THE next four chapters contain a historical appendix to the first part of Isaiah’s prophecies, relating chiefly to Sennacherib’s invasion and the slaughter of his host, to Hezekiah’s sickness and miraculous recovery, and to the friendly intercourse between him and the king of Babylon. The same narrative is found substantially in the second book of Kings (ch. xvm-xx), and a different account of the same matters in the second book of Chronicles (ch. xxxn). The close resemblance of the former passage to the one before us has afforded full scope to the German appetite for critical conjecture and ingenious combination. Paulus and Hendewerk adhere to the old opinion of Grotius and Vitringa, that the narrative in Kings is a varied transcript of the one in Isaiah; but Eichhorn, Gesenius, Maurer, and DeWette regard the latter as an addition, by the hand of a compiler, to the collection of Isaiah’s prophecies, abridged and otherwise altered from the book of Kings; while Koppe, Rosenmuller, Hitzig, Umbreit, and Knobel consider the two narratives as parallel or collateral abridgments, made by different writers, from the same original, viz. a more extended history, no longer in existence. This last hypothesis is founded on the difficulty of maintaining either of the others, a difficulty springing from the fact that neither of the passages sustains, in all respects, the character of an original or an abridgment. Each contains matter which is not found in the other, and although Gesenius and Knobel have endeavoured to demonstrate that the diction, phraseology, grammatical structure, and even the orthography of the passage before us, are symptomatic of a later origin, neither the principle which they assume, nor its specific application here, is so unquestionable as to satisfy the mind of any ordinary reader, in default of more conclusive evidence. The particular points included in this general statement will be noticed in the exposition. From the strong resemblance of the passages, and the impossibility of fixing upon either as the more ancient and authentic of the two, the natural inference would seem to be, that they are different draughts or copies of the same composition, or at least that they are both the work of the same writer, and that this writer is Isaiah. That the prophets often acted as historiogra phers, and that Isaiah in particular discharged this office, are recorded facts. Nothing can be more natural, therefore, than the supposition that he inserted the same narrative in one book as a part of the chronicle of Judah, and in the other as an illustrative appendix to his earlier prophecies. To what extent this would make him the author of the books of Kings, is here a question of but little moment. Whether these are to be regarded as complete compositions of particular authors, or as continuous official records, formed by successive entries, or as abstracts of such records made for per manent preservation, the supposition that he wrote both passages is equally admissible. As to the variations of the two from one another, they are precisely such as might have been expected in the case supposed, that is to say, in the case of the same writer twice recording the same facts, especially if we assume an interval between the acts, and a more specific purpose in the one case than the other. It must also be considered that on this hypo thesis, the writer expected both accounts to be within the reach of the same readers, and might therefore leave them to illustrate and complete each other. That there is nothing in these variations to forbid the supposition of their being from the same pen, is evinced by the circumstance that each of the parallels has been declared, for similar reasons, and with equal confidence, to be a transcript of the other. Against the supposition that Isaiah is the author of both or either, even German ingenuity and learning have been able to adduce no better arguments than one or two flimsy philological cavils, such as the use of Jewish in ch. 36: 11, and some others which will be particularly mentioned in the exposition, together with the usual objections founded on the assumed impossibility of miracles and inspiration. Thus the recession of the shadow, the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, the prediction of his own death, and of the length of Hezekiah^s life, are all alleged with great naivete by the infidel interpreters as proofs that these chapters are of later date, whereas they only prove that their writer was a prophet sent from God. 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 writ ten a part of the history of Judah, the presumption in favour of his having written both the passages in question cannot be shaken by the mere possibility, or even the intrinsic probability, of other hypotheses, for which there is not the least external evidence. The specific end, for which the narrative is here appended to the foregoing prophecies, appears to he that of showing the fulfilment of certain prophecies which had relation to a proximate futurity, and thereby gaining credence and authority for those which had a wider scope and a remoter consummation.
1. And it was (or came to pass) in the fourteenth year of the king Hezekiah. Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fenced (or fortified) cities of Judah, and took them. The parallel passage in Kings is immediately preceded by a summary account of the earlier events of Hezekiah’s reign, with particular mention of his religious reformations and his extirpation of idolatry, to which is added an account of the deportation of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser (2 Kings 18: 1—12). This visitation is referred to the apostasy of Israel as its meritorious cause, and contrasted with the favour of the Lord to Hezekiah as a faithful servant. While Ephraim was carried away never to return, Judah was only subjected to a temporary chastisement, the record of which follows. The verse which directly corresponds to that before us (2 Kings 18: 13) differs from it only in the omission of the idiomatic formula ‘‘•T^. The statement in Chronicles (32: 1) is, that he entered into Judah and encamped against the fortified cities and proposed (nE&oi) to subdue them to himself. The same restricted sense is put by some interpreters upon the stronger phrase (and took them) which Isaiah uses. Others, with the same view, limit the meaning of the word all before cities. Gesenius understands the cities here meant to be those which Rehoboam fortified (2 Chr. 11: 5-12). Sennacherib is mentioned, under nearly the same name, by Herodotus, who calls him the king of Assyria and Arabia. This may either be accounted for, as an example of the loose geographical distinctions of the ancient writers, or as implying that the Assyrian conquests really included certain portions of Arabia. Between this verse and the next, as they stand in Isaiah, the narrative in Kings in serts three others, which relate what immediately followed the invasion of the country and preceded the attack upon Jerusalem. The substance ol this statement is that Hezekiah sent to Sennacherib at Lachish, saying, 1 have offended (i. e. in renouncing his allegiance to Assyria), return from me, that which thou puttest on me I will bear; that Sennacherib accordingly imposed a tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty of gold, to pay which Hezekiah gave him all the treasures of the palace and the temple, not excepting the metallic decorations of the doors and pillars (2 Kings 18: 14-16). This last act seems to be entirely inconsistent with the view which Calvin takes of Hezekiah’s conduct in this whole transaction as en tirely innocent and laudable, evincing a pacific disposition and a willingness to purchase peace at any price. He seems indeed to have been disposed to buy it far too dearly when he stripped the house of God to pay for it, an act which certainly implies distrust of the divine protection. There is nothing, either in the case before us, or in the general analogy of Scripture, to forbid the supposition, that the narrative was intended to exhibit the weakness no less than the strength of Hezekiah’s faith, in which case there is no need of laboriously vindicating all his acts as perfectly consistent with a strong and lively faith, although his general sincerity and godliness cannot be questioned. Another addition to the narrative is found in the second book of Chronicles (32: 1—8), where we read that Hezekiah, when he saw that Sennacherib was come, and that his face was towards Jerusalem for war, took measures to strengthen the defences of the city, and to cut off the supply of water from the enemy, while at the same time he encouraged the people to rely upon Jehovah and not to be afraid of the Assyrian host. All this is spoken of as having taken place before what is recorded in the next verse of the chapter now before us. If we suppose it to have followed Hezekiah’s message to Sennacherib and payment of the tribute, the inference would seem to be that the invader, having received the money, still appeared disposed to march upon the Holy City, whereupon the king abandoned all hope of conciliation, and threw himself without reserve on the divine protection.
2. And, the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem, to king Hezekiah, with a strong force, and he stood by the conduit (or aqueduct) of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field. Be sides Rabshakeh, the narrative in Kings mentions Tartan and Rabsaris; that in Chronicles uses the general expression his servants. Rabshakeh may be named alone here as the chief speaker, or as the commander of the expedition. The Jews have a tradition that he was a renegado or apostate Jew, and one absurd story makes him out to have been a son of Isaiah. Others account for his knowledge of Hebrew by supposing him to have acquired it by intercourse with captives of the ten tribes. Lachish was a town of Judah south-west of Jerusalem on the way to Egypt. This place Sennacherib was now besieging (2 Chron. 32: 9), and being probably de tained longer than he had expected, he detached a part of his forces to attack Jerusalem, or rather to summon Hezekiah to surrender. That the main body of the army afterwards advanced against Jerusalem is nowhere explicitly recorded, although some infer from ch. 10: 28-32 that they did so, making a circuit to the north for the purpose of surprising the city. It is said in Chronicles that Sennacherib was now before Lachish, in the military sense, i. e. besieging it, with all his force, which some explain to mean with a large part of it, others with his court and the usual accompaniments of an eastern camp, in order to remove a supposed inconsistency with what is here said. But the phrase in Chronicles relates to the Assyrian force at Lachish before Rabshakeh was detached, and is inserted merely to explain the statement that he came from Lachish, because Sennacherib had halted there with all his army. The verb was^ may also be referred to the halt of Rabshakeh’s detachment, or to the position which they took up on arriving; but it is simpler to refer it to the spot on which Rabshakeh himself stood during the interview about to be described. The spot was doubtless one of great resort. For the localities here mentioned, see the notes on ch. 7: 3 and 22: 9-11. The verse in Kings, which corresponds to this, is more redundant in expression, from which Gesenius infers as a matter of course, that it is the original and this the copy, as if amplification were not as easy as abridgment.
V. 3. Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, who was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph’s son, the recorder. The parallel narrative (2 Kings 18: 18) prefixes to this verse a statement that he called to (or for) the Icing, in answer to which summons these three ministers came out. Eliakim here appears as Shebna’s successor, according to the prophecy in ch. 22: 20, and Shebna himself as an inferior office bearer. Interpreters have amused themselves with trying to discover equivalents in modern parlance for these three official titles, such as chamberlain, steward, majordomo, secretary, master of requests, master of the rolls, historiographer etc. It is enough to know that they probably denote three principal officers of state, or of the royal household, which in oriental governments is very much the same thing. Clericus, in his version of this sentence, omits the name of Joah, and then notes it as an error of the Hebrew text, to be corrected by a comparison with 2 Kings 18: 18.
4. And Rabshakeh said to them: Say now (or if you please) to Hezekiah, thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What is this confidence which thou confidest in? He expresses his contempt by withholding the name of king from Hezekiah and calling his own master the great king, a common title of the Persian and other oriental monarchs, corresponding to Grand Seignior, GrandMonarque, and Emperor, as a distinctive royal title. The interrogation in the last clause implies surprise and scorn at a reliance so unfounded. Confide and confidence sustain the same etymological relation to each other as the Hebrew noun and verb.
5. I say (or have said), only word of lips, counsel and strength for the war; now on whom hast thou confided, that thou hast rebelled against met The parallel passage in Kings has thou hast said, which Lowth assumes to be the true text here, while others treat the common reading as an error of the writer or abridger. It is much easier, however, to account for tHBX as having arisen from SHBK, a defective orthography for Ti’iaK, than to deduce the latter from the former. The truth no doubt is that both the readings are original, since both may be so explained as to express the same idea. Many interpreters regard what follows as a parenthesis (it is only word, of lips, i. e. mere talk). Others make it interrogative (is mere talk counsel and strength for the war?) Others suppose an ellipsis in each member (Isay you have only word of lips, but there is need of counsel and strength for the war). The simplest construction is: I say, mere word of lips is (your) counsel and strength for the war, i. e. your pretended strength and wisdom are mere talk, false pretension. The allusion is not so much to Hezekiah’s prayers (Kimchi) as to his addresses to the people, recorded in 2 Chr. 32: 6-8. The sense of the other passage (2 Kings 18: 20) seems to be, thou hast said (to thyself, or thought, that) mere talk is counsel and strength for the war. The contemptuous import of DTBtD -ai is apparent from Prov. 14: 23. The rebellion mentioned in the last clause is Hezekiah’s casting off the Assyrian yoke (2 Kings 18: 7).
6. Behold, thou hast trusted in the staff (or support) of this broken reed, in Egypt, which, (if) a man lean upon it, will go into his hand and pierce it; so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all those trusting in him. He answers his own question. The charge of relying upon Egypt may be either regarded as a true one, or as a malicious fabrication, or as a mere inference from the analogy of other cases and the habitual relation of the parties. Egypt may be called a broken reed, either as being always weak, or in allusion to what it had already suffered from Assyria. Broken of course does not mean entirely divided, but so bruised or shattered as to yield no firm support but rather to do injury. (See ch. 42: 3 below.) Nei ther Gesenius nor any other critic seems to consider niixa ^y as a gloss, a strong proof that such explanatory clauses are not quite so unnatural as they are elsewhere represented. (See the notes on ch. 7: 17. 8: 7.)
7. And if thou say to me, we trust in Jehovah our God, is it not he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, before this altar shall ye worship. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 22) has ye say in the plural, which Gesenius regards as the original and proper form, because Hezekiah is afterwards mentioned in the third person. But what then becomes of the favourite critical canon that the more difficult reading is commonly the true one, or of the allegation that the author of the text before us is proved to be a copyist by his disposition to remove irregularities and make the form of expression uniform? Rabshakeh’s question evidently refers to Hezekiah’s reformation of reli- 38 gious worship (2 Kings 18: 4), which he erroneously regarded as a change of the national religion. The parallel passage adds, at the end of the sentence, in Jerusalem, which is just as likely to have been added in the one copy, as to have been omitted in the other.
8. And now, engage, I pray thee, with my lord, the Icing of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, ifthou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. A contemptuous comparison between the Jews, who were almost destitute of cavalry, and the Assyrians, who were strong in that species of force (ch. 5: 28). ansrn is not to wager, nor to give pledges, but simply to engage with; whether in fight or in negotiation, must be de termined by the context.
9. And how wilt thou turn away the face of one governor (or satrap) of the least of my master’s servants? So thou hast reposed thyself on Egypt. with respect to chariots and horses. As a man is said to turn his face towards an object of attack, so the latter may be said to turn back (or away) the face of his assailant when he repels him. The last clause is an inference from the first, as the first is from the foregoing verse. If Hezekiah could not command two thousand horsemen, he was unprepared to resist -even a detachment of the Assyrian force, and if thus helpless, he must be trusting, not in his own resources, but in foreign aid.
10. And now (is it) without Jehovah 1 have come up against this land to destroy it 1 Jehovah said to me, go up to (or against) this land and destroy it. Some interpreters suppose that the Assyrians had heard of prophecies, in which they were described as instruments by which Jehovah meant to punish his own people. It is much more natural, however, to regard this as a bold attempt to terrify the Jews by pleading the authority of their own tutelary deity for this invasion. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 25) has place instead of the first land, a clear case, as Knobel imagines. of assimilation on the part of the transcriber. But no such inference was.drawn from the opposite appearance in v. 7, nor is any attempt made to -explain why the bs and ^x were not assimilated also.
11. Then said Eliakim, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Pray speak unto thy servants in Aramean, for we understand (it), and speak not to us in Jewish, in the ears of the people who (are) on the wall. This request implies an apprehension of the bad effect of his address upon the multitude. Aramean corresponds very nearly to Syrian in latitude of meaning; but the language meant is not what we call Syriac, but an older form, which was probably current, as the French is now, at the courts and among the educated classes of an extensive region. Jewish is Hebrew, so called by the Jews, as the language of the whole British empire is called English, or as German is sometimes called Saxon. The use of this term here is urged by some as a proof of later date than the time of Isaiah, on the ground that the distinctive name Jewish could not have been common till long after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which left Judah the only representative of Israel. But how long after this event may we assume that such a usage became common? The ten tribes were carried into exile by Sennacherib’s father, if not by his grandfather. It is altogether probable that from the time of the great schism between Ephraim and Judah, the latter began to call the national language by its own distinctive name. At the period in question, such a designation was certainly more natural, in the mouths of Jews, than Israelitish or even Hebrew. We understand, literally, we (are) hearing, i. e. hearing distinctly and intelli gently.
12. And Rabshakeh said: Is it to thy master and to thee, that my master hath sent me to speak these words 1 Is it not to the men sitting on the wall to eat their own dung and to drink their own water with you 1 The last clause might seem to mean, is it not appointed to them, necessary for them, or are they not doomed etc? But since bs is used in the parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 27) after nbiu, as a simple equivalent to bx, it is better to repeat the verb of the first clause at the beginning of the second: has he not sent me 1 The last clause is obviously descriptive of the horrors of famine in their most revolting form. The same idea is conveyed still more distinctly in Chronicles: whereon do ye trust that ye abide in the fortress of Jerusalem 1 doth not Hezekiah persuade you to give over yourselves to die by famine and by thirst, saying, the Lord our God shall deliver us out of the hand of the king of Assyria] (2 Chr. 32: 10, 11). So here the people are described as sitting on the wall, i. e. holding out against Sennacherib, only that they may experience these horrors. The masoretic readings in the margin of the Hebrew Bible are mere euphemistic variations. -pi» might seem to mean thy masters, as the singular my master is expressed in the same sentence by its proper form. But the fact is that the singular “pis is never joined with any suffixes but those of the first person. The only form, therefore, in which thy master could have been expressed, is that here used. The ambiguity is removed by the connexion, which requires the phrase to be applied to Hezekiah.
13. And Rabshakeh stood and called with a loud voice in Jewish (i. e. Hebrew), and said, Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria. In so doing he not only testified his contempt for the king’s messengers by insolently disregarding their request, but made a politic appeal to the hopes and fears of the multitude. That Tie stood and called, is ex plained by some to mean that he assumed a higher position, or came nearer to the wall; but the simplest and most natural explanation is, that he remained where he was before and merely raised his voice.
14. Thus saith the Icing: let not Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you. The repeated mention of the king reminds them, that he is not speaking in his own name, but in that of a great mon arch. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 29) adds, out of his hand.
15. And let not Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah, saying, Jehovah will certainly save us, this city shall not be given up into the hand of the king of Assyria. The only difference between this and the parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 30) is that the latter inserts rs before this city, a construction of the passive verb which, according to Knobel, was considered incorrect by the transcriber. The idea of certain deliverance is expressed by the idiomatic combination of the future and infinitive.
16. Hearken 7not to Hezekiah, for thus saith the king of Assyria, make with me a blessing, and come out unto me, and eat ye (every) man his own vine and (every) man his own Jig-tree, and drink ye (every) man the waters of his own cistern. m*a usually means a blessing, but in a few instances a gift or present, as a token of good will. Hence some explain the phrase here used, make me a present, or make an agreement with me by a present. Others give the Hebrew word, in this one case, the sense of peace, which of course suits the connexion, because it is in fact a mere conjecture from the context. If an unusual meaning of the word must be assumed, it might have that of kneeling, as a gesture of submission or an act of homage, from Tpa to kneel. It is possible, however, to adhere more closely to the usage of the term, by taking blessing in the sense of friendly salutation, which in the east is commonly an invocation of the divine bless ing. Thus the verb to bless is often used to express the act of greeting or of taking leave. To make a blessing with one then might mean to enter into amicable intercourse. To come out is in Hebrew the common military phrase for the surrender of a besieged town. The inducements offered in the last clause are in obvious antithesis to the revolting threat or warning in the last clause of v. 12. To eat the vine and fig-tree (meaning to eat their fruit) is an elliptical form of speech, which has its analogies in every language.
17. 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. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 32) adds, a land of oil-olive and honey, that ye may live and not die, which has quite as much the aspect of an amplified copy as of a redundant original. This reference to the deportation of the people as a future event has led some interpreters to the conclusion, that Sennacherib was now on his way to Egypt, and deferred the measure until his return. It has been disputed what particular land is here meant, some saying Mesopotamia, to which others object that it was not a wine-growing country. But, as Knobel observes, there is no need of supposing that the Assyrian’s description was exactly true. He may indeed have intended merely to promise them in general a country as abundant as their own.
18. Let not (or beware lest) Hezekiah seduce you, saying, Jehovah will deliver us. Have the gods of the nations delivered every one his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? “jS is commonly equivalent to lest, and dependent on a foregoing verb, but sometimes (like the Latin ne) stands at the beginning of a sentence. Here we may either supply take heed, or regard “ja as equivalent to bx, which is actually used in the parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 32) with a repetition of the verb isaizjn (hearken not to Hezekiah when he incites, or, for he shall incite you, saying). Had this been the form of expression in Isaiah, we should have seen it noted as an instance of assimilation characteristic of a later writer; but as it unluckily occurs in the other place, it is discreetly overlooked by the interpreters. The Assyrian here, with characteristic recklessness, forsakes his previous position, that he was but acting as Jehovah’s instrument, and sets himself in disdainful opposition to Jehovah himself.
19. Where (are) the gods of Hamath and Arpad 1 where the gods of Sepharvaim 1 and (when or where was it) that they delivered Samaria out of my Tiandl In the rapidity of his triumphant interrogation, he expresses himself darkly and imperfectly. The last clause must of course refer to the gods of Samaria, though not expressly mentioned. ^ is not an interrogative pronoun (who have delivered!), nor an interrogative particle (have they delivered?), but a connective particle, dependent upon something not ex pressed. For the situation of Hamath and Arpad, see the note on ch. 10: 9. Sepharvaim is probably the Sipphara of Ptolemy, a town and province in the south of Mesopotamia, already subject to Assyria in the days of Shalmaneser. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 34) adds Hena and Ivvah, which are also named with Sepharvaim in 2 Kings 19: 13 and Isai. 37: 13. The question (where are they?) seems to imply, not only that they had not saved their worshippers, but that they had ceased to be.
20. Who (are they) among all the gods of these lands, that have delivered their land out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand? The parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 35) omits these before lands, another exception to the general statement, that the narrative before us is an abridgment of the other. In this argumentative interrogation, he puts Jehovah on a level with the gods of the surrounding nations. This is still more frequently and pointedly expressed in the parallel passage in Chronicles. Know ye not what I and my fathers have done unto all the nations of the countries 1 Were the gods of the nations of the countries able to deliver their country out of my hand 1 Who was there among all the gods of these nations, which my fathers utterly destroyed, that was able to deliver his people out of my hand, that your God should be able to deliver you out of my hand 1 And now, let not Hezekiah deceive you, and let him not seduce you, neither believe him; for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people out of my hand, and out of the hand of my fathers; how much less shall your God deliver you out of my hand. (2 Chron. 32: 13-15.) From the same authority we learn that over and above what is recorded, Sennacherib’s servants spake still more against the God Jehovah and against Hezekiah his servant (v. 16), and that they cried with a loud voice in the Jewish language, to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to affright them, and to trouble them, that they might take the city; and they spake against the God of Jerusalem as against the gods of the nations of the earth, the work of men’s hands (vs. 18, 19).
21. And they held their peace, and did not answer him a word, for such was the commandment of the king, saying, Ye shall not answer him. Some interpreters refer the first clause to Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah; but the parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 36) says expressly that the people held their peace, which Knobel says is more correct, as if the two were inconsistent, and gravely adds, that our narrator was thinking of the messengers. The notion of some of the old writers, that they did confer with him, not withstanding what is here said, is gratuitous and arbitrary in a high degree.
22. Then came Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, who (was) over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph’s son, the recorder, unto Hezekiah, with their clothes rent (literally, rent of clothes), and told him the words of Rabshakeh. Some of the older writers understand the rending of their gar ments as a mere sign of their horror at Rabshakeh’s blasphemies; some of the moderns as a mere sign of despondency and alarm at the impending dangers; whereas both may naturally be included.
