THIS chapter contains an account of Hezekiah’s illness and miraculous recovery, together with a Psalm which he composed in commemoration of his sufferings and deliverance. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20: 1-11) varies more from that before us than in the preceding chapter. So far as they are parallel, the narrative in Kings is more minute and circumstantial, and at the same time more exactly chronological in its arrangement. On the other hand, the Psalm is wholly wanting in that passage. All these circumstances favour the conclusion that the text before us is the first draught, and the other a repetition by the hand of the same writer.
1. In those days Hezekiah was sick unto death, and Isaiah, the son of Amoz, the Prophet, came to him, and said to him, Thus saith Jehovah, Order thy house, for thou (art) dying, and art not to live. As Hezekiah survived this sickness fifteen years (v. 5), and reigned in all twenty-nine (2 Kings 18: 2), those days must be restricted to the fourteenth year, which was that of the Assyrian invasion. Whether this sickness was before the great catastrophe, as Usher, Lightfoot, and Prideaux suppose, or after it, as Calvin, Vitringa, and Gesenius think, is not a question of much exegetical importance. The first opinion is sustained by the authority of the Seder Olam, the last by that of Josephus. In favour of the first is the promise in v. 6, according to its simplest and most obvious meaning, though it certainly admits of a wider application. It is also favoured by the absence of allusions to the slaughter of Sennacherib’s host in the song of Hezekiah. But on the other hand, his prayer is only for recovery from sickness, without any reference to siege or invasion. Vitringa objects to this hypothesis, that the king of Babylon, who was tributary to Assyria, would not have dared to send a message of congratulation to Hezekiah before the destruction of the host. But even granting this, which might be questioned, and admitting the assumed fact as to the dependence of the king of Babylon, why may we not suppose that the catastrophe occurred in the interval between Isaiah’s sickness and the embassy from Merodach-baladan? Calvin objects to the hypothesis which makes the sickness, previous in date to the destruction of the host, that it would not have been omitted in its proper place. It is alto gether natural, however, that the Prophet, after carrying the history of Sennacherib to its conclusion, should go back to complete that of Hezekiah also. nsralj strictly means to die, i. e. so as to be ready to die, or at the point of death. An analogous Greek phrase (aa&evsia TTQO^ -&dvarov) is used in John 11: 4, to denote a sickness actually fatal. Here it expresses merely tendency or danger, the natural and necessary course of things without a special intervention. Order thy house is ambiguous, both in Hebrew and in English. The b may express relation in general, or indicate the object of address. In the former case the sense will be, give orders with respect to thy house. (LXX. rd^ai nfQ\ TOV ofxoi> aov.) In the latter, order or command thy household, i. e. make known to them thy last will. Grotius quotes from Plutarch the analogous expression, trttM.ea&ai roig oixsiots. la either case, the general idea is that of a final settling of his affairs, in the prospect of death. (Compare 2 Sam. 17: 23.) There is no need of depart ing from the strict sense of n« as an active participle. The modern writers infer from the treatment described in v. 21, and said to be still practised in the east, that Hezekiah had the plague, which would make it less improbable that this was the instrument employed in the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. Of those who make the sickness subsequent to this great deliverance, some suppose the former to have been intended, like the thorn in Paul’s flesh, to preserve Hezekiah from being exalted above measure. That he was not wholly free from the necessity of such a check, may be inferred from his subsequent conduct to the Babylonian envoys.
2. And Hezekiah turned his face to the wall, and prayed to Jehovah. Jerome understands by (he wall that of his heart, Vatablus the side of his bed, Jonathan the wall of the temple, towards which Daniel prayed (Dan. 6: 11). But this last was a practice which arose during the exile, and even the promise in 1 Kings 8: 25 has reference to that condition. The obvious meaning is the wall of the room, towards which he turned, not merely to collect his thoughts, or to conceal his tears, but as a natural expression of strong feeling. As Ahab turned his face toward the wall in anger (1 Kings 20: 2), so Hezekiah does the same in grief. There is no need of supposing with Lowth, that the bed was in the corner of the room, so that he could not turn either way without looking towards the wall. Calvin regards the conduct of Hezekiah in this, and all other parts of the narrative, as an eminent example of pious resignation. Vitringa seems to admit that the effect here described was connected in some degree with Hezekiah’s undue attachment to the things of this life. Grotius ascribes it to the indistinct views then enjoyed of a future state. Josephus thinks he was the more distressed because he had as yet no heir, since Manasseh was not born till three years afterwards (2 Kings 21: 1).
3. And he said, Ah Jehovah, remember, I beseech thee, how I have walked before thee in truth and with a whole heart, and that which is good in thine eyes I have done. The figure of walking before God includes the ideas of communion with him and subjection to him, and is therefore more comprehensive than the kindred phrase of walking with him. By truth we are here to understand sincerity and constancy. The explanation of D^U? by Gesenius as meaning devoted (like the Arabic.JL^jo Moslirn) is justified neither by Hebrew etymology nor usage, which require it to be taken in the sense of whole or perfect, as opposed to any essential defect. The reference of this and the following phrase to freedom from idolatry and zeal for the worship of Jehovah, is too limited. This verse is not an angry expostulation, nor an ostentatious self-praise, but an appeal to the only satisfactory evidence of his sincerity. Calvin supposes Hezekiah to be here resisting a temptation to despondency arising from the sudden intimation of approaching death. «isx is a strong expression of entreaty. It is more regularly written elsewhere xsx. Hitzig supposes it to be a contraction of K3-bx (Gen. 19: 7); but as it is also used where there is no negation, it is better to derive it with Gesenius from ttx and so.
4. And, the word of Jehovah was (or came) to Isaiah, saying (what follows in the next verse). Calvin supposes a considerable time to have elapsed before this second message was sent; but he seems to have over looked the more particular statement in the parallel passage (2 Kings 20: 4), that the word of the Lord came to him before he had gone out of the middle court (according to the keri), or the middle city (according to the kethib). The former reading is found in the ancient versions, but the latter as usual is supposed to be more ancient by the latest critics. The middle city may either mean the middle of the city (media urbs), or a particular part of Jerusalem so called, perhaps that in which the temple stood, or more generally that which lay between the upper city on Mount Zion and the lower city on Mount Akra. The communication may have been through the middle gate mentioned by Jeremiah (39: 3). In either case, the inter val could not have been a long one, though sufficient to try the faith of Hezekiah. The omission of these words in the text before us is ascribed by Knobel to ignorance of the localities on the part of a writer living after the exile. It might have been supposed that even such a writer, living on the spot and with the older Scriptures in his hands, would have enjoyed as good opportunities of understanding such a point as Knobel himself.
5. Go and say to Hezekiah, Thus saith Jehovah, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears (or weeping); behold, I am adding (or about to add) unto thy days fifteen years. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20: 5) has: return and say to Hezekiah, the chief (or leader) of my people, Thus saith Jehovah etc. After tears it adds: behold, (I am) healing (or about to heal) thee; on the third day thou shalt go up to the house of Jehovah. David is particularly mentioned as the person to whom the promise of perpetual succession had been given (2 Sam. 7: 12). The construction of qor ijsri is the same as in ch. 29: 14! Gesenius and the rest of that school set this down of course as un doubtedly a prophecy ex eventu, because (says Knobel with great naivete) Isaiah could not know how long Hezekiah was to live. Hendewerk adds that Jehovah is here represented as changing his mind and directly contradicting himself. To this no further answer is necessary than what Calvin had said long before, to wit, that the threatening in v. 1 was conditional, and that the second message was designed from the beginning no less than the first. The design of the whole proceeding is well explained by Vitringa to have been to let Hezekiah feel his obligation to a special divine interposition for a recovery which might otherwise have seemed the unavoidable effect of ordinary causes.
6. And out of the hand of the king of Assyria 1 will save thee and this city, and I will cover over(or protect) this city. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel, with some of the older writers, infer from this verse that the army of Sennacherib was still in Judah. Gesenius and Rosenmuller follow Calvin and Vitringa in referring it to subsequent attacks or apprehensions. This is really more natural, because it accounts for the addition of this promise to that of a prolonged life. The connexion, as explained by Calvin, is, that he should not only live fifteen years longer, but should be free from the Assyrians during that time. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20: 6) adds, for my own sake and for the sake of David my servant, as in ch. 37: 35. Had this addition been made in the text before us, it would of course have been an instance of repetition and assimilation, symptomatic of a later writer.
7. And this (shall be) to thee the sign from Jehovah, that Jehovah will perform this word which he hath spoken. The English Version has a sign; but the article is emphatic, the (appointed) sign (proceeding) from Jehovah (not merely from the Prophet). The translation this thing, al though justified by usage, is here inadmissible because unnecessary. The parallel narrative in Kings is much more circumstantial. What occurs below, as the last two verses of this chapter, there stands in its regular chronological order, between the promise of recovery and the announcement of the sign, so that the latter appears to have been given in compliance with Hezekiah’s own request and choice. And Isaiah said, This (shall be) to thee the sign from Jehovah, that Jehovah will perform the thing which he hath spoken; shall the shadow advance ten degrees, or shall it recede ten degrees 1 And Hezekiah said, It is a light thing for the shadow to decline ten degrees; nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees (2 Kings 20: 9, 10). As to the transposition of vs. 21, 22, see below.
8. Behold, I (am) causing the shadow to go back, the degrees which it has gone down (or which have gone down) on the degrees of Ahaz with the sun, ten degrees backward; and the sun returned ten degrees on the degrees which it had gone down. As to the nature of the phenomenon here described, there are three opinions. The first is that the Prophet took advantage of a transient obscuration, or of some unusual refraction, to confirm the king’s belief of what he promised. The sec-
ond is that the whole is a myth or legend of a later date. The third is that Isaiah did actually exhibit a supernatural attestation of the truth of his prediction. This is supposed by some to have consisted merely in the foresight of a natural phenomenon, while others regard the phenomenon itself as miraculous. Of these last, some again suppose a mere miraculous appearance, others an actual disturbance of the ordinary course of nature. This last is not a question of much exegetical or practical importance, since it neither can nor need be ascertained, whether the course of the sun (or of the earth around it) was miraculously changed, or the shadow miraculously rendered independent of the sun which caused it. The former hypothesis is favoured by the statement that the sun went back, if taken in its strictest and most obvious sense, although it may be understood as a metonymy of the cause for the effect. At any rate, little would appear to be gained by paring down a miracle to certain dimensions, when even on the lowest supposition it can only be ascribed to the almighty power of God, with whom all things are not only possible but equally easy. The choice is not between a greater and lesser miracle, but between a miracle, a myth, and a trick. The last two suppositions are so perfectly gratuitous, as well as impious, that no believer in the possibility of either miracle or inspiration can entertain them for a moment. And if thus shut up to the assumption of a miracle, it matters little whether it be great or small. It is enough that God alone could do it or infallibly predict it. As to the disproportion of the miracle to the occasion, it remains substantially the same on any supposition which involves a real miracle at all. If this be admitted, and the historical truth of the narrative assumed, the safest course is to expound it in its simplest and most obvious sense. Another question in relation to this verse, of far less moment in itself, has given rise to a vast amount of learned and ingenious controversy. This is the question whether the de grees here mentioned were the graduated scale of a dial, or the steps of a staircase. In this dispute, besides the exegetical writers on Isaiah and the second book of Kings, we meet with the great names of Usher, Petavius, Salmasius, Scaliger, and others of eminent repute but later date. It is important to observe that there is no word in the text necessarily denoting such an instrument. By comparing the text and margin of the common English Version, it would seem that the translators were disposed to put this sense upon the words EEttJa m« nibs», which they render, the sun-dial of Aha z, but which literally mean, the degrees of Ahaz in (or by) the sun. So too the Targum has hour-stone (fcOSti) ps), and the Vulgate horologium. The only word corresponding to all this in the original is n-fcsn, which, like the Latin gradus, first means steps and then degrees. The nearest approach to the description of a dial is in the words, degrees of Ahaz. This circumstance may show that the reference to a dial, properly so called, is not so obvious or necessary in the Hebrew text as in the English Version. It was further alleged by Scaliger, and other early writers on the subject, that the use of dials was unknown in the days of Hezekiah. Later investigations have destroyed the force of this objection, and made it probable that solar chronometers of some sort were in use among the Babylonians at a very early period, and that Ahaz may have borrowed the invention from them, as he borrowed other things from the Assyrians (2 Kings 16: 10). There is therefore no historical necessity for assuming, with Scaliger, that the shadow here meant was the shadow cast upon the steps of the palace, called the stairs of Ahaz because he had built them or the house itself. The only question is, whether this is not the simplest and most obvious explanation of the words, and one which entirely exhausts their meaning. If so, we may easily suppose the shadow to have been visible from Hezekiah’s chamber, and the offered sign to have been suggested to the Prophet by the sight of it. This hypothesis relieves us from the necessity of accounting for the division into ten or rather twenty degrees, as Hezekiah was allowed to choose between a precession and a retrocession of the same extent (2 Kings 20: 9). These two opinions are by no means so irreconcilable as they may at first sight seem. Even supposing the degrees of Ahaz to have been an instrument constructed for the purpose of measuring time, it does not follow that it must have been a dial of modern or of any very artificial structure. A Jewish writer, quoted by Grotius, describes it as a globe within a concave hemisphere, casting its shadow on the concave surface. But besides the arbitrary character of this supposition, it does not account for the description of the shadow as descending with the sun, since the shadow on such an instrument would ascend as the sun descended. Knobel imagines that there may have been an artificial eminence or mound, with steps or terraces surrounding it, on which the shadow cast by an obelisk or gnomon at the summit would grow longer as the day declined, or in other words, descend with the descending sun. But a still more simple supposition is that the gnomon was erected on a staircase of suitable exposure, or that a column at the top cast a shadow which was found available for a rude measurement of time. The minor questions, whether the gnomon was designed to be such, or was erected for some other purpose, and whether rvibsa means ordinary steps or astronomical degrees, do not affect the essential fact, that the recession of the shadow was perceptible in such a situation and on such a scale as to be altogether incontestable, rnbsan may either be connected with what goes before (the shadow of the degrees), or con strued as an accusative of measure (the degrees which it has gone down).
9. A writing of Hezekiah, king of Judah, when he was sick, and lived (i. e. recovered) from his sickness. This is the title or inscription of the following psalm (vs. 10-20), not inserted by a copyist or compiler, but prefixed, according to the ancient oriental usage, by the author himself, and therefore forming an integral part of the text. The title CMC, prefixed to several of the Psalms, is regarded by Gesenius as an orthographical variation of the word (rifiD^) here used. Others derive the former from a different root, but suppose its form to be copied from the one before us. (See Hengstenberg on Psalm 16: 1.) The specific senses put upon this word by the Septuagint (prayer), the Targum (confession), and Gesenius (song), are inferred from the contents of the passage itself, and do not belong to the He brew word, which simply means a writing. The particle prefixed is strictly equivalent neither to by nor of, but means belonging to, as in the frequent formulas Tnb and nxwb in the titles of the Psalms, belonging to David (as the author), belonging to the chief musician (as the performer). The conjecture of Grotius, that Isaiah dictated the psalm, or put it into Hezekiah’s mouth, is perfectly gratuitous. That Hezekiah should compose a psalm, is not more strange than that he should make a collection of proverbs (Prov. 25: 1). It would have been far more strange if one so much like David, in character and spirit, had not followed his example in the practice of devotional composition. The inspiration and canonical authority of this production are clear from its having been incorporated by Isaiah in his prophecies, although omitted in the second book of Kings. The questions raised by some interpreters, as to its antiquity and genuineness, are founded on the mere possibility, that the passage may be of later date and by another writer. So far as we have evidence, either external or internal, there is not the slightest ground for critical misgiving. The s at the beginning of the last clause does not mean concerning his sickness and indicate the subject of the composition, but, as usual before an infinitive, denotes the time of the action. This is by most writers understood to be, after he had been sick and had recovered, as explained in the Vulgate (cum aegrotasset et convaluisset). The words, in themselves considered, would more naturally seem to mean, during his sickness and recovery, and are accordingly explained by Hitzig. There is nothing in the psalm itself at all inconsistent with the supposition, that it was conceived, and perhaps composed, if not reduced to writing, before the complete fulfilment of the promise in the king’s recovery. The contrary hypothesis has tended to embarrass and perplex the interpretation, as will be more distinctly seen below. The idiomatic phrase to live from sickness, in the sense of convalescence or recovery, occurs repeatedly elsewhere, either fully or in an abbreviated form. (See for example 1 Kings 1: 2. Gen. 20: 7.)
10. I said in the pause of my days I shall go into the gates of the, grave, I am deprived of the rest of my years. The pronoun of the first person does not seem to be emphatic or distinctive, as it usually is when separately written, but appears to be expressed for the sake of a euphonic or rhythmical effect. The words IEI ^in may naturally qualify either the foregoing or the following verb, I said in the pause of my days, or, in the pause of my days I shall go; but the latter construction is favoured by the accents, and by the analogy of the following verse, where TPIEX is immediately succeeded by the words which he uttered. The explanation of ta^i w, as meaning the blood of my days, is unnatural in itself, and requires an arbitrary change of pointing. Kimchi gives ^01 the sense of cutting off (swii), derived from rraia. (See above, the note on ch. 6: 5.) Most interpreters regard it as synonymous with ^, silence, stillness, though they differ as to the application of the figures. Scheidius supposes it to mean the standing still of the sun, or its apparent pause at noonday, and then noon itself, or what the Greeks call ^ ptaijppQia toi> /Jt’ov, and ourselves the meridian of life. This may also be the meaning of the Septuagint version (lv rq> vyei iwv fjpeQmv pov), in the height (or zenith) of my days, although Clericus and others confidently allege that the Seventy for w read *w, of which there is no example elsewhere. Umbreit understands by the stillness of his days the period of life when the passions cease to govern and the character becomes more calm. Gesenius applies it to the reign of Hezekiah, and supposes him to mean that he was about to be cut off when he had every prospect of a peaceful reign. Even Kimchi’s sense of cutting off is reconcilable with this explanation of “W as meaning silence, then cessation. The general idea is correctly given in the Vulgate (dimidio), which Gesenius gratuitously thinks may be a mere conjecture from the Latin demi, but which is much more likely to have been suggested by the analogous expression in Ps. 102: 25, I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days (^ ^sm). There is not the slightest ground, however, for sup posing, this last to be the true text here. The preposition before gates may mean either to, through, or into; but the last is its usual sense after verbs of motion. As parallel expressions may be mentioned the gates of death (Ps. 9: 14) and the gates of hell (Matth. 16: 18). The verb ^B means to visit, and especially to visit for the purpose either of inspection or punishment. From the former of these applications springs the secondary sense of missing or finding wanting. This is adopted here by Gesenius, so as to make the last clause mean, I shall be missed (by my acquaintances and friends) during the rest of my years. But nature and the context show that Hezekiah’s thoughts were running upon what he was to miss himself. Besides, the future meaning given to the preterite is, in this case, gratuitous, and therefore ungrammatical. A much better use of the same general sense is made by those who take the Pual as a causative passive, I am made to miss or lose the rest of my years, or as the English Version has it, I am deprived of them. It is better still, however, because more in accordance with the tone and spirit of the whole composition, to understand the verb as expressing not mere loss or privation, but penal infliction. It was because Hezekiah regarded the threatened abbreviation of his life as a token of God’s wrath, that he so importunately deprecated it. Instead of the remainder, Cube and Dathe read the best part of my days, but without any adequate authority from usage.
11. I said, I shall not see Jah, Jah in the land of the living; 1 shall not behold man again (or longer) with the inhabitants of the world. i-p m is not an error of the text for mm (Houbigant), but an intensive repetition similar to those in vs. 17, 19. Or the second may be added to explain and qualify the first. He did expect to see God, but not in the land of the living. This is better than to make the second m the subject of a distinct proposition, as Luzzatto does, I shall not see Jah, (for) Jah (is only to be seeii) in the land of the living. The same writer regards this as the appropriate name of God considered as a gracious being. He supposes it to have been originally an exclamation of delight or joy, corresponding to W (ovou, vae) as an exclamation of distress or fear, from the combination of which arose the name mm, denoting an object both of love and fear. For other explanations of the name PP, see above, on ch. 12: 1 and 26: 4. The land of the living is not the Holy Land (Hendewerk), but the present life. The preposition cs? may connect what follows either with the subject or the object of the verb; I with the inhabitants, or, man with the inhabitants. Vm, which strictly means cessation, is regarded by the older writers as a description of this transitory life or fleeting world. Vitringa objects, that he would not have regretted leaving such a world, and therefore applies Hn to the state of death. I, with (or among) the inhabitants of (the land of) stillness, shall no more see man. This is adopted by Gesenius and the other modern writers. It may be objected, however, that it needlessly violates the parallelism, on which so much stress is elsewhere laid, and which plainly indicates, in this case, that the last words of the verse bear the same relation to I shall not see man, that the words in the land of the living bear to I shall not see Jah. If the latter designate the place in which he was no more to see God, then the former would naturally seem to designate the place in which he was no more to see man. Another reason for preferring the old interpretation is afforded by the obvious affinity between the expression here and that in Ps. 49: 2. Hear this all the nations, give ear all the inhabitants of the world (ibn *zw). That the text in one of these cases is to be corrected by the other, or that one of them arose from misapprehension of the other, are superficial and uncritical assumptions. That the one was suggested by the other, but with an intentional change of form, so as to furnish two descriptions of the present life, alike in sound but not identical in sense, is not only probable in itself, but perfectly in keeping with the genius of the language and the usage of the sacred writers. (See above, ch. 37: 24.) As to the objection, that Hezekiah would not have been loth to leave a world so transient and unsatisfying, it is not only contradicted by experience, but admits of this solution, that its transitory nature was the very thing for which he grieved.
12. My dwelling is plucked up and uncovered by me (or away from me) like a shepherd’s tent. I have rolled up, like the weaver, my life; from the thrum he will cut me off; from day to night thou wilt finish me. The same thing is here represented by two figures. The first is that of a tent, the stakes of which are pulled up, and the covering removed, with a view to departure. The usual sense of Tto (generation) seems inappropriate here. For that of age or life there is no authority in usage. That of dwelling is founded on the Arabic analogy, and yields a good sense, not only here but in Ps. 49: 20. Most interpreters explain r&aa as meaning removed or departed, a sense which it has not elsewhere. Its usual sense uncovered is entirely appropriate, and exactly descriptive of a part of the process of striking a tent. The ^3» may then be understood, either as refer ring the act described to the speaker, or as making him the object from which the removal was to take place. On the latter hypothesis, some of the German writers enter into profound discussions whether Hezekiah meant to identify the Ich or personal principle with his body or his soul, or with both, or with neither. The second figure is that of a web completed and removed by the weaver from the loom. The old interpretation of “wop makes it mean cut off; the modern one, rolled up; the allusion in either case being to a weaver’s mode of finishing his work. To make this verb passive or reflexive, is entirely arbitrary. Still more so is a change of person from the first to the second, since the same succession of the first, second, and third persons reappears in the next verse. It is not even necessary to make the verb causative (I have caused him to cut out or roll up my life). The true solution is proposed by Calvin, viz. that he first thinks of himself as the guilty cause of his own death, and then of God as the efficient agent. Umbreit imagines that he here describes himself as dying by a voluntary act, as Schleiermacher is said by one of his biographers to have done, instead of dying like other men because he could not help it. This is not only unnatural and irrational in itself, but inconsistent with the context, where the king is represented as any thing rather than a voluntary sufferer. According to the latest writers, Fte’nw does not mean with pining sickness, nor from a state •of exaltation, but from the thrum (as in the margin of the English Bible) i. e. the ends of the threads by which the web is fastened to the beam. Lowth gives the same sense by employing the more general term loom. From day to night is commonly explained to mean before to-morrow, within the space of one day. The verb in the last clause might, without violence to etymology or usage, be explained to mean, thou wilt (or do thou) make me whole. But interpreters appear to be agreed in giving it the opposite sense of thou wilt make, an end of me. Some suppose moreover that the figure of a weaver and his web is still continued, and that the idea expressed in the last clause is that offaiishing a piece of work.
13. I set (him before me) till the morning (i. e. all night) as a lion, (saying) so will he break all my bones; from day to night thou wilt make an end of me. Either these last words are repeated in a different sense, or else the repetition shows that they have no special reference, in the forego ing verse, to the process of weaving. Gesenius seems to treat with contempt the suggestion of an inadvertent repetition on the part of some transcriber, though he has no difficulty in adopting it when it can serve a useful purpose. Most writers disregard the masoretic interpunction, and connect like a lion with the second clause. They are then obliged to take Ty^ttj in the sense of I reckoned (i. e. counted the hours, or reckoned that as a lion etc.), or as meaning I endured, or I composed myself, neither of which has any sufficient ground in the usage of the language, and the last of which requires but to be arbitrarily supplied. Jarchi adheres to the masoretic accents, and explains the first clause, I likened myself to (or made myself like) a lion (i. e. roared) • until the morning. To this it has been objected, not without reason, that as the crushing of the bones involves an obvious allusion to the lion (compare Ps. 7: 3), we then have the same figure used to represent both the sufferer and the author of his sufferings, which is forced and unnatural. The masoretic interpunction may, however, be retained without this inconvenience, by explaining T^ia in accordance with its usage in Ps. 16: 8 and 119: 30. In the former case, the Psalmist says, I have set Jehovah before me always, i. e. I continually recognise his presence, or regard him as pres-‘ ent. In the other case the same idea seems to be expressed by the verb alone, with an ellipsis of the qualifying phrase. Thy judgments have I placed (i. e. before me). Supposing a similar ellipsis here, the sense will be, I set hint before me, i. e. viewed him as present, imagined or conceived of him as a lion, and expected him to act as such, saying, so (i. e. as a lion) he will crush all my bones. If this be the true construction, it removes all ground for making /ear, or pain, or the disease, the nominative of the verb will break, and leaves it to agree with Jehovah, as the natural subject of the sentence. This construction is further recommended by its giving uniformity of meaning to the clauses, as descriptive of the sufferer’s apprehensions.
14. Like a swallow (or) a crane, (or like a twittering swallow?) so I chirp; I moan like the dove; my eyes are weak (with looking) upward (or on high); O Jehovah, I am oppressed, undertake for me (or be my surety). In the first clause the moanings of the sufferer are compared, as in many other cases, to the voice of certain animals. The dove is often spoken of in such connexions, and the mention of it here makes it probable that the parallel expressions are also descriptive of a bird or birds, 0*10 is the common Hebrew word for horse, and is so explained even here by Aquila, who retains iwj without translation. Theodotion retains both, but writes the first Gig (&^?), which Jerome thinks is probably the true text. This same reading appears as a Keri in the masoretic text of Jer. 8: 7, the only other place where the word seems to signify a bird. The old rabbinical interpretation gives to 010 the sense of crane, and to iws that of swallow. Bochart reverses them and undertakes to show that lias is the Hebrew word for crane. This word affords a curious instance of the way in which Gesenius sometimes leaves his followers and transcribers in the lurch. In his Commentary, while he speaks of ii:.s as a word of doubtful import, he gives Bochart’s explanation as upon the whole the most probable. Some of his copyists go further and allege that it certainly means crane. In the mean time Gesenius, in his Manual Lexicon, rejects Bochart’s proofs as invalid, and explains ““-ws as a description of the gyratory motion of the swallow. In the Thesaurus, this is abandoned in its turn, and the word explained to mean chirping or twittering. Maurer objects to the explanation of “nw as a mere descriptive epithet, that in Jer. 8: 7 we have “msi 010 as two independent substantives. To this Gesenius replies, that the epithet is there used as a poetical substitute for the noun, or perhaps the name of a particular species. On any supposition, the comparison before us is evidently meant to be de scriptive of inarticulate moans or murmurs. The reference of the verbs in the first clause to past time (I chirped, I moaned), though assumed by most interpreters, is perfectly gratuitous, when the future proper yields so good a sense. This violation of the syntax has arisen from assuming that the clause must be a retrospective description of something already past, and not an expression of present feeling such as he might have uttered at the moment. That this last is no unnatural hypothesis, is certain from the fact that all interpreters adopt it in the other clause. But if that may be the langifage of the sufferer at the time of his distress, it is equally natural, or rather more so, to explain the first clause in the same way. Clericus understands *&*j as meaning lifted up, which he admits to be a mere conjecture having no foundation in usage, but rendered necessary by the addition of dYnab. Most interpreters regard it as an instance of constructio praegnans, and retain the proper meaning of the verb. Hitzig makes ftpttJS an imperative, and identifies it with the Arabic (j^cLfc to love tenderly or ardently. Incline thy heart to me. There is, however, no necessity or warrant for departing from the Hebrew usage of prs> to do violence or oppress. The older writers supply a definite subject, such as death, my disease, or the like. Ewald makes it impersonal, it is oppressed to me, i. e. I am oppressed. Gesenius treats it as a noun, (there is) oppression to me, and explains the Metheg as a mere sign of the secondary accent. Junius and Tremellius render ^^y, weave me through (pertexe me), i. e. do not cut out the unfinished web. But this return to the metaphor of v. 12, after alluding in the mean time to a lion, to a swallow, to a crane, and to a dove, would be exceedingly unnatural, and although not impossible can only be assumed in case of extreme exegetical necessity, which certainly has no existence here. The same word is used in Ps. 119: 122, in the sense of undertake for me or be my surety, i. e. interpose between me and my enemies. The reference is rather to protection than to justification. Gill carries out the metaphor to an extreme by saying that Hezekiah here represents his disease as a bailiff that had ar rested him, and was carrying him to the prison of the grave, and therefore prays that the Lord would bail him or rescue him out of his hands.
15. What shall I say? He hath both spoken to me, and himself hath done (it); 1 shall go softly all my years for the bitterness of my soul. This, which is substantially the common version, is the one adopted by most modern writers, who regard the verse as an expression of surprise and joy at the deliverance experienced. What shall I say 1 i. e. how shall I express my gratitude and wonder? He hath said and done it, he has promised and performed, perhaps with an implication that the promise was no sooner given than fulfilled. The recollection of this signal mercy he is resolved to cherish all his years, i. e. throughout his life, by going softly, solemnly, or slowly, on account of the bitterness of his soul, i. e. in recollection of his sufferings. Some, however, understand these last words to mean, in the bitterness of my soul, i. e. in perpetual contrition and humility. But the preposition?? is properly expressive, not of the manner of his going, but of its occasion. The verb n^x occurs only here and in Ps. 42: 5, where it is commonly agreed to signify the solemn march of the people in procession to Mount Zion. It would here seem to be equivalent to the phrase ax ^n applied to Ahab in 1 Kings 21: 27. Another interpretation of the verse, which might, at first sight, seem more natural, regards it as the language of Hezekiah during his sickness, and as expressive, not of joy and wonder, but of submission. What shall I say, in the way of complaint? He hath both said and done it, i. e. threatened and performed it. But this view of the first clause cannot be reconciled with any natural interpretation of the second, where the phrase all my years is inconsistent with, the supposition that he expected to die forthwith. 41
16. Lord, upon them they live, and as to every thing in them is the life of my spirit, and thou wilt recover me and make me live. This exceed ingly obscure verse is now most generally understood to mean, that life in general, and the life of Hezekiah in particular, was dependent on the power and promise of God. Upon them, the promise and performance implied in the. verbs said and did of the preceding verse, they live, i. e. men indefinitely live. The sense of Vs, when construed thus with ivn, is clear from such examples as Gen. 20: 27. Deut. 8: 6. Some suppose ^ to govern ^n, notwithstanding the intervening word fc,m, and the prefix b, which must then be pleonastic. All the life of my spirit (is) in them. A simpler construction is to make £ab an adverbial phrase meaning as to (or with respect to) every thing. The other attempts which have been made to explain dh^y as referring to the bones of Hezekiah, or his years, or his subjects, or those over whom (God is) Lord, are so forced, that the one first given, notwithstanding its obscurity and harshness, seems entitled to the preference. The explanation of the future and imperative in the last clause as referring to past time (thou hast recovered me and made me live) is not only arbitrary but gratuitous, as it assumes without necessity that such a prayer or expectation could not have been uttered after Hezekiah’s recovery, whereas it is a natural expression of desire that what had been begun might be continued and completed, ^^nn is not an infinitive, which would here take the construct form, but an imperative. In either case, its meaning is determined by the foregoing future, so that both verbs may take the future form in translation. The original form of expression may, however, be retained in English, by omitting the auxiliary in the second future.
17. Behold, to peace (is turned) my bitter bitterness, and thou hast loved my soul from the pit of destruction, because thou hast cast behind thy back all my sins. The idea of change or conversion must either be sup plied, or supposed to be expressed by -i«, which is then the preterite of isin, not elsewhere used in Kal, although the Hiphil is of frequent occurrence. Most of the late writers understand -IB *b *M as an emphatic or intensive repetition, of which there are several examples in this passage (vs. 11, 19), and suppose the verb to be suppressed, or suggested by the preposition b. The English Bible, and some other versions, put an opposite meaning on the clause, as a description, not of his restoration but of his affliction. For peace I had great bitterness, or, on my peace (came) great bitterness. The other interpretation agrees better with the usage of the preposition and makes the parallelism more exact. We have here another instance of pregnant construction, to love from, i. e. so to love as to deliver from. This sense is expressed in the English Bible by a circumlocution. ^a means properly nonentity, annihilation, here put for perdition or destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power (2 Thess. 1: 9). The last clause shows that Hezekiah regarded the threatened destruction as a punishment of sin. To cast behind one, or behind one’s back, in Hebrew and Arabic, is to forget, lose sight of, or exclude from view. The opposite idea is expressed by the figure of setting or keeping before one’s eyes. (See Ps. 90: 8. 109: 14, 15. Jer. 16: 17. Hos. 7: 2.)
18. For the grave shall not confess thee (nor) death praise thee; they that go down to the pit shall not hope for thy truth. Here, as often in the Psalms, the loss of the opportunity of praising God is urged as a rea son, not only why he should be loth to die, but why God should preserve him. (See Ps. 6:6. 88: 11, 12.) It does not follow from these words, either that Hezekiah had no expectation of a future state, or that the soul remains un conscious till the resurrection. The true explanation of the words is given by Calvin, viz. that the language is that of extreme agitation and distress, in which the prospect of the future is absorbed in contemplation of the present, and also that so far as he does think of futurity, it is upon the supposition of God’s wrath. Regarding death, in this case, as a proof of the divine displeasure, he cannot but look upon it as the termination of his solemn praises. The truth mentioned in the last clause is the truth of God’s promises, to hope for which is to expect the promised blessing, -pin &6 strictly means, shall not acknowledge thee, with special reference to the acknowledgment of favours, or thanksgiving. The influence of the negative extends to the second clause, as in ch. 23: 4. (See above, p. 407.)
19. The living, the living, he shall thank thee, like me (or as I do) to-day; father to sons shall make known, with respect to thy truth, i. e. the truth of thy promises, as in the verse preceding. Only the living could praise God in that way to which the writer was accustomed, and on which his eye is here fixed, with special reference, no doubt, to the external service of the temple. The last clause must be taken in a general sense, as Hezekiah was himself still childless.
20. Jehovah to save me! And my songs we will play, all the days of our life, at the house of Jehovah. The obvious ellipsis in the first clause may be variously filled with came, hastened, commanded, was ready, be pleased, or with the verb is, as an idiomatic periphrasis of the future, is to save for will save. The reference to the future and the past is equally admissible, since God, in one sense, had already saved him, and in another was to save him still, ru^a is properly the music of stringed instruments,. or a song intended to be so accompanied. The word may here be used in the more general sense of song or music; but there seems to be no need of excluding the original and proper meaning. The singular form, my song, refers to Hezekiah as the author of this composition; the plurals, we will sing and our lives, to the multitude who might be expected to join in his public thanksgiving, not only at first, but in after ages. The use of Vs is explained by some as an allusion to the elevated site of the temple; but it seems to be rather a license of construction, similar to our promiscuous use of at and in, with names of towns. It is a possible but not a necessary supposition, that this particle may here denote upward motion, as in a pro cession from the lower city to the temple. We will sing or play my songs, all the days of our lives, up to the house of the Lord. The general sense in either case is that of public and perpetual praise, the promise of which closes this remarkable production.
21. And Isaiah said, Let them take a lump (or cake) of Jigs, and rub them (or lay them softened) on the boil (or inflammation), and he shall live (or let him. live), i.e. recover. The indirect construction, preferred by most of the modern writers, that they should take, and that he might recover, is entirely unnecessary, since the words may naturally be regarded as the very words spoken by the Prophet himself, n-na seems properly to have the sense of rubbing, either in reference to the application, or to the preparing of the figs by trituration. The latter explanation is now commonly preferred. Grotius follows some of the rabbinical interpreters in the assumption that the natural effect of such an application would have been injurious. But al though this may seem to magnify the miracle, it is a gratuitous assumption, and directly contradicted by the modern oriental practice of applying figs to pestilential pustules, for the purpose of maturing their discharge. Such a pustule is commonly supposed to be denoted by “prim, both here and else where, although some choose to adhere to what they think the primary sense of inflammation. Hitzig makes this noun the subject of the verb im (that it might be healed) on the authority of Lev. 13: 10, 14, 15; but the analogy of the first verse of the chapter now before us seems to be decisive in favour of the usual construction, which makes the verb refer to Hezekiah.
22. And Hezekiah said, What sign that I shall go up (to) the house of Jehovah 1 The ellipsis is easily supplied by reading, what sign dost thou give, or what sign is there, or more simply still, what is the signl The construction of fra as an exclamation of surprise (what a miracle!) is neither natural in itself, nor justified by usage, in a case where the usual interrogative sense is perfectly appropriate. The question is more fully given in 2 Kings 20: 8 as follows. And Hezekiah. said to Isaiah, What sign that Jehovah is about to heal me, and that I shall go up, on the third day, to the house of Jehovah 1 The reference is to the promise as recorded in v. 5 of the same chapter. Return and say to Hezekiah, the chief of my people. Thus saith Jehovah, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I am about to heal thee; on the third day thou shalt go up to the housz of Jehovah. The last two verses of this chapter in Isaiah are evidently out of their chronological order, and the question has been raised, whether this transposition is to be ascribed to the original writer, and if so how it is to be accounted for. The hypotheses which have been proposed may be reduced to three. The first is, that the transposition is an error of transcription, arising from the mere inadvertence of some ancient copyist. Besides the difficulty common to all such suppositions, that errors of the kind supposed, although they might take place, could scarcely become universal; it is here precluded by the fact that these two verses cannot be inserted in the text above without breaking its continuity, and cannot therefore have dropped out of it, unless we take for granted also, that the text was altered after the omission, which is only add ing arbitrarily another to the gratuitous assumptions made before. Some avoid this difficulty by supposing that the verses do not properly belong to this text, but were added by a later hand, in order to complete the narrative as given in the second book of Kings. Apart from the natural presumption against all such imaginary facts, except where the assuming of them cannot be avoided, it can scarcely be doubted that a copyist or critic, who would use such freedom with the text, would have used more, and inserted this statement in its proper place. It is only necessary to compare these fanciful hypotheses with the obvious and simple supposition that the passage before us is the first draught or original form of Isaiah’s narrative, in which the facts recorded in these two last verses were added by a kind of after thought, and that in re-writing the account, as a part of the national history, he naturally placed them in their chronological order. It would probably be easy to produce many parallel cases from the correspondence of volumi nous letter-writers, or from other cases of repeated composition on the same subject by the same writer. However this may be, it seems clear that the explanation now proposed is simpler in itself, and requires less to be ima gined or supposed, than any other, and is therefore, even on the strictest principles of criticism, entitled to the preference.
