THIS chapter is a direct continuation of the one before it. It describes the effect of Rabshakeh’s blasphemies and threats on Hezekiah, his humiliation, his message to Isaiah, and the answer, the retreat of Rabshakeh, Sennacherib’s letter, Hezekiah’s prayer, Isaiah’s prophecy, and its fulfilment, in the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army and his own flight and murder.
1. And it was (or came to pass), when King Hezekiah heard (the report of his messengers), that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth and went into the house of Jehovah. Gill’s suggestion, that he rent his clothes because of the Assyrian’s blasphemy and put on sackcloth because of his threats, appears to be a fanciful distinction. Both acts were customary signs of mourning and appropriate to any case of deep distress. He resorted to the temple, not only as a public place, but with reference to the promise made to Solomon (I Kings 8: 29), that God would hear this prayers of his people from that place when they were in distress. Under the old dispensation there were reasons for resorting to the temple, even to offer private supplications, which cannot possibly apply to any church or other place at present. This arose partly from the fact that prayer was connected with sacrifice, and this was rigidly confined to one spot.
2, And he sent Eliakim who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the prophet. While he himself resorted to the temple, he sent to ask the counsel and the intercessions of the Prophet. Calvin’s supposition, that Isaiah was directed to remain at home, amidst the general alarm and lamentation, as a test of Hezekiah’s faith, seems at least unnecessary. Eliakim and Shebna are again employed in this case, as being qualified to make an exact report of what had happened, and in order to put honour on the prophet by an embassy of distinguished men. In the place of Joah, he sends the elders of the priests, i. e. the heads of the sacerdotal families. The reference of elders to personal age, by Luther (den (iltcsten Priestern) and Barnes (the old men of the priests), is less consistent with the context, which describes the other messengers by their official titles only, and with the usage of n^ap:, as denoting the hereditary chiefs of Levi no less than the other tribes. The king applies to the prophet as the authorized expounder of the will of God. Similar applications are recorded elsewhere with sufficient frequency to show that they were customary and that the prophets were regarded in this light. Thus Josiah sent to Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14), Zedekiah to Jeremiah (Jer. 37: 3), etc. The impious Ahab required Micaiah to come to him, and that only at the earnest request of King Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22: 9). From the mention of the Prophet’s father two very different but equally gratuitous conclusions are drawn; one by Vitringa, who infers that Isaiah was of noble rank; the other by Hendewerk, who infers that he cannot be the author of this narrative, as he never would have called himself the son of Amoz In the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 2) the patronymic follows the official title, whereas here it precedes it. As this last is the usual collocation.. Gesenius appears to think that it was substituted for the other by the later writer, while Hitzig, for the very same reason, declares this to be the original reading. The plural D’V’iJ seems to show that pis is not here the name of the material but of the garment (covered with sacks or sackcloth dresses). Of the king’s prompt appeal to God in his extremity, GiO quaintly says: Hezekiah does not sit down to consider Rabshakeh’s speech, to take it m pieces, and give an answer to it, but he applies unto God.
3. And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, A day of anguish and rebuke and contempt (is) this day, for the children are come to the birth (or to the place of birth), and there is not strength to bring forth, The indirect construction of the first words (that they might say to him)r adopted by some writers, is not only unnecessary but foreign from the Hebrew idiom which, especially in narrative, prefers the most simple and direct forms of expression. That Hezekiah told them thus to- speak, is not only implied in their doing so, but expressly asserted by themselves, and need not therefore be recorded. As the execution of a command is often left to be inferred from the command itself (ch. 7:3. 8:1, etc.), so here the details of the command are to be gathered from the record of its execution. The common version of fvix (trouble) seems too weak for the occasion and for the figure in the other clause. It is well explained by Vitringa, as denoting, not external danger merely, but the complicated distress, both of a temporal and spiritual nature, in which Hezekiah was involved by the threats and blasphemies of the Assyrian. Rebuke is applied by the Septuagint (oveidifffjiov) and some interpreters to the reproaches of Rabshakeh: but it is more agreeable to usage to explain it as signifying the divine rebuke or chastisement, as in Ps. 73: 4. 149: 7. It is characteristic of the Scriptures and the ancient saints to represent even the malignity of human enemies as a rebuke from God. The very same phrase (day of rebuke) is used in the same sense by Hosea (5: 9). The verb from which nsxa is derived means to treat with contempt, or more specifically, to reject with scorn. It is sometimes used to denote God’s rejection of his people (Deut. 32: 19. Jer. 14: 21. Lam. 2: 6), and Hitzig accordingly translates the noun rejection or reprobation (Verwerfung). But as the verb more frequently expresses man’s contempt of God (e. g. ch. 1:4), interpreters are commonly agreed in making the noun here mean blasphemy. The terms employed by Lowth (contumely) and Henderson (calumny) are too weak if the reference be to God, as the usage of the verb seems to require. The oral expression of contempt for God is blasphemy. The metaphor in the last clause expresses, in the most affecting manner, the ideas of extreme pain, imminent danger, critical emergency, utter weakness, and entire dependence on the aid of others. (Compare the similar expressions of ch. 26: 18.) The reference of the passage to the interrupted reformation of religion, or to the abortive effort to shake off the Assyrian yoke, is equally illogical and tasteless, while the question, whether Judah is here represented as the mother or the child, betrays a total incapacity to appreciate the strength and beauty of the Prophet’s metaphor. There is no more need of mooting such points than if he had simply said, the present distress is like the pains of childbirth.
4. If per adventure Jehovah thy God will hear the words of RabghaJceh, whom the Icing of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God, and will rebuke the words which Jehovah thy God hath heard, then shalt thou lift up a prayer for the remnant (that is still) found (here). i^ix may generally be expressed by our perhaps, and this translation is adopted here by most interpreters, who then take 1 at the beginning of the last clause in the sense of therefore. But by retaining what appears to be the primary and proper force of ^Vist, as a contingent and conditional expression, and making 1 the usual sign of the apodosis, we may throw the whole into one sentence, and make more obvious the connexion of the clauses. It was because Hezekiah thought Jehovah might hear, that he asked Isaiah’s prayers in his behalf. The meaning given to ibi« in this construction is expressed in the English Version of Isai. 47: 12 and Jer. 21: 2, and might be substituted for perhaps in all the cases where the latter is employed to represent this particle, in some with great advantage to the clearness or the force of the expression. Lowth’s explanation of “^ix as an optative particle (oh that Jehovah thy God would hear) is not justified by usage. The doubt expressed in the first clause whether God will hear is viewed by some interpreters as inconsistent with the statement in the last clause that he has heard. To remove this imaginary discrepancy, some deny that the first clause really expresses doubt or implies contingency; others allege that hear is used in two distinct senses, that of simply hearing and that of regarding or attending to, and acting accordingly. The true solution seems to be that the preterite SWB denotes a past time only in relation to the contingency expressed by sattr. Perhaps he will hear, and then punish what he has heard. Both verbs may then be understood in one and the same sense, either that of simply hearing, or in that of acting as if one heard. The reproach and blasphemy of the Assyrian consisted mainly in his confounding Jehovah with the gods of the surrounding nations (2 Chron. 32: 19), in antithesis to whom, as being impotent and lifeless, he is here and elsewhere called the living God. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and most interpreters, ancient and modern, make iwin an infinitive, connected by the i with cpn, and descriptive of Rabshakeh’s blasphemies (and to rebuke me in the words etc.). But reprove or rebuke is a description wholly inappropriate to such a speech, and the Hebrew word nowhere means to rail at or revile. Usage moreover would require the particle to be repeated before this infinitive, and Gesenius (in his Commentary) accordingly assumes that rrDim is put for mainVi. The grammatical and lexicographical objections may be both avoided by taking mnn as a preterite with the 1 conversive, as in the English Version (and will reprove). The a may then be either a mere connective of the verb with its object (rebuke the words), or denote the occasion and the ground (rebuke him for the words etc.). Maurer, who successfully defends this construction (in his note on 2 Kings 19: 4), in order to show that he is not alone in his opinion, says, consentientem habeo Fasium. He might have gone a little further back, not only to Junius and Tremellius, but to Jonathan, who paraphrases the expression thus, and will take vengeance for the words etc. The same construction is adopted by Gesenius in his Thesaurus. It is also retained in the modern English ver sions, among which that of Lowth puts a peculiar sense upon the clause, by making it express a wish that God would refute Rabshakeh’s words, mean ing no doubt by the actual exertion of the power which he called in question. But this specific meaning of main cannot be sustained by usage. To lift up a prayer is not simply to utter one, but has allusion to two common idiomatic phrases, that of lifting up the voice, in the sense of speaking loud or beginning to speak, and that of lifting up the heart or soul, in the sense of earnestly desiring. The passive participle found is often used in Hebrew to denote what is present in a certain place, or more generally what is extant, in existence, or forthcoming. The meaning left, which is expressed in the English and some other versions, is suggested wholly by the noun with which the participle here agrees. As to the application of the whole phrase, it may either be a general description of the straits or low condition to which the chosen people were reduced (as the church at Sardis is exhorted to strengthen the things which remain, Rev. 3: 2), or be more specifically understood in reference to Judah as surviving the destruction of the ten tribes (compare ch. 28: 5), or to Jerusalem as spared amidst the general desolation of Judah (compare ch. 1:8). In either case, the king requests the prophet to pray for their deliverance from entire destruction. This application was made to Isaiah, not as a private person, however eminent in piety, but as one who was recognized as standing in an intimate relation to Jehovah, and as a constituted medium of communication with him. In like manner God himself said to Abimelech of Abraham: he is a prophet, and shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live (Gen. 20: 7). In recognition of this same relation, Hezekiah twice says thy God, i. e. thine in a peculiar and distinctive sense. This phrase is, therefore, not to be regarded as an expression of despondency, nor even of humility, on Hezekiah’s part, but as a kind of indirect explanation of his reason for resorting to the Prophet at this juncture.
5. And the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah. This is a natural and simple resumption of the narrative, common in all inartificial history. It affords no ground for assuming a transposition in the text, nor for explaining i-issn in v. 3 as a subjunctive.
6. And Isaiah said to them, Thus shall ye say to your master, Thus saith Jehovah, Be not afraid of (literally from before or from the face of) the words which thou hast heard, (with) which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. The last verb means to rail at or revile, and when applied to God must be translated by a still stronger term. The word translated servants is not the same with that in the preceding verse, but strictly means young men or boys, and is so translated in the Targum and Vulgate. Many interpreters regard it as a contemptuous description, and it is so translated by Hitzig (Knappen), Umbreit (Buberi), Henderson (strip lings), and in other modern versions.
7. Behold I am putting (or about to put) a spirit in him, and he shall hear a noise, and shall return to his own land, and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. Calvin translates the first clause, ecce apponam illi ventum, and explains it to mean that God would carry him away as with a wind (compare ch. 17: 13). The English Version renders it, behold I will send a blast upon him, meaning either a pestilential blast or a destructive tempest. Others understand by rm the destroying angel, or an evil spirit by whom he should be haunted and possessed. But most interpreters refer the phrase to an effect to be produced upon the mind of the Assyrian. Thus some explain rm to mean terror, others courage, others a desire to return home, others simply a change of mind. The most probable conclusion is, that it does not denote a specific change, but divine influence as governing his movements. n~v:c strictly means any thing heard, and Luther accordingly translates the phrase, he shall hear something. Most writers understand this as referring to the news mentioned in v. 9 below. But Henderson observes that this news, far from driving Sennacherib home, led to a fresh defiance of Jerusalem. He therefore ingeniously suggests, that this expression has reference to the news of the destruction of his host before Jerusalem while he himself was absent. But in the next verse Rabshakeh is said to have rejoined his master, nor is there any further mention of an army at Jerusalem. It is possible, indeed, though not recorded, that Rabshakeh left the troops behind him when he went to Libnah, under the command of Tartan or Rabsaris (2 Kings 18: 17), and this is still more probable if, as some suppose, Rabshakeh was a mere embassador or herald, and Tartan the real military chief. If it can be assumed, on any ground, that the great catastrophe took place in the absence of Sennacherib, which would account for his personal escape, then Henderson’s explanation of fi^E1^ is more satisfactory than any other. The modern Germans are perplexed by this verse. They would gladly explain the prediction in the last clause as a prophecy ex eventu; but in that case, how could the slaughter of the host have been omitted? The only escape from this dilemma is by the arbitrary allegation that the prophecy was falsely ascribed to Isaiah by a later writer. If this be so, we may as well reject the whole; for what assurance have we that a writer, who fabricates miracles and prophecies, is faithful in his history of other matters? The inconveniences of this attempt to save a part while really discrediting the whole are curiously apparent from Gesenius’s endeavour to explain the first clause of this verse as a sagacious political conjecture and the other as a subsequent interpolation.
8. And Rabshakeh returned and found the king of Assyria fighting against (i. e. besieging) Libnah, for he heard that he had decamped from Lachish. Both these towns were in the plain or lowlands of Judah south-west of Jerusalem (Josh. 15: 39, 42), originally seats of Canaanitish kings or chiefs, conquered by Joshua (Josh. 12: 11, 15). Lachish was one of the fifteen places fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11: 9), and one of the last towns taken by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 34: 7). It was still in existence after the exile (Neh. 11: 30). Libnah was a city of the Levites and of refuge (Josh. 21: 13), and appears to have been nearer to Jerusalem. Henderson infers that Sennacherib had conquered Lachish, most other writers that he failed in the attempt. Some of the older writers make Libnah an Egyptian city, either because one of the stations of the Israelites in the wilderness bore this name (Num. 33: 20), or because Josephus, in order to reconcile Isaiah’s narrative with that of Herodotus, represents Sennacherib as leaving Lachish to besiege Pelusium. The last verb in this verse properly denotes the removal of a tent or an encampment, an idea happily expressed in Lowth’s translation by the military term decamped. The sense of this verb can be here expressed in our idiom only by the use of the pluperfect, which form is given by most versions to the verb before it likewise, and Hendewerk extends it even to the verbs of the first clause, which is wholly gratuitous.
9. And he (Sennacherib) heard say concerning Tirhakah king oj Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee; and he heard (it) and sent (or when he heard it he sent) messengers to Hezekiah, saying (what follows in the next verse). On the meaning of the Hebrew name mis, see the notes on ch. 18: 1 and 20: 3. Tirhakah was one of the most famous conquerors of ancient times. Megasthenes, as quoted by Strabo, puts him between Sesostris and Nebuchadnezzar. He is also named by Manetho as one of the Ethiopian dynasty in Egypt. He was at this time either in close alliance with that country, or more probably in actual possession of Thebais or Upper Egypt. The fact that an Ethiopian dynasty did reign there, is attested by the ancient writers, and confirmed by still existing monuments. The Greek forms of the name^Tapaxo?, TUQXOS, 7Y(>xcoy) vary but little from the Hebrew. Barnes and some of the older writers suppose that Sennacherib had already been driven out of Egypt by this king, and was now afraid of being followed into Palestine; but this conclusion is hardly warranted by the facts of the history, sacred or profane. It is unnecessary to suppose, with J. D. Michaelis, that Tirhakah had crossed the desert to invade Assyria, or even with Rosenmuller, that he was already on the frontier of Judah. The bare fact of his having left his own dominions, with the purpose of attacking Sennacherib, would be sufficient to alarm the latter, especially as his operations in the Holy Land had been so unsuccessful. He was naturally anxious therefore to induce Hezekiah to capitulate before the Ethiopians should arrive, perhaps before the Jews should hear of their approach. That he did not march upon Jerusalem himself, is very probably accounted for by Vitringa, on the ground that his strength lay chiefly in cavalry, which could not be employed in the highlands, and that the poliorcetic part of warfare was little known to any ancient nation but the Romans, as Tacitus explicitly asserts. To this may be added the peculiar difficulty arising from the scarcity of water in the environs of Jerusalem, which has been an obstacle to all the armies that have ever besieged it. (See the notes on ch. 22: 9—11.) Gesenius supposes that symptoms of the plague had begun to show themselves in Palestine. Instead of te before Tirhakah, the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 9) has b«, which is the more remarkable because the latter particle is represented by some critics as a favourite of the copyist or later writer, to whom they ascribe this portion of Isaiah. Instead of the second heard, the parallel passage has he returned, which, according to a common Hebrew idiom, may qualify the next verb (sent) by giving it the sense of sent again. This, which certainly yields an appropriate meaning, is restored by Lowth in this place as the true text, while Gesenius and the later German writers, who are usually bold enough in critical conjecture, choose in this case to regard the reading in Isaiah as a tautology of the later writer. Yet the variation is precisely such as one writer would be apt to make in recording the same matter twice.
10. Thus shall ye say to Hezekiah, king of Judah, Let not thy God deceive thee, in whom thou trustest, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. This recognition of Hezekiah’s royal dignity, of which Rabshakeh seemed to take no notice, if significant at all, as some interpreters imagine, may be accounted for upon the ground, that in this message the design of the Assyrian was not to destroy the people’s confidence in Hezekiah, but the king’s own confidence in God. For the same reason, Sennacherib’s blasphemy is much more open and direct than that of Rabshakeh. The word saying may be referred either to Hezekiah or to God. The English Version mak« the last construction necessary, by changing the collocation of the words; but Luther, Gesenius, and many others understand the sense to be, in whom thou trustest, saying. This is in fact entitled to the preference, on the ground that naia is the nearest antecedent. On the whole, it is best, in a case so doubtful, to retain the Hebrew collocation with all its ambiguity. The word surrendered, used by Henderson in this verse, is not only less simple than the common version o-iven, but confines the clause too strictly to the act of the besieged, instead of making it at least include the act of God himself, as the protector of Jerusalem
11. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all the lands, by utterly destroying them, and thou shalt be delivered! The interjection behold appeals to these events as something perfectly notorious; as if he had said, see what has happened to others, and then judge whether thou art likely to escape. The pronoun thou, in the first clause, not being necessary to the sense, is, according to analogy, distinctive and emphatic, and may be explained to mean, thou at least hast heard, if not the common people. In the last clause, the same pronoun stands in opposition to the other kings or kingdoms who had been destroyed. This clause is, in most versions, rendered as an interrogation, but is properly an exclamation of contemptuous incredulity. All the lands may be either an elliptical expression for all the lands subdued by them, or, which is more in keeping with the character of the discourse, a hyperbolical expression of the speaker’s arrogance, fiB’nnnb strictly means to doom them, or devote them irrevocably to destruction, but in usage commonly includes the idea of execution as well as of design. (Compare the note on cli. 11: 15.) From the mention of the Icings of Assyria in the plural, some writers take occasion to accuse Rabshakeh of intending to arrogate the glory of these conquests to Sennacherib exclusively, whereas the latter did not dare to do so in ad dressing Hezekiah. But others, with more probability, infer that the singular form, employed by Rabshakeh, is itself to be understood collectively, like king of Babylon in the fourteenth chapter.
12. Did the gods of the nations deliver them, which my fathers destroyed, (to wit) Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which is (or who were) in Telassarl Here again the collocation of the words makes the construction doubtful, though the general sense is clear. DSmx may either be referred to lands in the preceding verse (the masculine form being then a license, or perhaps a sign that by the lands we are to understand the people who inhabited them), or to vibx, or to D^;, or it may be connected with iicx in the sense of those whom, which appears to be preferred by hitzig. The construction then is, did the gods of the nations deliver those whom my fathers destroyed 1 With respect to the places mentioned in the second clause, all that is absolutely necessary to the just understanding of the sentence, is that they were well known, both to speaker and hearer, as Assyrian conquests. The difficulty of identifying some of them affords an incidental argument in favour of the antiquity and genuine ness of the passage. Gozan is probably the modern Kaushan, the Gauzanitis of Ptolemy, a region of Mesopotamia, situated on the Chaboras, to which a portion of the ten tribes were transferred by Shalmaneser. Haran was a city of Mesopotamia, where Abraham’s father died, the Carrae of the Romans, and famous for the great defeat of Crassus. Rezeph, a common name in oriental geography, here denotes probably the Rhessapha of Ptolemy, a town and province in Palmyrene Syria. Eden means pleasure or delight, and seems to have been given as a name to various places. Having been thus applied to a district in the region of Mount Lebanon, the native Christians have been led to regard that as the site of the terrestrial paradise. Equally groundless are the conclusions of some learned critics as to the identity of the place here mentioned with the garden of Eden. In Isaiah 51: 3, the reference is not to a country well known and distinguished for its fertility (Barnes), but to the garden of Eden as a matter of history. Such allusions prove no more, as to the site of the garden, than the similar allusions of modern orators and poets to any delightful region as an Eden or a Paradise. Even the continued application of the name, in prose, as a geographical term, proves no more than the use of such a name as Mount Pleasant in American geography. The inference, in this place, is especially untenable, because the word sons or children, prefixed to Eden, leaves it doubtful whether the latter is the name of a place at all, and not rather that of a person, whose descendants were among the races conquered by Assyria. The relative pronoun may agree grammatically either with sons or Eden, and the form of the verb to be supplied must be varied accordingly. Telassar, which Gesenius thinks may be identical with the Ellasar of Gen. 14: 1, where it is substituted for the latter by the Targum of Jerusalem, appears to be analogous in form to the Babylonian names, Tel-abib, Telmelah, Tel-has ha, in all which tel means hill and corresponds to the English mount in names of places.
13. Where is the Icing of Hamath, and the Icing of Arpad, and the king of the city Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah? The question implies that they were nowhere, or had ceased to be. The first three names occur in the same order in Rabshakeh’s speech (ch. 36: 19), and the remaining two also in the parallel passage (2 Kings 18: 34). As the love of uniformity and assimilation here betrayed is on the part of the pretended older writer, the German critics have discreetly overlooked it. Of Hena nothing what ever is known, and of Ivvah only that it may be identical with the Aw a of 2 Kings 17: 24, from which Assyrian colonists were transferred to Samaria. The absence of all further trace of these two places, and the peculiar form of the names, led J. D. Michaelis to follow Symmachus and Jonathan in making both words verbs or verbal nouns, implying that the kings just mentioned had been utterly subverted and destroyed. But this interpretation, although highly plausible in this one case, is much less natural, if not wholly inadmissible, in 2 Kings 18: 34. It would be easy to affirm, no doubt, that the writer of the latter passage misunderstood the one before us; but from this suggestion even Gesenius and his followers are precluded by their foregone conclusion that the text in Kings is the more ancient of the two. Another explanation of these words is that suggested by Luzzatto, who regards them as the names of the deities worshipped at Hamath, Arpad, and Sepharvaim, and takes l^v in the sense of idol or tutelary god, which last idea is as old as Clericus. This ingenious hypothesis Luzzatto endeavours to sustain by the analogy of Adrammelech and Anammelech the gods of Sepharvaim (2 Kings 17: 31), the second of which names he regards as essentially identical with Hena. In favour of this exposition, besides the fact already mentioned that the names, as names of places, occur nowhere else, it may be urged that it agrees not only with the context in this place, but also with 2 Kings 18: 34, in which the explanations of the words as verbs or nouns is inadmissible. This explanation, and the grounds on which it rests, are at least entitled to a fair comparison with that first given, as the one approved by most interpreters. Musculus understands the dual form of Sepharvaim as denoting that it consisted of two towns, perhaps on different sides of the Euphrates, and that Hena and levah were the distinctive names of these. The particular mention of the city Sepharvaim, and the construction of that word with b, are peculiarities not easily accounted for. The substitution of mx for “PX (2 Kings 19: 13) is of course ascribed by Gesenius and Knobel to the later writer’s fondness for exact uniformity, his own violations of it to the contrary notwithstanding.
14. And Hezekiah took the letters from the hand of the messengers, and read it, and went up (to) the house of Jehovah, and Hezekiah spread it before Jehovah. As nothing had been previously said respecting letters, we must either suppose that the preceding address was made not orally but in writing, or that both modes of communication were adopted. The latter is most probable in itself, and agrees best with the statement in 2 Chr. 32: 17, that besides the speeches which his servants spake against the Lord God and against his servant Hezekiah, Sennacherib wrote letters to rail on the Lord God of Israel and to speak against him. The singular pronoun (it)t referring to the plural antecedent (letters), is explained by David Kimchi distributively, as meaning every one of them; by the Targum, as meaning simply one of them, i. e. according to Joseph Kimchi, the one that contained the blasphemy. Luzzatto supposes that it was customary to send duplicates of the same letter, as the modern Samaritans did in their correspondence with Job Ludolf, and that Hezekiah, though he took both or all, had no occasion to read more than one of them. This is certainly ingenious and plausible; but perhaps the most satisfactory explanation is, that DIIBD, like the Latin literae, had come to signify a single letter, and might be therefore treated indiscriminately either as a singular or plural form. This is the more probable, because it can hardly be supposed that Sennacherib would write more than one letter to Hezekiah on this one occasion, unless in the way suggested by Luzzatto, which is not to be assumed without necessity or evidence. That he wrote at the same time to the chief men or the people, is an arbitrary and improbable assumption, and even supposing that he did, why should Hezekiah be described as receiving all the letters? Some ver sions wholly disregard the difference of number. Thus the Septuagint and Luther make both noun and pronoun singular, while Calvin and the Vulgate make both plural. The parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 14) removes all appearance of irregularity by reading them instead of it. This is so glaring an exception to the sweeping allegation of a constant disposition, in the text before us, to remove anomalies and seeming incongruities, that Gesenius is under the necessity of finding some expedient for the vindication of his dar ling theory. This he plausibly accomplishes by saying, that as both texts have the singular form spread it in the other clause, the later writer chose to assimilate the phrase in question to this, and not to the preceding plural 39 noun. It does not seem to have occurred to the ingenious special pleader, that the last it needs as much to be explained as the first, and that such a copyist as he supposes, instead of saying read it because he was going to say spread it afterwards, would naturally first say read them, and then say spread them for the sake of uniformity. Such explanations appear almost puerile compared with the obvious and simple supposition of two draughts or copies by the self-same writer. Another characteristic observation of Gesenius on this verse is, that Hezekiah must have spread the letter in the temple in order to let Jehovah read it from the Holy of Holies, and that accordingly in v. 10, he is called upon to open his eyes, which he says reminds him of the praying machines of Thibet. This specimen of exegetical wit is eagerly caught up and repeated by later and inferior writers. The spreading of the letter before God is supposed by Clericus to have been designed to excite the feelings and the prayers of the people, by Calvin to affect the feelings of the king himself. It seems, however, to have been no studied, calculated movement, but a natural expression of anxiety and trust in God, as a protector and a confidential friend, a state of mind which to an infidel must needs appear ridiculous. As any man would carry an open letter, which troubled or perplexed him, to a friend for sympathy and counsel, so the pious king spreads this blasphemous epistle before God, as the occasion and the subject of his prayers. Josephus says he left it afterwards rolled up in the temple, of which there is no record in the narrative before us. He also says that Hezekiah lay prostrate, in the Jewish manner, in the presence of Jehovah, from which it might seem that he took imms” in the sense of stretched himself, which would be ungrammatical and contrary to usage. But Vitringa is no doubt correct in his opinion, that Josephus had no reference to this word, but to the signs of mourning mentioned in the first and second verses, with which he would naturally associate prostration as their usual accompaniment. (See for example 1 Chr. 21: 16.)
15. And Hezekiah prayed to Jehovah, saying (what follows in the next verse). Hendewerk observes that this mode of proceeding was characteristic of a person more like David in devotion than in energy and enterprise. With a far superior appreciation of the good king’s character, Gill quaintly says that, instead of answering the letter himself, he prays the Lord to answer it. Instead of to, the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 15) has before Jehovah. 0
16. Jehovah of Hosts, God of Israel, dwelling between (or sitting upon) the cherubim, thou art he, the God (i. e. the only true God), thou alone, to all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made the heavens and the earth. The parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 15) omits -‘xrr, upon which Gesenius remarks that the combination here used is very common in the prophecies, while it scarcely occurs at all in the historical books. What can be more natural, therefore, than that Isaiah should employ it in the case before us, and the simple prose form in the book of Kings? This is surely a more obvious conclusion than the one which Gesenius draws, viz. that the later copyists and compilers of the books of the Old Testament altered the text at will, to make it suit the customary form of expression in their own day. The cherubim were visible representations of spiritual beings, or, as Bahr and Hengstenberg suppose, of the perfection of the creature in its highest form. The name is most probably derived from -r, as a synonyme of aip to approach, or as a transposition of -=” to ride, in allusion to the angels as the bearers of God’s chariot. This last verb is connected with the noun in Ps. 18: 11. Eichhorn’s attempt to identify the word with the ygvnsg or griffins of eastern mythology has been repeated by some later writers, but with small success. Some suppose an allusion, in the case before us, to Jehovah’s riding on the cherubim (Ps. 18: 11) or angels through the air; others to his being enthroned above the material cherubs in the temple. This sense is given by Luther and the ancient versions, but Calvin and many later writers understand him to be here described as dwelling between the cherubim. (Compare Ex. 25: 22.) In either case, there is allusion to his manifested presence over the mercy-seat, called by the later Jews shechinah., which word is itself used in the Chaldee Paraphrase of the verse before us. Forerius translates the Hebrew phrase without a preposition, inhabitant of the cherubim, which would seem, however, to describe God as dwelling in the images, not over them or under the shadow of their wings. The pronoun x”.n is understood by some as an emphatic or intensive addition like the Latin ipse: thou thyself (art) the God etc. Others regard it as an idiomatic substitute for the copula or verb of existence, used with all the persons: thou art the God etc. But on the general principle of adhering to the strict sense of words where it is possible, it is best to translate it thou (art) he, and to regard what follows as explanatory of this pregnant and concise expression. The God of all the kingdoms of the earth is not an exact translation of the Hebrew words, in which the God stands by itself as an emphatic phrase, meaning the only God, the true God, and what follows is intended to suggest a contrast with the false gods of the nations. bs*> is not simply of all, in all, for all, or over all, but with respect to all. Thou art the one true God, not only with respect to us, but with respect to all the nations of the earth. The reason follows: because thou hast made them all, and not the earth only, but the heavens also. All this is indirectly a reply to the Assyrian blasphemies, which questioned the almighty power of Jehovah, and put him on a level with the idols of the heathen. The same antithesis between the impotence of idols and the power of God, as shown in the creation of the world, occurs in Ps. 96: 5 and Jer. 10: 11.
17. Bow thine car, O Jehovah, and hear; open thine eyes, O Jehovah, and see; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which he hath sent (or who hath sent) to reproach the living God. These expressions are entirely analogous to those in many other places, where God is entreated to see and hear, i. e. to act as if he saw and heard. The attempt of Gesenius and his followers to restrict them to the reading of the letter or the hearing it read, neither requires nor deserves refutation. Gesenius also takes r$*s as a singular, substituted for the plural r,*:iy of the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 16), through the transcriber’s ignorance of the Hebrew idiom, which always speaks of turning one ear, but of opening both eyes. If this distinction is as natural and obvious as he represents, it is strange that even a tran scriber, to whom the Hebrew was vernacular, should not have been aware of it. Supposing, however, that Isaiah wrote both narratives, there would be nothing more surprising in his saying tycs in one and eye in the other, than there is in the coexistence of such forms as word of God and words of God, his mercy and his mercies, where the predominance of one form does not preclude the occasional occurrence of the other. Gesenius moreover did not think it necessary to inform his readers of the fact, which Henderson has brought to light, that more than fifty manuscripts, and nearly twenty editions, have the usual plural form “prr, an amount of evidence ten times as great as that which Gesenius, in other cases, thinks enough to justify the boldest changes in the text. Still less did he consider himself called upon to mention, that the common reading TJS-S itself may be a plural form, according to analogy, as stated expressly by himself in his Lehrgebaudc (p. 215) and his smaller Grammar (<§> 35. Remark 3). Least of all did he see cause to state, that this explanation of the form is rendered almost necessary here by the parallelism, because if Tjr? were written instead of s'S$ merely because of a pause in the sentence, then r,3Tx, which occupies the verysame position in the other member, would be written *|3TX; and as this is not the case, the obvious conclusion is, that the stghol in r:*$ is the union-vowel of a plural noun before the suffix, with the *> omitted as in Ex. 33: 13 and other cases cited by Gesenius in his grammars. The fact that -jrs has a stronger disjunctive accent than -pis, instead of weakening confirms the argument, because if the former were in pause, the structure of the sentence would require the latter to be so too. What Gesenius says in reference to the use of the word Hosts in the preceding verse, viz. that it throws light upon other critical phenomena, may be applied with justice to his own style of criticism in the case before us. Instead of assuming, as he often does without a tithe of the same evidence, that -p”1? is the true text, or reflecting that ^y itself may be a plural according to his own showing elsewhere, and must be a plural according to the favourite rule of parallelism, he first takes for granted that it is a singular, and then makes use of it not only as a deviation from the older copy, but as characteristic of an ignorant and therefore a later writer. For by some strange process it has been discovered, that the later Hebrew writers were not only inferior in composition, but in know ledge of the idioms of the language, whereas in Greece and Rome the decline of original composition coincided with the rise and progress of grammatical science. The only end for which these inconsistencies are pointed out, is that the reader may correctly estimate authoritative dicta of the same kind elsewhere. The simplest version of nbc *IIBX is, who has sent. To express the idea, which he has sent, usage would seem to require a suffix with the verb, and accordingly we read in 2 Kings 19: 16, inbu ^TTX, i.e. which he has sent, referring irregularly to the plural words, or who has sent him, meaning Rabshakeh, which is the construction given in the English Version of that passage.
18. It is true, O Jehovah, the kings of Assyria have wasted all the lands and their land. The first word in the original is a particle of concession, admitting the truth of what Sennacherib had said, so far as it related merely to his conquest of the nations and destruction of their idols. The repetition, lands and land, has much perplexed interpreters. Vitringa sup plies nations or peoples before lands, as in 2 Chr. 32: 13. Others suppose pianx itself to be here used in the sense of nations, as the singular seems sometimes to denote the inhabitants of the earth or land. This supposition would account at the same time for the masculine suffix in DX^M. Gesenius follows J. D. Michaelis and Augusti in giving this suffix a reflexive sense, or referring it to the Assyrians themselves (their own land). The meaning then is that they had destroyed not only other countries but their own, which agrees exactly with the charge against the king of Babylon in eh. 14: 20, thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land and slain thy people. As this sense, however, is not so appropriate here, where Hezekiah is confirming what Sennacherib himself had said, it is better to adopt one of the other constructions, which brings the sentence into strict agreement, not as to form but as to sense, with the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 17), where we have the unambiguous term nations. This is justly described by Rosenmuller as the easier construction of the two, which would militate against the foregone conclusion of the later Germans, as to the relative antiquity and characteristic features of the two texts. Gesenius, therefore, while he grants that the form of expression in the case before us is harsher and more difficult, alleges, with perverse ingenuity, that this arose from the attempt to remove another incongruity, to wit, the application of the verb sin to persons, in avoiding which the copyist committed the solecism, lands and their land. But this hypothesis, besides its fanciful and arbitrary character as a mere makeshift, and its gratuitous assumption of the grossest stupidity and ignorance as well as inattention in the writer, is sufficiently refuted by the emphatic combination of the same verb and noun in ch. 60: 12. Even if that were, the composition of a later writer than Isaiah, it would prove that such a writer could not have been so shocked at the expression as to make nonsense of a sentence merely for the purpose of avoiding it. The reader will do well to observe, moreover, that the same imaginary copyist is supposed, in different emergencies, to have been wholly unacquainted with the idioms of his mother tongue, and yet extremely sensitive to any supposed violation of usage. Such scruples and such ignorance are not often found in combination. A transcriber unable to distinguish sense from nonsense would not be apt to take offence at mere irregularities or eccentricities in the phraseology or diction of his author.
19. And given (or put) their gods into the fire—for they (were) no gods, but wood and stone, the work of men’s hands—and destroyed them. Most interpreters separate the clauses and translate c’.izifn, therefore (or so) they have destroyed them. But the true construction seems to be the one proposed by Henderson, who connects this verb directly with the first clause, and throws the intervening member into a parenthesis. Instead of the peculiar idiomatic use of the infinitive (“1^3), the parallel passage (2 Kings 17: 18) has the preterite (^^,5), a substitution of an easy for a difficult construction so undeniable that Gesenius can escape from it only by asserting that the form here used belongs to the later Hebrew, an assertion which not one of his followers has ventured to repeat, while Hendewerk flatly contradicts it. Knobel strangely imagines that Hezekiah here accuses the Assyrian of impiety towards those whom he acknowledged to be gods, whereas through out this verse and that before it, he is simply acknowledging that Sennacherib had destroyed the idols of the nations, and assigning a reason for it, viz. that they were no gods but material idols. The application of the word gods to the mere external image is common in profane as well as sacred writings, and arises from the fact that all idolaters, whatever they may theoretically hold as to the nature of their deities, identify ihern practically with the stocks and stones to which they pay their adorations.
20. And now, oh Jehovah our God, save us from his hand, and all the kingdoms of the earth shall know, that thou Jehovah art alone (or that thou alone art Jehovah). The adverb now is here used both in a temporal and logical sense, as equivalent, not only to at length, or before it is too late, but also to therefore, or since these things are so. The fact that Sennache-
rib had destroyed other nations, is urged as a reason why the Lord should interpose to rescue his own people from a like destruction; and the fact that he had really triumphed over other gods, as a reason why he should be taught to know the difference between them and Jehovah. The argument or motive here presented, although sneered at by the infidel interpreters, is not only common in the Scriptures, but involved in the very idea of a God. The considerations which make such a motive unbecoming in the case of creatures are entirely inapplicable to the Supreme Being. The requisition of a sentimental modesty on his part only shows that he who makes it has no higher conception of a God than as a vague sublimation of humanity. The construction of • -•• as an optative (let all the kingdoms of the earth know), or a subjunctive (that all the kingdoms of the earth may know), although admissible, ought not to be preferred to the future proper, where the latter yields a sense so good in itself and so well suited to the context. The last words of the verse may either mean, that thou Jehovah art the only one (i. e. as appears from the connexion, the only true God), or, that thou alone art Jehovah, with particular allusion to the proper import of that name as signifying absolute, eternal, independent existence. The last construction is preferred by Hitzig; but the first, which is adopted by Gesenius, is also recommended by its more exact agreement with the masoretic accents. It need scarcely be added that these questions of construction do not affect the general sense, which is, that the deliverance of his people from Sennacherib would prove Jehovah to be infinitely more than the gods of the nations whom he gloried in destroying.
21. And Isaiah, the son of Amoz, sent to Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, (as to) what thou hast prayed to me (with respect) to Sennacherib king of Assyria, (the apodosis follows in the next verse.) Vitringa’s supposition that the communication was in writing, is favoured by the analogy of v. 14, and by the length and metrical form of the message itself. Knobel suggests that the messenger was probably a younger prophet. Why Isaiah corresponded thus with Hezekiah, instead of speaking with him face to face, as he did in other cases, both before and after this, none of the interpreters have been able to explain, except by resolving it into a positive command of God. J. D. Michaelis connects ^UJX with ^bx in the sense of I to whom; but this use of the first person in immediate combination with the third, although not unexampled, is too rare to be assumed without necessity. The same objection lies against the explanation of “IIBS as a conjunction meaning as, whereas, forasmuch, or the like. The same essential meaning is obtained by making it as usual a relative pronoun, construed adverbially, a form of speech which cannot be transferred to our idiom without the introduction of a preposition. Gesenius regards it as an idiomatic pleonasm, and accordingly omits it in his version, which is simply, thou hast prayed etc. Lowth follows several of the ancient versions in making it the object of the verb insiais (I have heard) which he inserts in the text on the authority of the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 20.) This emendation would be highly probable but for the fact that the sacred writers often intentionally varied their expressions in repeating the same matter, for the proof and illustration of which usage see Hengstenberg’s exposition of the fourteenth and eighteenth Psalms (Commentary, vol. I. pp. 269, 372). Be this as it may, no stretch of ingenuity can make the construction in Isaiah easier or more obvious than the one in Kings. Gesenius therefore contents himself with saying that the later writer omitted Tro3J for the sake of brevity, and yet he makes him use “nrx in a sense wholly different from that which it must have if IPWS were inserted. Another difference between the two texts is the use of bit here in the place of br. This agrees well enough with the hypothesis that bx is a favourite of the later writer, but not at all with the assumption that his changes were intended to remove irregularities and make the construction easy, bx may either be regarded as equivalent to bs (against) in this connexion, or be taken in the wider sense of as to or concerning.
22. This is the word which Jehovah hath spoken concerning (or against) him. The virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee, she hath laughed thee to scorn, the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head after thee. There is no need of giving word the sense of decree, or even prophecy. The simple meaning is that what follows is a revelation from God in answer to the vaunting of Sennacherib and the prayers of Hezekiah. The two explanations of the preposition bs, between which interpreters appear to be divided, differ only in extent and definiteness. For the mean ing of the phrase i^s rr, see the note on ch. 1:8; for the construction of rbira, that on ch. 23: 12. As all interpreters agree that this last word is in apposition (as to sense) with na, so Hengstenberg supposes the latter to sustain the same relation to lips, on which supposition the meaning of the whole phrase is, the virgin daughter of Zion, i. e. Zion considered as a daughter and a virgin. It may be a personification either of the whole church and nation, or of the city of Jerusalem, which last seems more appropriate in this connexion. J. D. Michaelis and Hitzig understand the figure of virginity as meaning that the city was still unconquered. Calvin and Clericus, with strange inattention to the form of the original, take virgin daughter of Zion as a vocative, and refer the verb to the Assyrian (he hath despised thee, oh virgin, etc.), a construction utterly prohibited, not only by the masculine form of the pronoun thee, which might be differently pointed but by the feminine termination of the verbs, which is a necessary part of the text. The sense of “p^nx is not merely at thee, but after thee as thou fleest. Henderson has behind thee, which is only defective in not suggest ing the idea of his flight. Luzzatto endeavours, but without success, to explain the shaking of the head as a gesture of compassion or condolence, even where it is combined with other tokens of contempt. His argument rests wholly on a supposititious meaning of the cognate “112. Maurer and Knobel understand by shaking a derisive nodding or vertical motion of the head accompanied by laughter. Gesenius supposes that a wagging or lateral motion of the head, although not used by us for such a purpose, may have been common as a gesture of derision in the east, the rather as such signs are to a great extent conventional, and as other derisive gestures mentioned in the Scriptures, such as clapping the hands, are equally foreign from our habits and associations. Hitzig supposes that the shaking of the head, with the Hebrews as with us, was a gesture of negation, and that the expression of scorn consisted in a tacit denial that Sennacherib had been able to effect his purpose. Thus understood, the action is equivalent to saying in words, no, no! i. e. he could not do it! A similar explanation of this gesture is given by Hengstenberg in his Commentary on Psalm 22: 8. The meaning of the whole verse, divested of its figurative dress, is that the people of God might regard the threats of the Assyrian with contempt.
23. Whom hast thou reproached and reviled, and against whom hast thou raised (thy) voice, and lifted thine eyes (on) high towards (or against) the Holy One of Israel This is equivalent to saying, dost thou know who it is that thou revilest? To raise the voice may simply mean to speak, or more emphatically to speak boldly, perhaps with an allusion to the literal loudness of Rabshakeh’s address to the people on the wall (ch. 36: 13). The construction loftiness of eyes (meaning pride) is inconsistent both with the pointing and accentuation. 01-173 is a noun of place, here construed as an adverb, and in sense equivalent to heavenward or towards heaven. ‘ The act described is that of looking up to heaven as he uttered his blasphemies. The English and many other versions make the last words of the second clause an answer to the foregoing question. (Against whom etc? Against the Holy One of Israel). This construction is retained by Gesenius, but Ewald carries the interrogation through the verse, and renders % at the beginning of the last clause, that or so that, while Hitzig makes the whole of that clause an exclamation. This construction is more natural than that which makes the answer begin in the middle of the last clause, instead of the beginning of the next verse, where he is expressly charged with blasphemy against Jehovah.
24. 73y the hand of thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord and said, With the multitude of my chariots (or cavalry) I have ascended the height of mountains, the sides of Lebanon, and I will cut down the loftiness of its cedars and the choice of its firs (or cypresses), and I will reach its extreme height (literally, the height of its extremity), its garden-forest (literally, the garden of its forest). This may be regarded either as the substance of another message actually sent by Sennacherib, or as a translation of his feelings and his conduct into words. By the hand may then mean simply through (as in ch. 20: 1), or refer particularly to the letters mentioned in v. 14. The parallel passage has “psxba thy messengers, a variation just as likely to be made by the original writer as by a later copy ist. The textual reading in that passage has 33^2 instead of 313, which is given in the margin. Gesenius points the former asna and translates the whole phrase with my chariot of chariots (D=H being often used collectively) i.e. my innumerable chariots (compare Nah. 3: 17). Ewald points it ab’ia, by the driving of my chariots. The reading in the text before us, and in the margin of the other, is of course regarded as an attempt to sim plify and clear up an obscure expression, a tendency diligently noted when it shows itself on the right or rather the convenient side. Vilringa gives to San, here as in ch. 21: 7, the sense of cavalry; but other interpreters ap pear to be agreed, that there is no sufficient reason, in this case, for depart ing from the usual and proper sense, especially as little would be gained by it, lofty and rugged mountains being scarcely more accessible to horses than to chariots. Some understand the sides of Lebanon strictly as denoting its acclivities; others with more probability give it the peculiar idiomatic sense of extremities, whether of length, depth, or height, the latter being here required by the connexion. (See the note on ch. 14: 13.) “Pnst rEip is explained by Clericus to mean its standing cedars, but by other interpreters its lofty cedars, as the parallel expressions mean its choice firs or cypresses. (Compare the note on ch. 14: 8.) The explanation of Carmel as a proper name can only be admitted on the supposition that the pronouns in this clause refer to Hezekiah or to Judah. If on the contrary they refer to Lebanon, which seems the only natural construction, bsns must be taken in its primary and proper sense of fruitful field, vineyard, garden, orchard, or the like. It is here combined with forest, either for the purpose of describing the cedar groves of Lebanon as similar to parks and orchards, or of designating the spot where the cultivated slope of the mountain is gradually changed into a forest. It was long supposed that the only cedar grove of Lebanon was the one usually visited near the highest summit of the range; but in 1805, Seetzen discovered two others of greater extent, and the American missionaries have since found many trees in different parts of the mountain. (Robinson’s Palestine. III. 440.) Instead of top oi-ua the parallel passage has n’sp •)•&« (his extreme abode), a variation both in sense and form, which Gesenius and his followers think decidedly more poetical and difficult than that before us, and of course more ancient, as the inference happens in this case to favour the foregone conclusion. Such assertions are best answered by a counter assertion, in itself at least as plausible, that the diversity is just such as might have been expected in the case of one and the same writer. The reference to Lebanon in this verse is by many interpreters literally understood; but why should the Assyrian attempt or even threaten so absurd a passage with his mounted troops, when a shorter and easier one lay open to him? Others regard Lebanon as a poetical description of the kingdom of the ten tribes, or of Judah, or of Israel in general, with special mention of Jerusalem, or the temple, or the tower of Lebanon, as its extreme height or abode. But if we take into consideration the whole context, and the strongly hyperbolical expressions of the other messages and speeches of Sennacherib, it will be found most natural to understand this verse as a poetical assertion of the speaker’s power to overcome all obstacles.
25. I have digged and drunk water, and I will dry up with the sole of my feet (literally, steps) all the streams of Egypt. As in the preceding verse, he begins with the past tense and then changes to the future, to denote that he had begun his enterprise successfully and expected to conclude it triumphantly. The confusion of the tenses, as all futures or all preterites, is entirely arbitrary, and the translation of them all as presents is at least unnecessary, when a stricter version not only yields a good sense, but adds to the significance and force of the expressions. According to Luzzatto, Tip means to spring up or gush forth as a fountain, and the verse is a poetical description of the conqueror under the figure of a stream which drinks in its tributary waters and exhausts all other rivers in its course. This last expression the ingenious rabbin wisely disguises in a paraphrase, as he could scarcely have found any reader, Jew or Gentile, who would tolerate the figure of one stream drying up others with the soles of its feet. Another original interpretation of the verse is that proposed by Barnes, who gives the usual explanation of the first word, but applies that clause to the supply of the Assyrian cities with water. The obvious objections to this exposition are, that it does not follow, because digging of wells is a public benefit in desert countries and among nomadic tribes, that the supply of a great kingdom like Assyria would be so described; but secondly and chiefly, that the parallelism and indeed the whole connexion of the clauses is destroyed by this interpretation of the first. What coherence is there between the assertions, that he had supplied his own kingdom with water, and that his army was numerous enough to exhaust the streams of Egypt? Vitringa understands the first clause as meaning that he had sated his desire of conquest, he had sought and found, he had dug for water and slaked his thirst. The objection to this interpretation is, not that it makes the first clause figurative, which agrees exactly with the style of the whole passage, but that it makes it too indefinite to match the other clause precisely. If the latter, as all except Luzzatto seem to grant, describes the march of a great army, there is a natural presumption that the other has respect to the same subject. The best interpretation, therefore, on the whole, is that which understands the verse to mean that no difficulties or privations could retard his march, that where there was no water he had dug for it and found it, and that where there was he would exhaust it, both assertions implying a vast multitude of soldiers. The drying up of the rivers with the soles of the feet is understood by Vitringa as an allusion to the Egyptian mode of drawing water with a tread-wheel (Deut. 11: 10). Others suppose it to mean, that they would cross the streams dry-shod, which does not seem to be a natural explanation of the words. Bochart understands the sense to be that the dust raised by their march would choke and dry up rivers. In favour of supposing an allusion to the drawing out of water, is the obvious reference to digging and drinking in the other clause. This appears to preclude the explanation of the language as a boast that the elements themselves were subject to him, not unlike that which Claudian puts into the mouth of Alaric. Subsidere nostris sub pedibus monies, arescere vidimus amnes. Even there, however, the literal and figurative meanings seem to run into each other, as the poet adds a few lines lower, fregi Alpes, galeis Padum victricibus hausi. That such hyperboles were wont to be applied to the oriental armies, we may learn from Juvenal. Credimus altos defecisse amnes, epotaque flumina M»do. The old interpretation of “iiss “nix^, as meaning the waters of Jerusalem while in a state of siege, or the moats of fortified places in general, is now universally abandoned for the meaning which the same words have in ch. 16: 6. (See above, p. 350.)
26. Hast thou not heard 1 From afar I have done it, from the days of old, and have formed it. Now I have caused it to come, and it shall be (or come to pass), to lay waste, (as or into) desolate heaps, fortified cities. Clericus makes this a continuation of the speech ascribed to Sennacherib, who is here boasting that he (i. e. Assyria) had created Egypt, meaning that Egypt was peopled from Assyria, which was now about to lay it waste. This interpretation is refuted at great length by Vitringa, whose main objection to it is, that Assyria was no more the founder of Egypt than of any other ancient state. Vitringa^a supposes this interpretation to have sprung from an unwillingness to recognise the doctrine of divine decrees. But such a motive cannot be imputed to Calvin, who, although he agrees with most interpreters in making these the words of God himself, refers them not to his eternal purpose, but to his having made Jerusalem or Zion what she was, and to his fixed determination to preserve her. In order to sustain this explanation of the first clause, he is obliged to read the second interrogatively, which is altogether arbitrary. Most writers, ancient and modern, are agreed in applying the first clause, either to express predictions, or to the purpose and decree of God. The sense is then substantially the same with that of ch. 10: 5, 15, to wit, that the Assyrian had wrought these conquests only as an instrument in the hand of God, who had formed and declared his purpose long before, and was now bringing it to pass. Hast thou not heard? may either be a reference to history and prophecy, or a more general expression of surprise that he could be ignorant of what was so notorious. Gesenius directs attention to the form wab in the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 25) as less usual; but the inference, which he evidently wishes to be drawn from this variation, is precluded by the use of the same combination here in the phrase pimsb. A writer who, through ignorance or want of taste, took offence at the double preposition in the one word, could not have retained it in the other. Instead of TJPSI, Luzzatto reads Vtrr, which is unnecessary, as the future is entirely appropriate. Most writers take this as the second person of the verb, and thou shall be, or that thou shouldt’st be. Ewald more simply makes it the third person, agreeing with the noun to which the pronoun it must be referred, namely, the series of events in which Sennacherib had gloried. The parallel passage has the contracted form p’mnV, which, as being unusual and irregular, is supposed by Gesenius to have been amended in the later copy. For D”ba Lowth reads o^a, and translates the whole phrase, warlike nations. Most other writers are agreed in making it mean ruined or desolated heaps. The construction is that of a double accusative, without an ellipsis of the particle, which may however be supplied in English.
27. And their inhabitants are short of hand; they are broken and confounded; they are grass of the field and green herbage, grass of the house-tops, and a field before the stalk (or standing corn), i. e. before the grain has grown up. This may be regarded either as a description of the weakness of those whom the Assyrian had subdued, or as a description of the terror with which they were inspired at his approach. In the former case this verse extenuates the glory of his conquest, in the latter it enhances it. A short hand or arm implies inability to reach the object, but does not necessarily suggest the idea of mutilation. In a negative sense, it is applied to God, Num. 11: 23. Isai. 50: 2. 59: 1. Here, as in many other cases, the particle of comparison is not expressed. Green herbage, literally, th green of herbage. Barnes supposes an allusion to the ease with which grass is trodden down by an army; but how does this cohere with the mention of grass upon the house-tops? In this last expression there is reference at once to the flat surface, the earthy material, and the various uses of the oriental house-top, in consequence of which seeds would frequently spring up there, but without depth of root and therefore short-lived. The comparison of human frailty and infirmity to grass is very common in the Scriptures. Instead of ns-rr, the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 26) has na^iia blasting or blasted corn, which has led some to regard riaita either as an error of transcription or as an orthographical variation of the other word. If this be so, the text before us cannot be charged with always giving the preference to regular and familiar forms. But as the plural:-I«-P:J is elsewhere used in the sense of fields, this may be here retained, the idea of blasting being either supplied by the connexion, or omitted altogether. In the latter case, the comparison is simply with the weakness and fragility of immature grain, field being put by a common figure for its contents or products. The general meaning of the whole verse evidently is that t’ley were unable to resist him.
28. And thy sitting down, and thy going out, and thy coming in, 1 have known, and thy raging (or provoking of thyself) against me. The Targum explains sitting to mean sitting in council, going out going to war, and coming in the invasion of Judah. It is commonly agreed, however, that these phrases are combined to signify all the actions of his life, like sitting down and rising up in Ps. 139: 2, going out and coming in, Deut. 28: 6, 1 Kings 3: 7 and elsewhere, the latter especially in reference to military movements (I Sam. 18: 16. 2 Sam. 5: 2).
29. Because of thy raging against me, and (because) thy arrogance has come up into my ears, I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will cause thee to return by the way by which thou earnest. The sense of tumult, given by the English and other versions to “j^iy, is founded on the etymology proposed by Rabbi Jonah, who derives it, through •psffi, from nxft. The more obvious derivation is from the verb ^KID and its root “JXTB, meaning to rest or be quiet, from which we may readily deduce the ideas of security, indifference, nonchalance, superciliousness, and arrogance. However dubious the etymology may be, the whole connexion makes it certain that the word is expressive of something in the conduct of Sennacherib offensive to Jehovah. In the first clause there is an abrupt change of construction from the infinitive to the finite verb, which is not uncommon in Hebrew, and which in this case does not at all obscure the sense. Another solution of the syntax is to take ^ as an elliptical expression for “>ia» ”^ or 13 “jan, as in Num. 20: 12 and 1 Kings 20: 42, and make F&s agree with both the verbal nouns preceding. This is the construction given in the English Version. The figures in the last clause are drawn from the customary method of controlling horses, and from a less familiar mode of treating buffaloes and other wild animals, still practised in the east and in menageries. (Compare Ezek. 19: 4. 29: 4. ^8: 4. Job 41: 1. The figure may be taken in a general sense as signifying failure and defeat, or more specifically as referring to Sennacherib’s hasty flight.
30. And this to thee (oh Hezekiah, shall be) the sign (of the fulfil ment of the promise): eat, the (present) year, that which groweth ofitsdf, and the second year that which springeth of the same, and in the third year sow ye, and, reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof. The preceding verse closes the address to the Assyrian, begun in v. 22, and the Prophet now continues his message to Hezekiah. It is commonly agreed that rrso denotes voluntary growth or products, such as spring from the seed dropped before or during harvest. Most writers give a similar meaning to trrnu (2 Kings 19: 29 urno), the etymology of which is very doubtful. Hitzig applies it, in a wider sense, to spontaneous products generally, such as milk, honey, etc. Aquila and Theodotion render the two words avTo^ara and avtoyvrj. Symmachus and Jerome make the second mean apples. As to the general meaning of the verse, there are two opinions. Rosenmuller, Augusti, and Gesenius understand the infinitive bisx as referring to the past. The sense will then be that although the cultivation of the land had been interrupted for the last two years, yet now in this third year they might safely resume it. To this interpretation it may be objected, that it arbitrarily makes the year mean the year before the last, and no less arbitrarily assumes that the infinitive is here used for the preterite. The later German writers seem to have gone back to the old and obvious interpretation, which refers the whole verse to the future. This is grammatically more exact, because it takes the year in a sense analogous to that of the day, the common He brew phrase for this day, and assimilates the infinitive to the imperatives which follow. Thus understood, the verse is a prediction that for two years the people should subsist upon the secondary fruits of what was sown two years before, but that in the third year they should till the ground, as usual, implying that Sennacherib’s invasion should before that time be at an end. But why should this event be represented as so distant, when the context seems to speak of Sennacherib’s discomfiture and flight as something which immediately ensued? Of this two explanations have been given. The one is, that the year in which these words were uttered was a sabbatical year, and the next the year of Jubilee, during neither of which the Jews were allowed to cultivate the ground, so that the resumption of tillage was of course postponed to the third. It is no conclusive objection to this theory, that the chronological hypothesis which it involves cannot be positively proved. The difficulty in all such cases arises from the very absence of positive proof, and the necessity of choosing between different possibilities. A mere serious objection is, that the mode of subsistence for the first two years seems to be mentioned, not as a mere preparation for what follows, but as a substantive prediction. Even this, however, would be of no weight in opposition to an hypothesis which accounts for the known facts and explains the language of the passage. The other solution of the difficulty is, that Sennacherib was now on his way to Egypt, and that the Prophet expected his return within a year, by which the Jews would be again deterred from making the usual provision for their own subsistence, and thus the crops of two years would be lost. But such an expectation of the Prophet would have been falsified by the Assyrian’s immediate retreat to his own country, and however this may recommend the supposition to those who refuse to admit his inspiration, can have no weight with those who regard him as a prophet. The proofs of his divine legation and foreknow ledge are so many arid various, that when two hypotheses present themselves, the one which clashes with his inspiration is of course to be rejected. The only remaining question is, wherein the sign consisted, or in what sense the word sign is to be understood. Some take it in its strongest sense of miracle, and refer it, either to the usual divine interposition for the subsistence of the people during the sabbatical years, or to the miraculous provision pro mised in this particular case. Others understand it here as simply meaning an event inseparable from another, either as an antecedent or a consequent, so that the promise of the one is really a pledge of the other. Thus the promise that the children of Israel should worship at Mount Sinai was a sign to Moses that they should first leave Egypt, and the promised birth of the Messiah was a sign that the Jewish nation should continue till he came, (See above, p. 119.)
31. And the escaped (literally the escape) of Judah, that is left, shall again take root downward and bear fruit upward. This verse fore tells, by a familiar figure, the returning prosperity of Judah. r,o^ usually means to add, and is taken here by Hendewerk in the sense of enlarging or increasing. Gesenius seems to make it simply equivalent to the English take or strike in a similar connexion. Ewald and the older writers under stand it as implying repetition, an idea which may be expressed in translation by again, anew, or afresh. For the peculiar use of the abstract noun, see above, ch. 4: 2. 10: 20. 15: 9.
32. For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and an escape from Mount Zion; the zeal of Jehovah of Hosts shall do this. For the meaning of the last clause, see the commentary on ch. 9: 8. The first clause is an explanation of the use of the words ^-“^a and rnxrs in the foregoing verse. Grotius (on 2 Kings 19: 31) understands the going forth literally of the people being pent up in Jerusalem, but now set at large by the retreat of the invaders, and again quotes from Virgil, Panduntur portae; juvat ire et Dorica castra desertosque videre locos. (See above, on ch. 33: 17.) But it is much more natural to understand it figuratively like the preceding verse, and as denoting simply that some in Jerusalem or Zion shall be saved.
33. Therefore (because Jehovah has determined to fulfil these pro mises), thus saith Jehovah (with respect) to the king of Assyria, he shall not come to this city, and shall not shoot an arrow there, and shall not come before it with a shield, (or a shield shall not come before it), and shall not cast up a mound against it. Some understand this as meaning simply that he should not take the city, others that he should not even attack it. “}Sn has its ordinary sense of shield, and not that of avraamrjpbt; or testudo. In favour of the usual construction of naBipi is the fact that all the other verbs have Jehovah for their subject. Some translate bx into, which is favoured neither by the usage of the particle nor by the context, which relates to movements of the enemy without the walls. Calvin understands by nbbb the balista, or ancient engine for projecting stones and other missiles, a gratuitous expedient to evade an imaginary difficulty, as to the use of the verb *]£>W, which usually means to pour, but may also be applied to excavation and the heaping up of earth. This verse seems to show that Jerusalem was not actually besieged by the Assyrians, or at least not by the main body of the army under Sennacherib himself, unless we assume that he had already done so and retreated, and regard this as a promise that the attempt should not be repeated.
34. By the way that he came shall he return, and to this city shall he not come, saith Jehovah. The first clause may simply mean that he shall go back whence he came, or more specifically, that he shall retreat without turning aside to attack Jerusalem, either for the first or second time. The construction given in the English Bible (by the same shall he return) makes fia emphatic and connects it with the following verb. This is also the masoretic interpunction; but according to analogy and usage, it belongs to what precedes and must be joined with ^isx, as the usual Hebrew expression for in which.
35. And I will cover over (or protect) this city, (so as) to save it, for my own sake, and for the sake of David my servant. This does not mean that the faith or piety of David, as an individual, should be rewarded in his descendants, but that the promise made to him, respecting his successors, and especially the last and greatest of them, should be faithfully performed. 40
(See 2 Sam. 7: 12, 13). It is equally arbitrary, therefore, to make David here the name of the Messiah, and to infer, as Hitzig does, from this mention of David, that vs. 32-35 are by a later writer. Knobel, on the contrary, notes it as characteristic of Isaiah, and refers to ch. 9: 6. 11:1. 10. 29: 1, as parallel examples. Umbreit says the genuineness of these verses can be called in question only by a perfectly uncritical skepticism (Zwtifelsucht). The terms of the promise in the first clause may be compared with those of ch. 33: 5.
36. And the angel of Jehovah went forth, and smote in the camp of Assyria an hundred and eighty and jive thousand, and they (the survivors, or the Jews) rose early in the morning, and behold all of them (that were smitten) were dead corpses. Various attempts have been made to extenuate this miracle, by reading c^x for C]^s, (chiefs instead of thousands}, or by supposing that the vast number mentioned were in danger of death from the plague or otherwise. Others, unable to explain it away, and yet unwilling to admit the fact recorded, resort to the cheap and trite expedient of calling it a myth or a traditional exaggeration. Such assertions admit of no refutation, because there is nothing to refute. Receiving, as these very authors do, the other statements of the context as historical, they have no right to single this out as a fabrication. If it is one, then the rest may be so too, for we know that fictitious writers do not confine themselves to prodigies and wonders, but often imitate the actual occurrences of real life. In the fact itself, there is nothing incredible. Those who reject it themselves refer to the enormous ravages of the plague. If the population of whole cities may be buried in a night by a flow of lava, or in an instant by an earthquake, what is there to shock the understanding in the statement of the text, especially on the supposition, favoured by these same interpreters, that the angel of Jehovah is a hebraism for the plague, or some other physical cause or means of destruction. But even if we give the phrase its usual sense, “ there is,” to use the words of Barnes, “ no more improbability in the existence of a good angel than there is in the existence of a good man, or in the existence of an evil spirit than there is in the existence of a bad man; there is no more improbability in the supposition that God employs invisible and heavenly messengers to accomplish his purposes than there is that he employs men.” There is consequently no need of departing from the strict sense of the words, or of disputing whether by the angel of the Lord we are to understand a storm, a hot wind, or a pestilential fever. As little necessity or reason is there for attempting to make the verse descriptive of a gradual or protracted mortality, so that every morning when they rose there was nothing to be seen but corpses. The terms used can naturally signify nothing but a single instantaneous stroke of divine vengeance, and the parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 35) says expressly that the angel smote this number in that night. Skeptical critics would be glad to have it in their power to plead the silence of profane tradition as an objection to the narrative before us. But although such an inference would be wholly in conclusive, even if the fact were so, it happens in this case that the fact is not so. The account which Herodotus received from the Egyptian priests, as to Sennacherib’s retreat from Pelusium, occasioned by an irruption of field-mice, which Vulcan sent to rescue Sethos, who was priest to that divinity as well as king of Egypt, is admitted by the latest German writers, notwithstanding the denial of Gesenius, to be an evident variation of this history, not more corrupt than in many other cases where the identity of origin has never been disputed. The transfer of the scene of the event to Egypt, and the substitution of Sethos and Vulcan for Hezekiah and Jehovah, are in strict accordance with the common practice of the ancient nations, to connect the most remarkable events, by their traditions, with their own early history. Even the figment of the mice may be regarded as a change of no unusual character or magnitude, unless we choose to assume, with J. D. Michaelis, that it was founded on a misconception of the mouse as the hieroglyphical emblem of destruction. The ancient date of the tradition was attested, in the days of Herodotus himself, by a statue of Sethos in the temple of Vulcan, holding a mouse in his hand, with the inscription lg v *i£ OQ&MV evGefirfi SGIM. The parallel narrative in 2 Chr. 32: 21, instead of numbering the slain, says that all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders, and the captains, in the camp of the Assyrian were cut off. Where this terrific overthrow took place, whether before Jerusalem, or at Libnah, or at some intervening point, has been disputed, and can never be determined, in the absence of all data, monumental or historical. Through out the sacred narrative, it seems to be intentionally left uncertain, whether Jerusalem was besieged at all, whether Sennacherib in person ever came before it, whether his army was divided or united when the stroke befell them, and also what proportion of the host escaped. It is enough to know that one hundred and eighty-five thousand men perished in a single night.
37. Then decamped, and departed, and returned, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, and dwelt (or remained) in Nineveh. The form of expression in the first clause is thought by some writers to resemble Cicero’s famous description of Catiline’s escape (abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit), the rapid succession of the verbs suggesting the idea of confused and sudden flight. His dwelling in Nineveh is supposed by some interpreters to be mentioned as implying that he went forth no more to war, at least not against the Jews. An old tradition says that he lived only fifty days after his return; but according to other chronological hypotheses, he reigned eighteen years longer, and during that interval waged war successfully against the Greeks and founded Tarsus in Cilicia.
38. And he was worshipping (in) the house of Nisroch his god, and Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword, and they escaped (literally, saved themselves) into the land of Ararat, and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead. The Jews have a tradition that Sennacherib intended to sacrifice his sons, and that they slew him in selfdefence. Another tradition is, that he had fled into the temple of his god as an asylum. A simpler supposition is, that the time of his devotions was chosen by his murderers, as one when he would be least guarded or suspicious. Hendewerk cites, as parallel instances of monarchs murdered while at prayer, the cases of the Caliph Omar and the emperor Leo V. For the various derivations of the name Nisroch which have been proposed, see Gesenius’s Thesaurus, torn. II. p. 892. The name Adrammelech occurs in 2 Kings 17: 31, as that of a Mesopotamian or Assyrian idol. Berosus has Ardumusanus, and Abydenus Adramelus, which are obvious corruptions of the Hebrew or Aramean name. In like manner Esarhaddon is called Asordanius by Berosus, and Axerdis by Abydenus, who moreover has fflergilus instead of Sharezer, a discrepancy which seems to be explained •by the combination Nergal-sharezer (Jer. 39: 3, 13). Supposing this to have been the full name of Sennacherib’s son, one half would seem to have been preserved by Abydenus, and the other by Isaiah. Ararat, both here and in Gen. 8: 4, is the name of a region, corresponding more or less exactly to Armenia, or to that part of it in which the ark rested. The Armenians still call their country by this name. From the expression mountains of Ararat (Gen. 8: 4), has sprung the modern practice of applying this name to the particular eminence where Noah landed. The country of Ararat is described by Smith and Dwight, in their Researches in Armenia, vol. II. p. 73, etc. The original name is retained in the Vulgate, while the Septuagint renders it l
