and strength for the warfare are but vain empty words: now on whom dost thou trust, that thou hast rebelled against me? Behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt, whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it; so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust on him. But if thou say unto me, We trust in Jehovah our God: is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and hath said unto Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar? Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. How then canst thou turn away one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and horsemen? And am I now come up without Jehovah against this land to destroy it? Jehovah said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.”
This was indeed a master stroke of diplomatic arrogance and intimidation. It was a combination of falsehood, mingled with a few grains of truth. The arrogant offer to provide two thousand horses for Hezekiah, provided that Hezekiah had anybody who could ride them, was the equivalent of the boast of the schoolyard bully who threatened his opponent, saying, “I can whip you with one hand tied behind my back!”
“Say ye now to Hezekiah …” (Isa 36:4). Note that Rabshakeh did not even accord to Hezekiah his rightful title as King, whereas he referred to Sennacherib as “The Great King the King of Assyria,” that being the title by which the Assyrian kings referred to themselves.
Evidently, the Assyrians had a thorough intelligence system; because this mention that Hezekiah had tom down Jehovah’s altars was a mistaken interpretation of Hezekiah’s marvelous reforms. The Law of Moses required that “only at Jerusalem” was God to be worshipped by the Israelites; but, in time, high places and altars had been erected throughout the land. Hezekiah had corrected that apostasy, which is exactly what he should have done; but Rabshakeh supposed that this would have been contrary to God’s will.
None of the pagan nations had a religious system that required “one altar only,” as did the Jews; and therefore Rabshakeh, having learned that Hezekiah had destroyed some altars (the illegal ones) that were indeed dedicated to Jehovah, he supposed that Jehovah would have been angry with Hezekiah. As Jamieson said, “Some of those altars that Hezekiah destroyed may indeed have been dedicated to Jehovah; but they were worshipped with idols in violation of the Second Commandment. Thus Rahshakeh’s argument was totally contrary to the truth.
One thing Rabshakeh was absolutely correct about was the dependability of Egypt!
Notice the bold lie that “Jehovah” had sent him against Jerusalem. Indeed the Assyrians were God’s instrument in the reduction of the Northern Israel and many of the adjacent cities to Jerusalem, but we may reject as an arrogant falsehood the proposition that God had commanded Sennacherib to take Jerusalem.
We learn from Isa 36:10 that the purpose of Sennacherib was the total destruction and devastation of Jerusalem, despite all of the lying promises he had made when he exacted that scandalously large tribute from Hezekiah. The truth comes out right here.
Isa 36:11-12
“Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah, Speak, I pray thee unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews’ language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall. But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?”
The purpose of Hezekiah’s envoys here is plain enough. They did not want the men on the wall to understand the arrogant intimidation in the terrible words of Rabshakeh; and therefore they requested that the message be delivered in the Syrian language. Rabshakeh, fully aware of their purpose, addressed his next taunt to the men on the wall themselves, promising them that, when Sennacherib took over the siege of the city, they would be compelled to eat their own dung and drink their own urine! What a horrible and revolting promise!
Jamieson pointed out that it was not “Syrian” which the Assyrians spoke, but “Aramean.
Isa 36:1-5 RABSHAKEHS INQUIRY: This section of Isaiah is one of three different historical records of these events. The other two records are 2 Kings 18, 19, and 2 Chronicles 32. These three records do not contradict, but supplement one another. Chronicles seems to be, in these events, as it is in so many other parallel events, a condensation of what actually took place because Chronicles is the theological view of the theocracy while Kings is the historical view.
One might wonder why Isaiah would insert an historical narrative squarely in the middle of a series of grandly soaring and majestic prophecies. Without doubt his purpose is to give proof of his prophetic call and mission. The rapid fulfillment of Isaiahs prediction concerning the deliverance of Jerusalem, the restoration of Hezekiah and the death of the Assyrian king would prove conclusively that he was sent from Jehovah and spoke Jehovahs word!
There is a minor problem with the year of Hezekiahs reign. The campaign of Sennacherib against the cities of Judah took place from 703 to 701 B.C. This would at first glance indicate Hezekiahs reign to begin about 717-715 B.C. According to 2Ki 18:1-2 it began in the 3rd year of Hoshea of Israel and lasted for 29 years. Hoshea was king of Israel when Shalmanezer began his siege of that kingdom. That was in Hosheas seventh year and Hezekiahs fourth. Three years later Hoshea was carried captive (cf. 2Ki 18:9-10). Israel fell to Shalmanezer in 722-721 B.C. (2Ki 18:9 ff). This means that Hezekiah began to reign six years before the downfall of Samaria, i.e., 728-727 B.C. Edward J. Young submits the possibility of an early emendation to the Hebrew text-a slight change in one of the characters in a specific Hebrew word. Only a slight alteration could change the Hebrew word eseryis (twenty-four) to esereh (fourteen) and thus create the apparent discrepancy here. If this were the 24th year of Hezekiahs reign (703 B.C.) it would place the beginning of it 728-727 B.C. Young, however, offers no manuscript evidence for this possibility. Another possible explanation is that 703 B.C. may be noted as the fourteenth year in which Hezekiah was the sole ruler of Judah! It has been proven by ancient records uncovered by archaeologists that kings of antiquity often ruled a number of years in a co-regency with their aged father-kings. In other words, Hezekiah may have ruled the first 10-12 years with his father, and without his father from 717-715 B.C. for the next fourteen years. This would explain calling 703-701 B.C. Hezekiahs fourteenth year of rule.
The king of Assyria took 46 cities of Judah, as we have mentioned elsewhere. Now he, himself, is occupied with an assault upon Lachish, some 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem. The king sends his Rab-shakeh to inquire of Jerusalems intentions toward his campaign of conquest in Judah. Rab means chief, and shakeh probably is a military officer. The Rab-shakeh was probably the emperors personal, most trusted military commander much like the American Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who may be depended upon for absolute allegiance to carry out very important military/political functions the President himself cannot attend to. When he spoke it was with direct and absolute authority from the king himself. To make his mission more ominously impressive, he came to Jerusalem with a great army.
Now Hezekiah had been busily restoring true and holy religion to Judah. He had been breaking down idolatrous altars, reinstituting the Passover, rebelling against paying tribute to a pagan Assyrian empire, and defeating Philistine enemies, (2Ki 18:1-8; 2 Chronicles 29-31). When the king of Assyria came marching into Judah with his campaign of conquest, it appears Hezekiah had second thoughts about his refusal to pay tribute to Assyria and sent an apology to the king at Lachish (2Ki 18:13-16) and stripped the gold from the doors of the temple and took silver and gold from the treasury of the temple and the palace and gave it to the Assyrian emperor. What was Hezekiahs motive for such an apparent reversal of courage, faith and godliness being demonstrated by his unique and amazing religious reform? Perhaps he rationalized, The throne of David is in imminent danger of being overthrown and the House of David extinguished; I am old, my days are numbered, I have no child to succeed me and the king of Assyria must be placated awhile longer until a royal successor to Davids throne is produced. Or, perhaps, Hezekiah, like many rulers, compromised his convictions simply from fear,
Lachish is approximately 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem (see Map #1) and would take the Rab-shakeh two days of marching, setting up camp at night, to reach Jerusalem. Upon arriving at Jerusalem the Assyrians probably set up their bivouac in the Kidron Valley or on the slope of the Mt. of Olives, eastward from the main gates of the city. Located there also is the Gihon Spring and the Upper Pool with its new secret conduit hewn out of solid rock by Hezekiahs workmen to hide Jerusalems chief water supply from the Assyrians (cf. 2Ch 32:1-8). It was probably Hezekiah who first extended the wall to the western hill (known as Modern Zion). In 1970, Professor Nachman Avigad of Hebrew University unearthed a massive portion of ancient wall in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. This wall was 25 feet thick in some places and located opposite the Temple area (see Map #3). The reader may research this information in The Biblical Archaeology Review, September, 1975. Archaeologists date this wall in the late 8th century B.C. This is probably Hezekiahs outer wall of 2Ch 32:5. Hezekiahs underground conduit (through which tourists can walk today) enabled the city successfully to withstand the Assyrian siege. A second unprotected earlier conduit has been traced from Gihon Spring, directly southward, outside the walls of Davids city, discharging its waters through a short tunnel behind a dam built across the mouth (lower end) of the Tyropoeon Valley. This was the Old Pool of Isa 22:11 and was the pool probably enlarged later by Hezekiah and called the reservoir between the two walls and was probably intended to take the overflow of his new conduit (see Map #3). Here by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fullers field Ahaz had rejected the word of God and the promises of the true King and had turned to the Assyrians (cf. Isa 7:3). Now, the Assyrians are here on this same spot, a terrifying, threatening consequence of the disobedience of the rulers of Gods people.
Accompanying the Rab-shakeh were officers called the Tartan and the Rab-saris (2Ki 18:17) and upon their arrival at the upper pool they called for the king (2Ki 18:18). It was a calculated show of insolence and contempt for Hezekiah. But Hezekiah did not come in person. He was represented by Eliakim, Shebna and Joah. Eliakim has assumed the duties formerly assigned to Shebna, chief of the kings house (see our comments on ch. Isa 22:20 ff). Shebna has been demoted to scribe. What the Rab-shakeh has to say will be recorded.
It is interesting to note the Rab-shakeh always speaks of his own king with proper respect, calling him the great king, but not once does he refer to Hezekiah as king. There is probably some psychological-warfare intended here as well as outright contempt. The Rab-shakehs entire speech is masterfully, though rudely done.
The Assyrian begins by challenging the confidence of Judah. The Jews apparently had demonstrated a measure of military-political confidence in something. Perhaps Hezekiahs rebellion (2Ki 18:7) is referred to; perhaps Rab-shakeh knows of an alliance with Egypt-perhaps the Assyrian intelligence department has discovered such an alliance between Judah and Egypt. Whatever the case the Rab-shakeh is trying to destroy this confidence for he uses the word trust and rely over and over in his speech. The Rab-shakeh also evidently knows something of the details of Hezekiahs basis for confidence. He intimates that he knows even of the words (counsel) and the preparations (strength) the Jews have made to war against the Assyrians! He arrogantly classifies them as useless.
Isa 36:6-12 RABSHAKEHS INTIMIDATION: After a rhetorical question, the Rab-shakeh gives his own answer. Judah has trusted in Egypt which he characterizes as a bruised reed. Egypt was a land of reeds. For a man to try to lean on a reed was foolish, but to lean on a bruised reed was stupid. Isaiah has already characterized Egypt as big mouth who does nothing (Isa 30:7). King Hoshea of Israel had relied on Egypt for help against Assyria, but Egypt did not come to his aid (2Ki 17:4). Actually, to trust in Egypt caused nations to suffer worse disaster than if they had not relied upon her. So the figure of a man trying to lean on a bruised reed and having his hand pierced! Perhaps the battle of Eltekeh, between the allied armies of Egypt-Philistines and the Assyrians, had been fought already. Egypt was soundly defeated at this battle near Ekron, according to the annals of Sennacherib. So the Rab-shakeh makes his boast of the inferiority of Egypt.
Having cut the ground from under the Jews in respect to their cherished military alliance with Egypt, the Rab-shakeh turns his sarcasm upon their religious confidence. Implied is a certain knowledge among the Assyrians of the importance attached by the Jews to their worship and reliance on Jehovah. The Assyrians reference to Hezekiahs reform manifests his misunderstanding of the One True God. Hezekiah caused to be hewed down the Asherim (2Ki 18:4-5; 2Ch 31:1) and the Nehushtan (the bronze serpent the people had begun to burn incense to). The altars he tore down were evidently Canaanitish places of worship along with some altars the Jews had made for themselves contrary to Gods command that He was to be worshipped in only one place. Yet, in spite of the truth of Hezekiahs reform, the rank and file of the people of Judah had become so accustomed to worshipping in the high places at the half-idolatrous altars, they were probably impressed with Rab-shakehs argument that Jehovah was displeased with them.
The Assyrian commanders next form of intimidation is a dare. He dares the Jews to barter, negotiate (Heb. arav), or, one might translate make a wager with the king of Assyria that they have 2000 men to ride war horses. If they can prove they have only that many, the king of Assyria will give them 2000 horses! The Rab-shakeh has no doubt already determined that Hezekiah does not have that many cavalrymen. He then continues his tirade of contempt by boasting the Jews are unable to offer reasonable opposition to the smallest and least significant of one of Assyrias divisions of fighting-men. This would be as frightening as were the boasts and sabrerattling of Adolph Hitler when he intimidated Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s.
Adding to the trepidation of the Jews would be the announcement of the Rab-shakeh that he had come up to Jerusalem with Jehovahs commission to destroy it. He represents Jehovah as speaking directly to him a command to go against Judah and destroy it! The Rab-shakehs claim is interesting, to say the least. There are indications that Jehovah would call the Assyrians to chasten the Jews (Isa 5:26 ff; Isa 7:18 ff; Isa 10:5 ff; Isa 28:11 ff). God spoke to a number of pagan emperors through dreams, visions and prophets. We are more inclined to believe in this case, however, the Rab-shakeh is self-deceived and thinks he has been sent by the Hebrew God, or is deliberately lying to the Hebrews and received no call whatsoever. There is an inscription of Cyrus, king of Persia, claiming that the Babylonian god, Marduk (Bel), was with him in his conquests of Babylon. It was apparently a widely practiced bit of psychological-warfare among the ancients.
This so unnerved the Hebrew officials for fear his arguments would spread from the mouths of those upon the walls who were listening to the ears of all in the city, exaggerated with each telling, of course, they insist that the Rab-shakeh speak to them in aramiyth, Aramaic, and not in yehudiyth, Jewish. Though Aramaic was the common language of diplomacy at this time, it is probable that most of the Jews could not understand it. After their captivity in Babylon they could only understand Aramaic and not Hebrew. The Hebrew language is called here Jewish after Judah since the northern kingdom has already gone into captivity and Judah is the only Hebrew nation left. The people of Judah may have been calling themselves Yehudiyth for a long time to distinguish themselves from the northern kingdom. It is interesting to note the Rab-shakeh knew the Hebrew language. He was not only the chief military man, a master psychologist and well versed in world affairs; he was also a linguist.
In Isa 36:12 the Rab-shakeh makes it plain in the crudest and most humiliating language his purpose for coming to Jerusalem was not diplomacy but intimidation. He did not come to banter pleasantries and subterfuge with Hezekiah or his noblemen. He says bluntly his purpose was to intimidate the common people of the city, threatening them with the most degrading threats. He warns them in their own language they will eat their own dung and drink their own urine if they dare to go to war and resist the Assyrian conquest of their city. People besieged in ancient cities for three and four years in succession often resorted to atrocities such as this and worse for survival (see Josephus account of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.).
The Rab-shakeh has thoroughly intimidated the populace. They have heard him ridicule their counsels for war as if he knew every move they were making; they have heard him ridicule their dinky army as if he knew how few soldiers they really had; they have heard him claim a divine commission from Jehovah for destroying their city; they have heard terrifying threats of human privation-all in their own language. And to impress them with his power to carry out his threats, he brought along a great number of troops. The Rab-shakeh is a skillful propagandist. He will make a psychological turn from intimidation to indulgence. He knows how to psych people.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
This chapter is the first of four which constitute a brief historical interlude. All have to do with Hezekiah and Isaiah. The first two are related to the prophecies of judgment so far as they are of local application. They deal with the invasion under Sennacherib. The last two are related to the prophecies of peace. They deal with Hezekiah’s sickness and ultimate folly, and form the historic background to the great utterances which set forth the ultimate purpose of God.
In this first of the four, the story of Sennacherib’s invasion and Rabshakeh’s mission to the city is chronicled. He first met three representatives of Judah: Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah. He taunted them with their weakness, desiring to bully them into submission by telling them that it was useless for them to trust in Egypt; moreover, that it was useless for them to trust in God, because they were there by His commission, which, of course, was a daring and blasphemous lie. The deputation from Judah attempted to persuade him to speak in Aramaic, as they were afraid that the Jews, hearing such words in their own language, would be filled with panic. He immediately seized on the suggestion, and spoke to the people assembled on the wall in their own language, warning them against trusting in Hezekiah, promising them plenty in another land, and declaring to them that God was unable to deliver them. The loyalty of the people is manifest in the fact that they remained silent.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
EXPOSITORY NOTES ON
THE PROPHET ISAIAH
By
Harry A. Ironside, Litt.D.
Copyright @ 1952
edited for 3BSB by Baptist Bible Believer in the spirit of the Colportage ministry of a century ago
ISAIAH CHAPTERS THIRTY-SIX TO THIRTY-NINE
THE HISTORIC INTERLUDE
WE NOW GLANCE at the next four chapters which relate certain important incidents in the life of Hezekiah, King of Judah. I say “glance at,” because I do not intend to take these chapters up verse by verse, quoting and endeavoring to explain them, as in the case of the first prophetic division of the book.
These chapters are almost duplicates of II Kings 18:13-21:26 and the major events are also covered by II Chronicles 32, 33. In all probability it was Isaiah who wrote these records and who was guided by the Holy Spirit in transferring the lengthier one into its place in his great prophetic book.
There was a very special reason for giving us these four historical chapters. They all have to do with a son of David upon whom all Judah’s hopes were centered, who came down to the very verge of death but was raised up again in order that the purpose of GOD might be fulfilled. That, of course, points forward to our Lord JESUS CHRIST, who went down into death actually and was raised up again to carry out GOD’s counsels. They have to do with certain events in the life of King Hezekiah, who in some degree foreshadowed this in the experiences through which he was called to pass.
In the fourteenth year of his reign the invasion of the Assyrians under the cruel and ruthless Sennacherib took place. After destroying or capturing various fenced cities, he sent a great army to besiege Jerusalem. This host was under the direct leadership of a general named Rabshakeh, a bold but vulgar and blustering officer who had a supreme contempt for the Jews and for their religion.
He took his stand at a prominent place outside the wall of Jerusalem, where his voice could be heard. easily by the defenders of the city, and called upon the leaders to surrender before he undertook to destroy them completely.
Eliakim, Shebna and Joah, who were what we would call members of Hezekiah’s cabinet or privy council, undertook to parley with the arrogant Assyrian. Speaking on behalf of his master,
Rabshakeh inquired as to what confidence they trusted in, daring to refuse to yield to his commands. Insolently he declared that if they hoped for deliverance to come through the power of their GOD, their expectations were doomed to disappointment. Had not Sennacherib proved himself more than a match for all the gods of the surrounding nations?
And had not Hezekiah himself destroyed the altars of the Lord and thus forfeited all claims upon Him even if He did have the power to protect him? Not realizing that the destroyed altars were connected with idolatrous shrines, Rabshakeh supposed that they had been dedicated to the God of Judah (chap. 36:1-7).
Demanding unconditional surrender to be ratified by a large tribute, as pledge that the Jews would abide by the proposed terms, Rabshakeh even went so far as to insist that it was by direction of the Lord that Sennacherib had come against Judah.
He may in some way have become familiar with some of the prophecies which we have been considering; he knew of Samaria’s fall, and so may have learned that their own GOD had declared that He would use Assyria as a rod to punish Judah for their disobedience and waywardness (vss. 8-10).
Fearful that these words might have an ill effect upon the morale of the defenders of the city, the Jewish leaders asked that the Assyrian general speak to them in his own language with which they were familiar, and not in the Hebrew tongue. This request only roused Rabshakeh to greater insolence. He used language that was disgusting and revolting as he declared that he had been sent not to parley with the representatives of Hezekiah as such, but with all the people of Jerusalem, of whom he continued to demand instant obedience to the call for surrender and the promise of allegiance to the king of Assyria.
In that case their lives would be spared and they themselves transported as prisoners of war to other lands where they would be permitted to live in peace and security.
Derisively he referred again to the folly of trusting in their GOD and reminded them that the gods of Hamath, Arphad, Sepharvaim and Samaria had been unable to cope with the might of Sennacherib. What reason had they then to hope that the Lord should intervene on their behalf and deliver Jerusalem from threatened ruin?
To all these demands and taunts the people answered “not a word,” for the king had so commanded them. Eliakim and his companions returned to Hezekiah with their clothes rent in token of their grief at being unable to come to terms with the Assyrian general whose arrogant and defiant words they reported to their king (vss. 12-22).
When Hezekiah heard it, he too rent his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth and “went into the house of the Lord” (chap. 37:1). There he could pour out his heart to the GOD of his fathers who had so often given deliverance to His people in times of great distress and adversity. Feeling the need of counsel and prayer he sent Eliakim, Shebna, and the elders to call upon Isaiah, to whom he said,
“Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble and of rebuke and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth. It may be the Lord thy God will hear the words of 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” (vss. 3, 4).
Such faith could not go unrewarded. GOD never fails those who commit everything to Him. He has said, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me” (Psa 50:15). Hezekiah was soon to prove the truth of this promise, even though his faith must first be tested severely.
Isaiah’s answer was most cheering and reassuring. He said, “Thus shall ye say unto your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me” (vs. 6). It was not a question between the two opposing forces, or between Rabshakeh and Hezekiah. The Assyrian had dared to challenge the power of the Lord. He, Himself, would take up the challenge, and would manifest His power and might, thus showing that He was not a mere idol, nor an imaginary deity like the gods of the heathen whose inability to save their devotees from destruction had been so readily manifested.
Sennacherib and his servants had dared to rush upon the thick bosses of the bucklers of the Almighty (Job 15:25, 26), and were soon to prove the folly of daring to fight against the omnipotent GOD who had created the heavens and the earth, and who declared through His prophet, “Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land” (vs. 7).
The “rumour” was a report that Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, was on his way to fight against Assyria, whose armies were divided; part besieging Jerusalem, and part warring against Libnah. Reluctantly, Rabshakeh was obliged to lift the siege and to withdraw to Assyria, but he sent a last defiant message to the king of Judah as his armies were withdrawing. “Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given 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?” (vss. 10, 11).
Again he taunted Hezekiah concerning the folly of presuming that his GOD would prove any more powerful than the gods of other nations. This message was put in the form of a letter which Hezekiah received at the hands of certain messengers who brought it from the camp of the Assyrians. It was a letter of blasphemy, and Hezekiah did right in not attempting to answer it himself. Instead, he took it into the house of the Lord and spread it out before GOD.
Bowing in His presence, he pleaded that the Lord would intervene to save His people. He
frankly acknowledged that the fake gods of the nations had no ability to save, but he confessed his confidence that the living GOD would undertake for those who put their trust in Him. The conclusion of his prayer is very beautiful and heart-moving: “Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou art the Lord, even Thou only” (vs. 20). Such confidence could not go unrewarded, nor such a prayer unheard.
The answer came through another message from Isaiah, assuring him that God had heard and was about to answer his petition; and that in such a way, that “The virgin, the daughter of Zion,” should despise the haughty foe whose army had at first seemed invincible.
Rabshakeh had reproached the Lord. He had blasphemed the GOD of Judah. In his pride and folly he had lifted up himself against the Holy One of Israel. Trusting in the vastness of his army, the number of his chariots and horsemen, he had thought it would be but a small matter to conquer Jerusalem and to carry its inhabitants away as captives, but he was soon to learn the difference between the senseless idols of the heathen and the One in whom Hezekiah had put his trust (vss. 21-28). Therefore the word of the Lord came to him saying: “Because thy rage against Me, and thy tumult, is come up into Mine ears, therefore will I put My hook in thy nose, and My bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.”
To Hezekiah the promise was given that the land which had been overrun by the enemy should bring forth of itself for two seasons and in the third year should be planted and would produce an abundant harvest, while the remnant of Judah, escaped out of the hand of the Assyrian, should once more begin to prosper and “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.”
As for the king of Assyria, he should not be permitted to enter Jerusalem, nor even shoot an arrow into it, nor threaten it again in any way. He was to return by the way that he came, for the Lord had undertaken to defend Jerusalem for His own sake and for His servant David’s sake.
The judgment was not long deferred, for GOD sent a terrible plague upon the camp of the Assyrians, so severe in character that in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand died, and the scattered remnants of the once-great army of Sennacherib departed for their own land, led by their defeated and crestfallen ruler.
Upon reaching his home city and worshiping in the house of his god he was set upon by two of his own sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, who slew their dishonored father with the sword and escaped into Armenia. One of their brothers, Esarhaddon, became king in his father’s stead.
Thus had GOD vindicated His holy name and freed His people from the impending doom that seemed about to fall upon them.
In chapter thirty-eight we read of Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. It might have been supposed that after such a remarkable experience of GOD’s intervention on behalf of His people, in answer to prayer, Hezekiah would have been drawn so close to the Lord that he would never have doubted His love and care again, but have lived constantly in the sunshine of the divine approval. But alas, with him, as so often with us all, it was far otherwise. When new tests came doubts and fears again prevailed and only the grace of GOD could bear with His poor failing servant.
The first test came through illness. Hezekiah was “sick unto death,” we are told. The prophet
Isaiah was sent to say to him, “Thus saith the Lord, Set thy house in order; for thou shalt die and not live.”
To the stricken king these words were evil tidings indeed. He was still a comparatively young man, for he had come to the throne at the age of twenty-five, and his entire reign was but twenty-nine years, so that at this time he was but thirty-nine. Long life was one of the promises to the obedient Israelite. Therefore the announcement that he was to die ere he was forty seemed to Hezekiah like an evidence of the divine displeasure.
He received the message of the prophet with real distress and pleaded for a reprieve from the sentence imposed upon him.
In reading his prayer we need to remember that Old Testament saints, however godly they might be, did not have the light on the after-life that has now been vouchsafed to the children of GOD. Our Lord JESUS CHRIST has brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel (2Ti 1:10).
He has revealed the truth as to that which GOD has prepared for those who love Him. Having gone down unto death and come up in triumph, He has annulled him that had the power of death, even the devil, and so delivers those who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Heb 2:14, 15). We know now that for the believer death simply means to be absent from the body and present with the Lord (2Co 5:8), and that this is far better than any possible earthly experience (Php 1:23).
But all this was unknown in the days before the advent of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, who declared, “If a man keep My saying he shall never see death” (Joh 8:51).
Therefore when the word came to Hezekiah that he must die, his soul was filled with fear, and he cried to GOD in his wretchedness, pleading the integrity of his life as a reason why his days should be prolonged.
GOD who sometimes grants our requests but sends leanness into our souls (Psa 106:15), heard his cry and sent the prophet to him once more; this time to tell him that his prayer was heard, and that GOD would add to his life another fifteen years and would also continue to defend Jerusalem from the evil machinations of the Assyrian king.
To confirm the promise, a sign was given which involved a stupendous miracle, for GOD said, “I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun-dial of Ahaz ten degrees backward.” When this actually took place, Hezekiah knew, beyond all question, that the prophet had spoken by divine authority.
This is not the place to discuss the miracle itself. Whether it was caused by some amazing event in the planetary system, or whether it was a miracle of refraction, we need not try to decide; but the fact that the astronomers of Babylon had knowledge of it would indicate that it was something far-reaching and of grave import.
Upon his recovery, Hezekiah wrote of his exercises and described vividly the experiences he passed through when he felt that he was under sentence of death. Bitterly he complained that he was about to be deprived of the residue of his years. To leave the world seemed to him like being banished from the presence of the Lord. His days and nights were filled with grievous pain, not only of body, but of mind, as he awaited in fear the carrying out of the decree, when GOD, as he put it, would “make an end” of him. He mourned “as a dove”; his eyes failed from “looking upward.” Yet he knew that he was in the hands of the Lord, and his heart cried out to Him for help.
It is evident that as his exercises continued, his soul entered more restfully into the truth that all must be well when one is in the care of a covenant-keeping GOD. “O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so wilt Thou recover me, and make me to live. Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.”
These precious words express his realization of the goodness and the wisdom of GOD, after health returned, for he took this as an evidence that GOD had pardoned all his sins and cast them away forever. As an unenlightened Old Testament believer, he could only think of early death as, in some sense, an expression of divine disapproval.
He could see nothing in the grave but darkness and forgetfulness. In life the Lord could be praised, not in Sheol. He wrote, of course, of conditions as he understood them; but he closed his writing with a note of praise and thanksgiving for renewed strength and added years of life.
The deliverance came in a very simple way. He had been suffering from a malignant boil, but a poultice of figs, prescribed by Isaiah, drew out the poison, and started the king on the way to recovery.
It is hardly necessary to point out that had Hezekiah died at the age of thirty-nine, Manasseh, who proved to be the most wicked king who ever sat on the throne of Judah, would never have been born, for he was but twelve years old when he began to reign (2Ch 33:1). He tried to undo everything that his father had done. Hezekiah had destroyed the altars of idolatry, had swept the land clear of idols. Manasseh brought in more forms of idolatry than were ever known before and he went to spiritists, mediums, and filled the land with those who professed to be able to talk with the dead, practices which GOD had forbidden. And he brought down the indignation of GOD upon Judah, because of the corruption and sin committed.
Yet how wonderful is the mercy of GOD; at last an old man fifty years of age and almost facing eternity, GOD brought that godless king to repentance. Manasseh broke down, confessed the sins of a long, ungodly life, undertook again to cleanse the land of its idols and tried to bring about a reformation, but it was too late to recover the people. His son Amon went right on in the sins of his father.
But in the next generation, GOD came in in wondrous grace again and raised up another son of David, King Josiah, who honored the Lord in his very youth and was the means of bringing about the great revival in Judah.
The thirty-ninth chapter tells of another failure on the part of this king who was, in the main, so devoted to the will of GOD. We read in 2Ch 32:31 concerning him, “Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that He might know all that was in his heart.”
There are few of us indeed, who could stand such a test as this. To be left alone by GOD, in order that our own hearts might be manifested, our inmost thoughts revealed, could only mean a moral or spiritual breakdown. Such was the trial to which Hezekiah was now exposed, and in which he failed through self-confidence. He acted upon his own judgment instead of turning to the Lord for guidance, and the result could only bring harm instead of blessing.
After the Lord had so graciously granted his request and raised him up from the very brink of the grave, we are told that “Merodach-Baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.”
How would the King of Judah react to this apparently friendly overture from the prince of the great city which was the very fountain-head of idolatry?
When Rabshakeh sent a letter of blasphemy, Hezekiah went into the sanctuary and spread it out before the Lord; but when there came a letter and a present, he felt no need of bringing this before GOD, or seeking instruction from Him. Do we not all know something of this self-confidence when we have to do with the world, not seen as in open opposition to that which we cherish most, as of GOD, but rather when it approaches us in an apparently friendly, patronizing manner, extending the hand of friendship instead of the mailed fist of enmity? Yet we are never in greater danger of missing the mind of GOD than at such a time as this. The letter that is accompanied with a present may cover up a far greater danger than the letter of blasphemy.
Evidently elated by the visit of the Babylonian envoys and their retinue, and pleased with the present, Hezekiah felt no need to ask counsel of the Lord, but without hesitation he received the embassage, “and shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not.”
This was exactly what the Chaldeans desired. No doubt, as they looked with covetous eyes on all these things, they were pondering in their hearts how best they should proceed in order that, some day, they might conquer Judah and have all this vast treasure for themselves.
Scarcely had they gone from the presence of Hezekiah before Isaiah appeared upon the scene to confront the king with two questions: “What said these men? And from whence came they unto thee?” Ingenuously Hezekiah replied, “They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon.” Surely he could not have been ignorant of the prophecies Isaiah had spoken as to this reserve power in the northeast that was yet to come against Judah, and be used by the GOD whom His people had neglected, as a rod to punish them for their willful disobedience.
Isaiah put another question: “What have they seen in thy house?” The king answered: “All that is in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.” He had no idea of the serious import of this, for he had not realized that the princes were actually spies, who had come to search out the land, and to report to the King of Babylon all that which they found.
It must have been a real shock therefore to the unsuspecting monarch, when Isaiah said, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away: and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”
All this was fulfilled years later, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and carried away their chief men as captives to Babylon, including a large number who were of the blood royal, as well as those very treasures (2Ch 36:18).
One can imagine Hezekiah’s disappointment and his deep chagrin, as he heard these words of the prophet; but he could only bow his head and accept them as the revelation of the judgment of GOD. So he replied, “Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken . . . For there shall be peace and truth in my days.”
The after-history of Judah shows how, in spite of occasional revivals, things went from bad to worse, until at last “there was no remedy” (2Ch 36:16) for their evil condition, and the prophesied judgment was fulfilled in the days of Zedekiah.
One to whom so many owe so much in rightly dividing the Word of truth, J. N. Darby, aptly points out that in this first part of the book, “We have had rather the outward history of Israel, but now we have their moral or inward history in their place of testimony against idolatry, in their relationship with CHRIST and the separation of a remnant.”
That inward history was a complete failure as the next part of Isaiah’s great prophecy clearly shows.
~ end of chapter 36-39 ~
http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/
***
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Isa 36:19
I. These inquiries may, by a slight accommodation, be used as showing some characteristics of false gods, and showing by implication the glory and worship which are due to the one living Lord. Men have a distinct right to inquire for their gods. Almighty God Himself does not shrink from this test of personality and nearness. He will be inquired of. He has proclaimed Himself accessible.
II. Many a man has felt the most intense pain on observing what he supposed was God’s absence from the scene of human affairs. God has been looked for, and looked for apparently in vain. When His voice might have hushed the storm, not a sound was heard. In reply to this difficulty, I suggest three things: (1) As a mere matter of fact, attested by a thousand histories known in our own experience, God has appeared in vindication of His name and honour; (2) God Himself is the only Judge as to the best manner and time of interposition; (3) The very absence of God, being dictated by wisdom, and controlled by love, must be intended to have a happy effect upon human faith. When God is absent, what if His absence be intended to excite inquiry in our hearts? When God is absent, what if His absence be intended to develop the trust of our nature? It is in having to grope for God we learn lessons of our own blindness and weakness and spiritual incapacity. We know not what God may be working out for us in the very act of withdrawing Himself for a small moment, and for a space immeasurably minute.
Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 193.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
THE HISTORICAL PARENTHESIS (36-39)
The center of the book of Isaiah is a brief but deeply interesting historical account of events during the reign of King Hezekiah. His name is mentioned not less than thirty-one times in these chapters. His great works in reformation and otherwise are recorded in 2Ki 18:4-7, 2Ch 29:1-36; 2Ch 30:5-22, 2Ki 20:20. From Pro 25:1 we learn that he was a great lover of the Word of God, for he had it copied, perhaps by many scribes. He was 25 years old when he ascended the throne and reigned 29 years, 727-699 B.C. No doubt he was one of the greatest kings of Judah.
The events recorded in these chapters are not put together chronologically. The kings sickness, prayer and recovery occurred before the attempts of Sennacherib to take Jerusalem and the subsequent complete overthrow of the Assyrian hosts. This arrangement has its meaning. These historical chapters are designed for an appendix to the earlier prophecies (1-35) and for an introduction to the later prophecies (40-66). The Assyrian enemy is repeatedly predicted in the earlier prophecies. Indeed he is seen as the enemy of Gods people, the rod of Gods anger to punish His disobedient people. How the Assyrian came and the angel of the Lord smote the camp is therefore put first, because it is related to the first prophecies of Isaiah. In connection with Hezekiahs pride in chapter 39 the future Babylonian captivity is announced. The later prophecies look upon the people as in Babylon, assuring the remnant of restoration, not alone from the dispersion in Babylon but the future great restoration, the regathering from all countries.
We give a brief analysis of these four chapters and leave it to the reader to gather up the blessed lessons of confidence in God, dependence upon Him, of prayer, as well as others, in which these chapters abound.
CHAPTER 36
The Threatening Enemy
1. The Assyrian invasion (Isa 36:1-3) 2. Rabshakehs mockery (Isa 36:4-10) 3. Eliakim, Shebna, and Joahs Request (Isa 36:11) 4. Rabshakehs address in Hebrew defying God (Isa 36:12-20) 5. The silence of the people (Isa 36:21) 6. The terror of Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah (Isa 36:22)
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
it came: 2Ki 18:13, 2Ki 18:17, 2Ch 32:1
that Sennacherib: Isa 1:7, Isa 1:8, Isa 7:17, Isa 8:7, Isa 8:8, Isa 10:28-32, Isa 33:7, Isa 33:8
Reciprocal: 2Ch 12:4 – the fenced 2Ch 32:32 – in the vision Neh 9:32 – since the time Isa 19:17 – the land Isa 22:8 – he discovered Isa 42:22 – a people Isa 52:4 – the Assyrian Jer 50:17 – first Hos 1:7 – I will Mat 1:9 – Ezekias
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
After the lovely picture of blessedness on earth in the millennial age, presented to us in chapter 35, there is a break in the prophecy. The four chapters, 36-39, give us details of history in Hezekiah’s reign, which are recounted also in 2 Kings, chapters 18-20, and again more briefly in 2Ch 32:1-33.
Remembering that we have no needless repetitions in Scripture, we may ask why these chapters should be inserted here? The answer, we think, is twofold.
First, the personal piety of Hezekiah is recorded, so different from the state of the nation at large, as depicted in the earlier chapters, and particularly chapter 1; and then how God answered his faith in the destruction of the Assyrian. Second, though his faith and dependence on God was so genuine, and his prayer for recovery so strikingly answered, these very mercies led to his failure in the matter of the Babylonian envoys which is recorded. This indicated that the more immediate judgments already pronounced could not be delayed.
Isa 36:1-22 records in detail the arguments by which the herald of the king of Assyria tried to persuade the people of Jerusalem to an immediate surrender, and we must remember that about eight years previously Samaria had fallen before the Assyrian power, and later the defended cities of Judah had also fallen. So humanly speaking the position of Jerusalem was hopeless.
Rabshakeh’s words were very specious. He knew the weakness of Egypt, in which the Jews were inclined to trust, as verse Isa 36:6 shows; and as to which the people had already been warned by Isaiah. He completely mistook, however, Hezekiah’s action in destroying the high places, for this, instead of being an offence against the Lord, was entirely in obedience to His word in Deu 12:1-6. So many previous kings, even the good ones, had overlooked this commandment of the Lord, but Hezekiah had been obedient and faithful.
Moreover, Rabshakeh falsely asserted that the Lord had told the Assyrian king to destroy Jerusalem, and then he appealed against Hezekiah to the citizens within hearing, for he evidently had a shrewd knowledge of their idolatrous tendencies, so different to their King. Many of them were secretly trusting in false gods and not in the Lord, so the reminder of the fact, that the gods of many other cities had failed to deliver, was calculated to have weight in their minds. Still Hezekiah’s command to the men to keep silence prevailed, and they answered him not a word.
Eliakim, of whom we read in Isa 22:1-25, with others brought news of all this to Hezekiah, and his reaction to it is found in the first five verses of Isa 37:1-38, God was first in his thoughts, for covered with sackcloth, indicating sorrow and humiliation, he “went into the house of the Lord.”
Then, in the second place, he turned to the prophet, through whom God had been speaking, confessing the low estate of himself and his people. He spoke of them as “the remnant that is left.” He recognized the unity of all Israel. Now that the ten tribes had been deported, he did not fall into the snare of assuming that the two, over whom he was king, were more than a “remnant,” left by the mercy of God. Much of the professing church today has been by the adversary deported from their true place and portion, so let any who have escaped this, and remain in any degree true to their original calling, never forget they have no other status than a remnant of the whole. They are not reconstituted as a separate entity.
Isaiah’s response was one of assurance. God would deal with Sennacherib, firstly by causing him to hear a report as to the king of Ethiopia, lastly by death in his own land, and in between by the destruction of his boasted and apparently invincible army, of which we read at the end of the chapter.
Though not for the moment attacking Jerusalem, Sennacherib sent a further boastful message to Hezekiah – verses Isa 36:10-13 – and Hezekiah’s response follows. Instead of replying to man, he turned to God, spreading the letter before Him. In his prayer he acknowledged the military might of the Assyrian king, yet asked for deliverance on the ground that the Assyrian had sent “to reproach the living God.”
This brought forth God’s immediate answer through Isaiah, accepting the Assyrian challenge, which was not only reproachful but blasphemous also. The Assyrian would become a laughing-stock to Jerusalem. His earlier successes against other cities had been ordained of God; now turning against God, he would be utterly crushed, and the remnant of Judah should be delivered for the time being. The city should be spared for the Lord’s own sake, as well as for David’s sake.
The chapter closes with a brief record of the drastic smiting of the Assyrian army. No record of this has been found among the dug-up remains of Assyrian libraries and monuments, we understand; and no wonder! These ancient monarchs, no more desired to keep their defeats and abasements in the memory of their public, than the men of today. Sennacherib himself came to an ignominious end, as the last verse of our chapter declares.
And then, “In those days,” just when Hezekiah had been so marvellously lifted up by this Divinely-wrought deliverance, he was smitten with an illness that brought him face to face with death. Through Isaiah, who just before had given him the message of deliverance for his city and people, he was told to prepare for his end. Unlike Asa, one of his predecessors, who when diseased “sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians,” he did go straight to the Lord and with tears besought for his life. He was heard and 15 further years were granted to him.
He asked for a sign that he should recover, as the last verse of the chapter tells us, and a remarkable sign was given. That the shadow on the sun-dial should go ten degrees backward was entirely contrary to nature, but it was a sign befitting the fact that God was about to reverse Hezekiah’s sickness, so that contrary to the nature of his disease, it should end in life and not death. A plaister of figs does not usually cure a virulently septic boil, but it did in this case as an act of God.
Unbelievers may of course refuse this story of the sun-dial incident, just as they do the incident of the long day, recorded in Jos 10:13, when the apparent course of the sun was arrested. It is worthy of note that in Joshua the sun, “hasted not to go down about a whole day.” The ten degrees of Hezekiah’s time may have completed a whole day. He who established the course of the solar system can accelerate or retard it, if it pleases Him so to do.
The Apostle Paul has told us, in Rom 5:3-5, what excellent results in the hearts and lives of saints are produced by tribulation, since it leads to the in-shining of the love of God in the power of the Holy Spirit. A faint foreshadowing of this we find in the writing of Hezekiah after he was recovered – which writing is preserved for us in verses Isa 36:10-20,
It begins on notes of great mournfulness, occupying five verses, but it ends on songs which are to fill the rest of his life. The change of tone begins when he recognized the affliction as coming from the hand of God. Moreover he discovered, as verse Isa 36:16 shows, that what threatened death to his body brought life to his spirit, which is more important than the body.
Verse Isa 36:17 too is full of instruction. It expresses what unconverted folk have sometimes found, as well as saints, when deeply tried or near to death. Hezekiah did not then concern himself with “my kingdom,” or “my wealth,” but “my soul.” He also become conscious of “my sins,” and that there was a “pit of corruption,” into which his sins threatened to cast his soul. This must have been a very acute spiritual experience for him; and so it is equally for us.
But on the other hand he made some very joyous: discoveries. First, he discovered that on God’s part there was “love to my soul,” though he could not have known that with the fulness that has only been revealed in Christ. Yet it led to the further discovery that God had dealt with his sins, though he could not have known that with the finality that the Gospel brings to us. In his day there was “the remission [i.e. passing over] of sins that are past” (Rom 3:25); that is, the sins of saints who lived before full atonement was made by Christ on the cross. Still he knew that God had cast all his sins behind His back; and since God does not move in circles but rather straight forward through the eternal ages, what He casts behind His back is there for ever, and not as He said to Ephraim in Hos 7:2, “before My face.”
Consequently he had the happy assurance that his soul was delivered from the doom that threatened it. The pit of corruption he would never see. What a wonderful experience was brought to Hezekiah by this violent sickness! Since his day many a saint has found a period of sickness, or of loss in other ways, to be an occasion of rich spiritual gain; many a sinner has been laid low to be broken in spirit and humbled for eternal blessing.
But, before we leave this chapter, there is another sobering reflection; for 2Ki 21:1 reveals that his son Manasseh, who succeeded him, was only 12 years old when he began to reign; that is, he was born after Hezekiah’s recovery, as the result of his added 15 years of life. And this Manasseh reigned for 55 years and did such evil in and with the nation that the Babylonian captivity had to be inflicted upon them, as is shown so plainly in 2Ki 21:10-16. Let us learn from this that we may earnestly beseech God for something that we regard as a favour, and it may be granted us, and yet we may have subsequently to discover that the “favour” we demanded carried with it consequences that were by no means favourable.
And this reflection is deepened when we read Isa 39:1-8. The Assyrian having been smitten of God, the revived city of Babylon began to lift up its head, though more than a century had to pass before it became the predominant power. Hezekiah had been magnified in the sight of surrounding peoples by the miraculous destruction of the Assyrian army, and also by his own miraculous recovery; hence the complimentary embassage from Merodach-baladan, which pleased him much and led to a display of his pride.
We are told quite definitely in 2Ch 32:25, 2Ch 32:26; 2Ch 32:31, that God’s kind deliverances led to the heart of Hezekiah being lifted up with pride, and that God permitted the testing of these men from Babylon to “try him,” and to “know all that was in his heart.” The Babylonians, whether they knew it or not, set a trap, and into it he fell, displaying for his own glory all that God had permitted him to acquire. Hence the solemn message Isaiah had to bring him, of coming judgment from Babylon on his sons and people.
Nor does the last verse of our chapter present Hezekiah to us in a very favourable light. He evidently cared much more for his own personal success and comfort than for the welfare of his posterity or of his nation. He had been favoured of God, but he passes from our view too much wrapped up in his own blessings, too little concerned for others on whom the judgment was to fall.
Thus these four historical chapters, whilst recording God’s merciful intervention both for the nation and for Hezekiah personally, show us quite plainly that there was nothing in the people nor in the best of their kings that would avert the more immediate judgment on Jerusalem, that in the earlier chapters Isaiah had foretold.
We might therefore have expected that chapter 40 would commence on a mournful note, calling for misery and tears rather than comfort, But no, “Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, saith your God;” and that in view of the main theme, which is developed in the remaining chapters. In the earlier portion – Isa 1:1-31; Isa 2:1-22; Isa 3:1-26; Isa 4:1-6; Isa 5:1-30; Isa 6:1-13; Isa 7:1-25; Isa 8:1-22; Isa 9:1-21; Isa 10:1-34; Isa 11:1-16; Isa 12:1-6; Isa 13:1-22; Isa 14:1-32; Isa 15:1-9; Isa 16:1-14; Isa 17:1-14; Isa 18:1-7; Isa 19:1-25; Isa 20:1-6; Isa 21:1-17; Isa 22:1-25; Isa 23:1-18; Isa 24:1-23; Isa 25:1-12; Isa 26:1-21; Isa 27:1-13; Isa 28:1-29; Isa 29:1-24; Isa 30:1-33; Isa 31:1-9; Isa 32:1-20; Isa 33:1-24; Isa 34:1-17; Isa 35:1-10 – the main theme has been the sinful state of both Israel and the surrounding nations, and God’s judgments upon them all, though relieved by happy references to Messiah’s kingdom and glory, (as in Isa 9:1-21, Isa 11:1-16, Isa 28:1-29, Isa 32:1-20). Now, though God’s controversy with Israel still continues, both as to their idolatry and their rejection of their Messiah, it is His advent, both in suffering and in glory, that is the main theme.
Comfort, then, is now pronounced and offered to God’s people and, as to the immediate context, it is based upon the declaration in verse Isa 36:2. It is not that their iniquity is condoned or made light of but rather that its “double,” or appropriate punishment, has been exacted, and thus it has been pardoned, and the time of “warfare,” or suffering, is over. The verse does not state how this “double” from the Lord’s hand has been received.
The explanation of it lies in the subsequent chapters. As to the government of God, operating in this world, they receive it to the full in heavy chastisement, as indicated in Isa 57:1-21; Isa 58:1-14; Isa 59:1-21. As to the more serious matter of God’s eternal judgment on sin, they receive it in the vicarious sufferings of their Messiah and Saviour, whom once they rejected. This we see in Isa 53:1-12, where we find them saying prophetically, “The chastisement of our peace was upon Him,” since “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”
So verse Isa 36:3 presents us with that which the Evangelist Mark has declared to be, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God:” – the mission of John the Baptist. The prophecy here is quite unmistakable for John himself claimed to be “the voice;” as recorded in Joh 1:23. Equally unmistakable is the true greatness and glory of the One that he announced, for it was “Jehovah,” and “our God” for whom he prepared the way.
The language of verse Isa 36:4 is figurative but the meaning is plain, and in keeping with the words of the virgin Mary, recorded in Luk 1:52. John’s baptism was one of repentance, and that brings all men down to a common level of lowliness and self-judgment. The Pharisees saw this clearly enough and it was the reason why they, being puffed up with pride, “rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him” (Luk 7:30).
But though the allusion to John is so plain, verse Isa 36:5 carries us on to what will be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ. The glory of the Lord was indeed revealed at His first coming, and it proved to be “the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father” (Joh 1:14). But in the same verse we read, “We beheld His glory,” and the context of these words shows that the mass of the people did not behold it. The disciples were the exception to the rule. Not until His second advent comes to pass will “all flesh” see it. Rev 1:7, declares the publicity of His second advent.
So the prophecy here, as is usual in the Old Testament, has both advents in view. The same feature meets us in chapter Isa 61:2, for, when the Lord Jesus read this in the synagogue at Nazareth, He stopped in the middle of the verse, knowing that the latter part of it referred to His second advent in power and not His first advent in grace. A single star shines in our night sky but when seen through a telescope it proves to be two. So this predicted advent of Jehovah in the person of the Messiah, is discovered to be two advents in the clearer light of the New Testament.
But the immediate effect of the presence of the Lord and the revelation of His glory would be – What? The complete exposure of the sinfulness and frailty of mankind. Not merely Gentile flesh, or depraved flesh, but “all flesh” is as withered and worthless grass. The Apostle Peter quotes these words at the end of the first chapter of his first Epistle, but in contrast therewith he dwells upon the word of our God which stands for ever. And he assures us that by that living and abiding word of God we have been “born again.” So once more we see how New Testament grace shines above Old Testament law.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
HISTORICAL PARENTHESIS
These chapters are a dividing line between what may be called Parts 1 and 2 of this book. They deal with Hezekiahs reign whose history has been considered in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.
The chapters are not arranged chronologically, as the event of chapter 38, Hezekiahs sickness and recovery, occurred prior to the siege of Sennacherib (chaps. 36-37).
The prophecies preceding these chapters predict the rise of the Assyrian power as the enemy of Judah and Gods rod of punishment for them, which were fulfilled in Hezekiahs time; while those following look upon the nation as in captivity to Babylon, the successor to Assyria. It is in connection with Hezekiahs pride (chap. 39) that this captivity is first definitely announced.
While the chapters following look upon the nation as already in Babylon, they do so chiefly for the purpose of assuring the faithful remnant of ultimate deliverance not only from the Babylonian captivity, but from all the nations whither the Lord has driven them, in the latter days.
In brief, chapter 36 reveals the Assyrian army before Jerusalem, and the effect upon the Jewish people. Chapter 37 shows the king in supplication to Jehovah with the effect on the invaders. Chapter 38 is the story of the kings sickness and healing, in which the prediction of the kings death alarms him because at this time he had no heir. Had he died thus, the messianic hope would have died with him.
In chapter 39 we have the circumstance of Hezekiahs boasting to the Babylonian ambassadors exalting himself rather than Jehovah. It is in this connection that the prophecy of Babylonian supremacy is given. This is impressive, when we recall that Babylon had not yet risen into the place of power which was still held by Assyria. Only supernatural power could have revealed this to Isaiah. The reason why these Babylonians visited Jerusalem at this time may have been connected with their subsequent overthrow of that sacred city. Had the king glorified His God instead of himself might not the result have been different?
QUESTIONS
1. To whose history does this parenthesis allude?
2. What is the relation of these chapters in Kings and Chronicles?
3. Have you reviewed the chapters in Kings and Chronicles?
4. Where is Judah supposed to be historically, in the latter part of Isaiah?
5. Why do those later prophecies so regard Judah?
6. Give a brief outline of each chapter of the lesson.
7. What special cause of alarm was there in the announcement of the kings death?
8. What is the supernatural feature about the prophecy of Babylons supremacy?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
A.M. 3292. B.C. 712.
In this and the three following chapters is contained the historical part of the book of Isaiah, relating a memorable transaction, strongly confirmative of the divine mission of our prophet, and illustrative of some of the foregoing predictions. In this chapter we have the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib, Isa 36:1. He sends Rabshakeh, who, by his blasphemous persuasion, tempts Hezekiah to despair, and the people to revolt, Isa 36:2-22.
Isa 36:1. Now it came to pass, &c. The history related in this and the three following chapters is contained, almost wholly in the same words, 2 Kings 18., 19., 20.; where see the notes. It was probably first written by this prophet, and from him taken into the second book of Kings to complete that history: and we may conjecture that it is that part of the account of Hezekiahs reign which is said to have been written by Isaiah, 2Ch 32:32. It is inserted here, because it casts great light on several particulars of the foregoing prophecies; and chapter 39. contains a prophecy of the captivity, and is an introduction to the remainder of Isaiahs prophecies, a great part of which relate to the restoration of the Jews, and their return from Babylon to their own land. For the same reason, the history of the taking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians is annexed to Jeremiahs prophecies, because it helps to explain and confirm several passages in them.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Isa 36:1. In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, Sennacherib came up against all the cities of Judah. This history is related in 2 Chronicles 32., with notes and comments: but it was proper for Isaiah to insert it in his own volume, being an exact accomplishment of his predictions against the western nations of Africa.
Isa 36:2. Rabshakehstood by the conduit of the upper pool. The Assyrian army occupied an elevated position on the whole west of the city, where they had water and defence. See the map of Jerusalem, and 2Ch 32:30.
Isa 36:8. Now therefore give pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king. Rabshakeh demanded two thousand hostages of the best families, for whom he would provide horses. He offered to remove them to a land like their own, but alas, a land unnamed! The military insolence of a man elated with conquests. Who but the vanquished can bear it?
Isa 36:10. Am I now come up without the LORD against this land to destroy it? He used the word Jehovah, a name which he thought would have weight with the Jews. If his gods had delivered such an oracle, they had done it to destroy both him and his army. A great man consummately wicked. Blasphemy filled up the measure of his sins.
Isa 36:19. Where are the gods of Hamath? The country north of the passe of Lebanon.Sephar-vaim, a kingdom north of Damascus. Arphad, Hena, and Ivah were royal cities, adjacent to the kingdom of Hamath. Those men boasted of having conquered the gods; to say they had conquered men was of small account. Idolaters from the beginning have placed their cities and temples under the care of titular divinities. The origin of such practices was pious, without a doubt; for Jacob says, the angel of the Lord, (the Messiah) hath redeemed me from all evil and mischief. The Athenians, walking in the vanity of their imagination, placed their city under the care of the blue-eyed Pallas. We follow them in placing churches and chapels under the patronage of apostles, saints and martyrs.
REFLECTIONS.
Thousands of men, on reading the lives of conquerors, feel an ambition kindle in their heart to imitate their career. Dazzled with the idea of glory, they overlook the bloodshed, the devastation and misery they must bring on the vanquished. But God graciously controuls their pride, and holds them fast in the fetters of restraint. However, when the God of nations sees it meet to humble the proud, and punish every crime with an appropriate stroke, he draws from the treasures of his providence a man everyway adapted for his purpose. Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Sesostris, Alexander, Julius Csar, the Mahomedan conquerors, and one of our own times, have been eminently distinguished as the scourges of heaven to a guilty age. But the commission has its limits, the duration has its bounds, and the reward for their work is sure. Thus the great king of Nineveh, seeing his standards flying on the towers of Ecbatana in the east, on Babylon in the south, and northward among the Scythians, resolved to cut off the nations of the west who should rebel, and to transport the cities who should submit to other parts of his empire. As a mighty inundation when the spring-tides break all the banks, he sallied forth from all the cities of the Tygris and Euphrates. Damascus, Samaria, Philistia, and all the nations of western Asia, either perished by the storming of their cities, or submitted to the pleasure of the conqueror. Hezekiah alone seems to have bought off the calamity with an immensity of gifts; nor did this wave of destruction recoil on Nineveh till Sennacherib was obliged to raise the siege of Pelusium, now Damiette, at the mouth of the Nile. Then this most wicked army, being about a thousand miles from home, nearly all perished in their retreat. Hence the attack on Jerusalem was very unfair, after the acceptance of Hezekiahs gifts; and the nature of the summons was insolent and impious in the extreme. Thus God very often permits wickedness to arrive at maturity before he thrusts in the sickle. The summons of Rabshakeh has a specious appearance of wisdom and equity. He mocks at Hezekiahs resources for war, and at his confidence in Egypt. And as to help from heaven, the general farther inferred that Hezekiah could expect none, because he had taken away the high places and altar of Israels God. This was a just argument, though founded on mistake, for it was Baals altars that Hezekiah had destroyed. But let us not profit the less by truth for this mistake. Learn then, oh backsliding soul, that if thou forsakest the house and altar of thy God, thou hast no just claim to help in the day of trouble. We have next the great prudence of Hezekiahs ministers, in wishing to conceal the progress of the treaty they wanted to ratify, till it was matured for disclosure; because it would divide the people in opinion, inflame their passions, and be an insult to the king. But the general, just like sinners on the verge of destruction, gloried in rejecting counsel, and applained the way for his total ruin.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Isaiah 36-39. This section has been extracted from 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19, and the Song of Hezekiah has been added. For an exposition see the notes on 2 K.; here we have simply to deal with the Song of Hezekiah.
Isa 38:10-20. Thanksgiving for Deliverance from Imminent Death.This is now generally regarded as a post-exilic psalm. Its absence in the parallel narratine in Kings is significant. Apparently it was inserted here by an editor who thought it suitable to Hezekiahs circumstances. If, as seems likely, it has been influenced by the Book of Job, it must be post-exilic. The title cannot, any more than the Psalm titles, weigh against internal evidence.
Hezekiahs writing after his recovery from sickness. I thought that when I had reached the zenith of my life I should be banished to Sheol, where I should have fellowship with Yahweh no longer, nor yet with my fellow-men. My habitation (mg.) is torn from the soil. I have rolled up my life as a weaver rolls up his web when it is finished; He will cut me off from the thrum (mg.), day and night Thou deliverest me to my pain. I cried out until morning, my bones broken with torment. I twittered like a swallow, moaned like a dove; my failing eyes looked up with appeal to Yahweh, that He would be my surety. What shall I say to Him? It is He who has done it. I toss all the time I am sleeping, because of the bitterness of my soul. Lord, for this my heart waits on Thee. Quicken me and restore me to health. Affliction was bitter, but it has been for my peace. Thou hast kept back my soul from the pit, and utterly forgotten all my sins. For in Sheol there can be no praise of Yahweh. Those who descend to the pit cannot hope for His faithfulness. Only the living can praise God. the father can declare to his children Yahwehs faithfulness. Here the song closes. Isa 38:20 seems to be an addition fitting it for use in the Temple.
Isa 38:10. noontide: lit. stillness. The metaphor is of the sun having risen to its height and pausing before it descends.
Isa 38:12. loom: better thrum (mg.), i.e. the threads that fasten the web to the loom.From day . . . of me: better day and night thou didst deliver me up.
Isa 38:13. quieted myself: better cried.
Isa 38:14 c. He is like a debtor who is being taken to prison; he appeals to Yahweh, to the creditor Himself, to become his surety (Job 17:3).
Isa 38:15. Very difficult. Duhms restoration, adopted above, gives the probable sense.
Isa 38:16. Duhms emendations of the obscure text are adopted above
Isa 38:18 f.Observe the characteristic Hebrew conception of Sheol.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
36:1 Now it came to pass {a} in the {b} fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, [that] Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them.
(a) This history is rehearsed because it is as a seal and confirmation of the doctrine before, both for the threatenings and promises: that is, that God would permit his Church to be afflicted, but at length would send deliverance.
(b) When he had abolished superstition, and idolatry, and restored religion, yet God would exercise his Church to try their faith and patience.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
An ultimatum 36:1-20
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The Rabshakeh’s challenge 36:1-37:7
This section demonstrates Hezekiah’s commitment to God, but the next one (Isa 37:8-35) shows an even stronger commitment by the king to commit his own fate and the fate of his people to God. The present section stresses Assyrian pride and its result: divine judgment (cf. Isa 10:15-19). Isaiah did not record Hezekiah’s attempt to buy off Sennacherib (2Ki 18:13-16), probably because he wanted to focus on the Judean king’s good example of trusting God.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The fourteenth year of Hezekiah was 701 B.C. [Note: See E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, pp. 118-54.] On an Assyrian record, Sennacherib claimed to have taken 46 cities of Judah during this campaign (cf. 2Ch 32:1). The record is on the Prism of Sennacherib, also called the Taylor Prism, now in the British Museum. [Note: See J. B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 288; or Young, 2:566-69, or Dyer, in The Old . . ., p. 557, who reproduced Sennacherib’s translated description of his campaign into Palestine.]
"He went from the north along the coast defeating (among others) the towns of Aphek, Timnah, Ekron, and Lachish. Lachish was then his staging area for attacking a number of other towns." [Note: J. Martin, p. 1086.]
"The army of Sennacherib is swarming over Judah like a horde of Tolkienian Orcs, and only Jerusalem remains (Isa 8:8)." [Note: Ortlund, p. 207.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
BOOK 4
JERUSALEM AND SENNACHERIB
701 B.C.
INTO this fourth book we put all the rest of the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah, that have to do with the prophets own time: chapters 1, 22 and 33, with the narrative in 36, 37. All these refer to the only Assyrian invasion of Judah and siege of Jerusalem: that undertaken by Sennacherib in 701.
It is, however, right to remember once more, that many authorities maintain that there were two Assyrian invasions of Judah-one by Sargon in 711, the other by Sennacherib in 701-and that chapters 1 and 22 (as well as Isa 10:5-34) belong to the former of these. The theory is ingenious and tempting; but, in the silence of the Assyrian annals about any invasion of Judah by Sargon, it is impossible to adopt it. And although Chapters 1 and 22 differ very greatly in tone from chapter 33, yet to account for the difference it is not necessary to suppose two different invasions, with a considerable period between them. Virtually, as will appear in the course of our exposition, Sennacheribs invasion of Judah was a double one.
1. The first time Sennacheribs army invaded Judah they took all the fenced cities, and probably invested Jerusalem, but withdrew on payment of tribute and the surrender of the casus belli, the Assyrian Vassal Padi, whom the Ekronites had deposed and given over to the keeping of Hezekiah. To this invasion refer Isa 1:1-31; Isa 22:1-25. and the first verse of 36.: “Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah that Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them.” This verse is the same as 2Ki 18:13, to which, however, there is added in 2Ki 18:14-16 an account of the tribute sent by Hezekiah to Sennacherib at Lachish, that is not included in the narrative in Isaiah. Compare 2Ch 32:1.
2. But scarcely had the tribute been paid when Sennacherib, himself advancing to meet Egypt, sent back upon Jerusalem a second army of investment, with which was the Rabshakeh; and this was the army that so mysteriously disappeared from the eyes of the besieged. To the treacherous return of the Assyrians and the sudden deliverance of Jerusalem from their grasp refer Isa 33:1-24, Isa 36:2-22, with the fuller and evidently original narrative in 2Ki 18:17-19. Compare 2Ch 32:9-23.
To the history of this double attempt upon Jerusalem in 701-chapters 36 and 37 – there has been appended in 38 and 3 an account of Hezekiahs illness and of an embassy to him from Babylon. These events probably happened some years before Sennacheribs invasion. But it will be most convenient for us to take them in the order in which they stand in the canon. They wilt naturally lead us up to a question that it is necessary we should discuss before taking leave of Isaiah-whether this great prophet of the endurance of the kingdom of God upon earth had any gospel for the individual who dropped away from it into death.