/2. . - .: ^6 PRINCETON, N. J. ^ Presented by 6^ £,orc(e/ \^0r is there any further mention of an army at Jerusalem. It is possible, indeed, though not recorded, that Babshakeh left 38 CHAPTER XXX VII. the troops boliiud liim when he went to Libnah, under the com- mand of Tartan or Rabsaris (2 Kings 18: 17), and this is still more probable if, as some suppose, Rabshakeh was a mere am- bassador 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 the explanation given above is more satisfactory than any other. 8 And Rabshakeh returned and found the king of Assyria fighthig against (i. e. besieging) Libnah^ for he heard that he haa 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 Rehoboara (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. 1 1 : 30). Libnah was a city of the Levites and of refuge (Josh 21 : 13), and appears to have been nearer to Jerusalem. The last verb in this verse properly denotes the removal of a tent or an encampment. 9. And he (Sennacherib) heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia. He is come forth to make war loith thee ; and he heard {it) and sent (or ivhm he heard it he sent) messengers to Hezekiah^ saying (what follows in the next verse) For the meaning of the Hebrew name Ciish^ see the notes on cli. 18: 1 and 20:3. Tirhakah was one of the most famous conquerors of ancient times. Magasthenes, as quoted by Strabo, puts him between Sesostris and Nebuchadnezzar. He is also named by Manethb 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 CHAPTER XXXVII. 39 tvriters, and confirmed by still existing monuments. Tlie Greek forms of the name [Tu^uHog, Td^^toc, Tioxmp) vary but little from the Hebrew. It is unnecessary to suppose that Tirliakah had crossed the desert to invade Syria or that he was alreadv 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 opera- tions 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 on the ground that his strength lay chiefly in cavalry, which could not be em- ployed 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 eh. 22 : 9-1 1.) 10. Thus shall ye say to Hezekiah^ Jdng of Judah^ Lei not thy God deceive thee, in tvhom thou trustest. sayhig^ 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 con fidence 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 makes the last construction necessary, by changing the colloca- tion of the words ; but many others understand the sense to be, in whom thou trustest^ saying. On the whole, it is best, in a case 40 CHAPTER XXX Y.I I. fio doubtful, to retain the Hebrew collocation with all its am* biguity. 1 1 . Behold^ thou hast heard ivhat the kings of Assyria have doni to all the lauds, by utterly destroying them^ and thou shall be deliv- ered ! The interjection behold appeals to these events as some* thing perfectly notorious ; as if he had said, see what has hap- pened to others, and then judge whether thou art likely to escape. The pronoun thou, in the first clause,-not being neces- sary to the sense, is, according to analogy, distinctive and em- phatic, 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. 12. Did the gods of the nations deliver them, which my fathers destroyed, {to wit) Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the chil- dren of Eden which is [ov who were) in Telassar? Here again the collocation of the words makes the construction doubtful, though the general sense is clear. 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 ar- gument in favour of the antiquity and genuineness of the pas- sage. 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 Shal- maneser. Ilaran was a city of Mesopotamia, where Abraham's CHAPTER XXX VTL 41 father died, the Carrae of the Romans, and famous for the great defeat of Crassus. Ilezrph, a common name in oriental geography, here denotes probahly the Rhessapha of Ptolemy, a town and prov- ince 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 conclu- sions of some learned critics as to the identity of the place here meationed with the garden of Eden. 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 a)i Eden or 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. Tiie 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 some think may be identical with the Ellasar of Gren. 14: 1, appears to be analo- gous in form to the Babylonian names, Td-abib, Telfnclah, Tel- hasha, in all which tel means hill and corresponds to the English mnunt in names of places. 13. Where is the king of Hainath^ and the king 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). Of Hena nothing whatever is known, and of Ivvah only that it may be identical with the Avva of 2 Kings 42 CHAPTER XXX VII. 17 Zi, from which Assyrian colonists were transftrred to Sa maria. It has been suggested that they are the names of the deities worshipped at Hamath, Arpad, and Sepharvaiin. Ic favour of this exposition, besides the fact that the names, as names of places, occur nowhere else, it may be urged thut it agrees not only with the context in this place, but also with 2 Kings 18:34. 1 4. And Hezekiah took the letters from the hand of the messengers^ and read'it^ and went up [to) the house of Jehovah, and Ilezekiah spread it before Jehovah. As nothing had been previously said respecticg 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 Israd and to speak against him. The singular pronoun {it) refers to the plural antecedent (letters), /^hioh like the Latin literae had come to signify a single letter, and might be therefore treated indiscriminately either as a singular or plural form. The parallel passage (2 Kings 19: 14) removes all appearance of irregularity by reading them instead of it. As any man might 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 fact there is no record in the narrative before us 5. And Hezekiah prayed to Jehovah, saying (what follows in the next verse) 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 Icfore Jehovah. 18* CHAPTER XXX YIL 43 16. Jehovah of Hosls. God of Israel, dwelling between (or sitting upon) the cherubim, thou art he, the God (i. e. the only true God), thoiL alone, to all the kingdoms of the earth ; thou hazt made the heavens and the earth. The cherubim were symbolicl representa- tions of the superhuman orders of beings, or. as some suppose, of the perfection of the creature in its highest form. Whether Jehovah's riding on the cherubim (Ps 18 : 10) or his being en- throned above the material cherubs in the temple, or his dwell- ing between the cherubim (Ex. 25: 22), be specifically meant, there is obvious 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. 7'A^ God of all the kingdoms of the earth is not au 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. Not simply of all, in all, for all, or over all, but ivith 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 im- potence of idols and the power of God, as shown in the creation of the w^orld, occurs in Ps. 96 : 5 and Jer. 10 : 11. 17. Bow thine ear, Jehovah, and hear ; open thine eyes, Jehovah, and see ; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which ie 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 simplest version is, who has soit. To express the idea, lohich he has sent^ usage would seem to require a per- 44 CHAPTER XXX Y 1 1. Bonal pronoun witli tbe verb, as in 2 Kings 19: 16, where tlie relative may refer to the plural words^ or to Kabshakeh, which last is the construction given in the English Version of that passage. 1 8. It is true, O Jehovah^ the kings of Assijria 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 na- tions and destruction of their idols. The repetition, lands and land, has much perplexed interpreters. The best construction is that 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. 19. And given (or put) their gods into the fire— for they {were) 710 gods, but wood and sto?ie, the work ofmerCs hands — a7id destroyed them. The applicafion 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 theo- retically hold as to the nature of their deities, identify them 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, no< only to at length, or before it is too late, but also to therefore, oi since these things are so. The fact that Sennacherib had destroyed other na^tlons, is urged as a reason why the Lord should inter- pose to rescue his own people from a like destruction ; and the fact that he had really triumphed over other gods, as a ^eason why he should be taught to know the difference between ^hv^v CHAPTER XXXVII. 45 and Jehovah The construction of the verb as an optative {Id all the kingdoms of the earth know), or a subjunctive {that all ths 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 connection, 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 first is recommended by its more exact agreement with the masoretic accents. 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. 2 1 . And Isaiah, the son of Amoz, sent to Hezekiah saying. Thus saith Jehovah, the God of Israel, {as to) what thou hast j)rayed to me {with respect) to Sennacherib king of Assyria (the apodosis follows in the next verse). The supposition that the commu- nication was in writing, is favoured by the analogy of v. 14, and by the length and metrical form of the message itself « 22. This is the word lohich 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. The simple meaning is that what follows is a revelation from God in answer to the vaunting of Sennacherib and the prayers of Hezekiah. For the meaning of the phrase daughter of Zion, see the note on ch. 1:8; for the construction of virgin, that on ch. 23 : 12. The virgin daughter Zion, i e. Zion considered as a daughter and a virgin. It may be a personifi- cation either of the whole church and nation, or of the city of Jerusalem, which last seems moie appropriate in this connection- 46 CHAPTER XXXVII. Not merely at tkcc, but aflcr thee as thou fleest. Some under stand hy shaking a derisive nodding or vertical motion of the head accompanied by laughter. Otliers suppose that a wagging or. lateral motion of thfe 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 conven- tional. ai;d as other derisive gestures mentioned in the Scrip- tures are equally foreign from our habits and associations. Others again suppose that the shaking of the bead, with the Hebrews as with us, was a gesture of negation, and that the expression of scorn consisted in a tacit denial that Sen- nacherib had been able to effect his purpose. Thus under- stood, the action is equivalent to saying in words, ??6», no ! i. e. he could not do it. See my note on Psahn 22 : 8. The mean- ing of the whole verse, divested of its j&gurative 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 lohoni 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 1 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 construc- tion loftiness of eyes (meaning pride) is inconsistent both with the pointing and accentuation. The English and many other versions make the last words of the second clause an answer to the foregoing question. (Against lohom? Against the Holy One of Israel.) But the other construction is more natural.- 24. By the hand of thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord and said, With the multitude of my chariots (or cavalry) I ham ascended the height of mountains^ the sides of Lebanon^ and I will CHAPTEll XXXVII. 47 mi down the loftiness of its cedars and the choice of its firs (or cy presses)^ and I will reach its extreme height (literally, the height of its ext remit y), its gardenforest (literally, the garden of its forest). This may be regarded either as the substance of another mes- sage 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 fruitful f/dd, vineyard^ gar' den, orchard, or the like, is here combined Avith 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. (See Robinson's Palestine, III. 440.) 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. / have digged arid drunk water, and I will dry up icith the sole of my feet (literally, steps) all the streams of Egypt. Aa in the preceding verse,. he begins with the past tense and then changes to the future, to denote that he had begun his enter- prise 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 le;ist unnecessary, when a stricter version not only yields a good sense, but adds to the significance and force of the ex- pressions. The best interpretation, on the whole, is that which understands the verse to mean that no difficulties or privatioof 48 CHAPTER XXXVII. could retard Lis march, that where there was no water he had dug for it and found it. and that w^iere 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 under- stood by some as an allusion to the Egyptian mode of drawing water with a trea,d-wh(?el (Dent. 11 : 10). Others suppose it to mean, that they would cross the streams dry-shod, or 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. 26. Hast thou not heard? From afar I have done it ^ from the days of old ^ and have formed it. Note I have caused it to corne, a7ia it shall be (or come to pass)., to lay ivaste. [as or into) desolate heaps, fortifii'd cities. 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 senso is then substantially tiie 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. 27. And their inhabitants are short of hand ; they are broJcen and confounded ; thi.y are grass of the field and green herbage, grass of the hoirsc-tops, and afield before the stalk (or sta7iding corn). i. e. before the grain has grown up. This may be regarded either as a description of the weakness of those whom the Assy- rian had subdued, or as a description of the terror with which they were inspired at his approach. In the former case this verse cxt'Cnuates the glory of his conquest; in the latter it en- hances it. A short hand or arm implies inability to reach the CHAPTER XXXVII. 49 object, but does not necessarily suggest the idea of mutilation In a negative sense, it is applied to God, Num. 1 1 : 23. Isai. 50 : 2. 59 : 1. The general meaning of the whole verse evidently is that they were unable to resist him. 28. And thy sltthig dow/i^ and thy going oitt, and thy coming in, I have hioum, and thy raging (or provoking of thyself ) against w?. 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 (1 Sam. 18: 16 2 Sam. 5 : 2). 29. Because of thy raging agai?ist ?ne, and (because) thy arro- gance has come up into my ears, I ivill put my hook in thy nose^ and my bridle in thy lips, and I will cause thee to return by theioay by which thou canvst. 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. 38 : 4. Job 41 : I ,) 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 fulfilment of the promise) ; eat, the {present) year, that which groweth of itself, 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. As to the general meaning of the verse, there are two opinions. One is that although the culti- vation of the land had been interrupted for the last two years, yet now in this third year tbey might safely resume it. To thia VOL. II. — 3 50 CHAPTER XXXVII. iuterpretation it may be objected, that it ar? Itrarily makes tlu year mean the year before the last, and no lesst^rbiti arily assumes that the infinitive is here used for the preterite. The later writers seem to have gone back to the old aud obviods interpre- tation, which refers the whole verse to tSie future. This \s grammatically piore exact, because it takes ihc year in a sense analogous to that of the day^ the common Hebrew 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. Most probably 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 invoh'es cannot be posi tively proved. The difficulty in all such cases arises from the very absence of positive proof, and the necessity of choosing between difi'erent possibilities. 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 sub sistence of the people during the sabbatical years, or to the miraculous provision promised in this particular case. O'thers understand it here as simply meaning an event inseparable from another, either as an antecedent or a consequent, so that tlie promise of the one is really a pledge of the other. Thus the promise that the children of Israel should worship at Mount CHAPTER XXXVII. 5. Sinai was a sign to Moses that thej should first leave Egypt and the promised birth of the Messiah was a sigtt that the Jew ish nation should continue till he came. 31. And the escaped (literally the escape) of Judah^ that is left, shall again take root dotvnward and bear fruit upward. This verse foretells, by a familiar figure, the returning prosperity of Judah. For the peculiar use of the abstract noun escape, see above, ch. 4: 2. 10 : 20. 15 : 9. 32. For out of Jerusalem shah 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 : 7. The first clause is an explanation of the use of the words escape and left in the foregoing verse. The verse denotes simply that some in Jerusalem or Zion shall be saved. 33. Therefore (because Jehovah has determined to fulfil these -promises), thus saith Jehovah {with respect) to the king of Assyriay 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 7iot cast up a mound against it. Some under- stand this as meaning simply that he should not take the city, others that he should not even attack it. This verse seems to show that Jerusalem was not actually besieged by the Assy- rians, or at least not by the main body of the army under Sen- nacherib 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 citij %hall he not come, saith Jehovah. The first clause may simply mean that he shall go back whence he came, or more specifically. 62 CHAPTER XXXVII. that he shall retreat without turning aside to attack Jerusalem. either for the first or second time. 35. A?id I will cover over (or protect) this cili/, [so as) to save it, for my oivn 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. (See 2 Sam. 7: 12, 13.) 36. And the angel of Jehovah went forth^ and smote in the camp of Assyria an hundred ami eighty and Jive thousand, and th'y (the survivors, or the Jews) rose early in the mor)dng, and behold, all of them (that were smitten) ivere d'ad corpses. Even if we give the phrase angel of the Lord its usual sense, "there is 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 Grod employs invisible and heavenly messengers to accomplish his pur- poses than there is that he employs men." (Barnes.) The terms used can naturally signify nothing but a single instan- taneous stroke of divine vengeance, and the parallel passage (2 Kings 19 : 35) says expressly that the angel smote this num- ber in thai night. 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 ofi". Where this terrific overthrow took place, whether before Jerusalem, or at Libnah, or at some in- tervening 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 uncer- tain, whether eTerusalem was besieged at all, whether Sennache* CHAPTER XXXV II 53 rib 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 dicelt (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 [abilt^ excessit, evasii, erupit)^ the rapid succession of the verbs suggest- ing 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 chronol'gical hypothe- ses, he reigned eighteen years longer, and during that interval waged war successively against the Greeks and founded Tarsus in Cilicia. 38. And he was worshipping (in) the house of Nisroch his god, and Adrammdech 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 Sennachejib intended to sacrifice his sons, and that they slew him in self defence. 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. The name Adrammelech occurs in 2 Kings 17: 31, as that of a Mesopotamian or Assyrian idol. Ara.'-at. 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 A^rmenians still call their country by this name. From the expression mountairs of Ararat (Gen. 8 : 4) has sprung the 64 CHAPTER XXXVIII. modern practice of applying this nam? to the particular emi- nence where Noah landed. The country of Ararat is described by Smith and Dwight, in their Kesearches in Armenia, vol. II, pp. 73, etc. CHAPTER XXXVIII. 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 par- allel passage (2 Kings 20 : l-U) 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. I. In those days Hezekiah was sick unto death, and Isaiah, tht son of Amoz, the Frophet, 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 or after it, is not a question of much exegotical importance. In favour of the former supposition 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 ab C H A P T E R X X X V 1 1 1. 55 sence of allusions to the slaughter of Seunachorib's host in the Bong of Hezekiah. But on the other hand, his prayer is only for recovery from sickness, without any reference to siege or invasion. It has been objected 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 com- plete that of Hezekiah also. Order thy house is ambiguous, both in Hebrew and in English. The sense may be, give orders with respect to thy house ; or, command thy household, i.e. make known to them thy last will. In either case, the general idea is that of a final settling of his affairs in the prospect of death. (Compare 2 Sam. 17 : 23.) 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 instru- ment employed in the destruction of Sennacherib's army. Of those who make the sickness subsequent to this great deliver- ance, 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 necessit}^ of such a cheek, may be inferred from his subsequent conduct to the Babylonian envoys. 2. And Hezekiah turned his face to the wall, and prayed to Je- hovah. As Ahab turned his face away in anger (1 Kings 21 : 4), so Hezekiah does the same in grief 3. And he said, Ah Jehovah, remember, I beseech thee, how I have walked bfore thee in truth and with a whole heart, and thai which is good in thine eyes I have done. The figure of walking before God includes the ideas of communion with him and sub- jection to him, and is therefore more comprehensive than the 56 CHAPTER XXX VIII. kindred phrase of walking tvith bim. By truth we are Iiere it understand sincerity and constancy. This verse is not an angry expostulation, nor an ostentatious self-praise, but an appeal to the only satisfactory evidence of his sincerity, 4. And the word of Jehovah ivas (or came) to Isaiah^ saying (what follows in the next verse). 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 loiver city on Mount Akra. The commu- nication may have been through the middle gate mentioned by Jeremiah (39 : 3). In either case, the interval could not have been a long one, though sufficient to try the faith of Hezekiah. 5. Go and say to Hezekiah^ Tims 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 ffteen years. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20 : 5) has : return and say to Hezekiah., th", 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 shall go up to the house of Jehovah. David is particularly mentioned as the person to whom tho promise of perpetual succession had been given (2 Sam. 7 : 12). The threatening in v. I was conditional, and the second message was designed from the beginning no less than the first. The design of the whole proceeding was 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 thr hand of the. king of Assyria I will save thrt and this city^ and I will cover over (or protect) this city. This probably refers to subsequent attacks or apprehensions. Tba CHAPTER XXXVIII. 57 parallel passage (2 Kings 20 : 6) adds, for my own sakt and fa.'' the sake of David my servant, as in ch. 37 : 35. 7. A?id this (shall be) to thee the sign from Jehovah, that Jehovah will pmform. this word which he hath spoken. The English Ver- sion has a sign ; but the article is emphatic, the (appointed) sign (proceeding) from Jehovah (not merely from the Prophet). 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 recov- ery 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 icill perform the thiiig ivhich he hath spoken ; shall the shadow advance ten degrees, or shall it recede ten degrees ? And Uezekiah <:aid, 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 tfie degrees of Ahaz vnth the sun, ten degrees backward; and the sun returned ten degrees on the degrees which it had gone doicn. As to the nature of the phenomenon here described, there are various opinions, but it 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 miracu- lously changed, or the shadow miraculously rendered indepen- dent of the sun which caused it. The former hypothesis is favoured by the statement that the sun went back, if ta ten in its strictest and most obvious sense, although it may be under- stood as a metonymy of the cause for the effect. At any rate, little would appear to be gained by paring down a miracle to 3* 58 CHAPTER XXX y III. certain dimensions, when even on the lowest supposition it can only be ascribed to the almighty power of God, ivith whom all things are not only possible but equally easy. If 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. 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. Still less important is the question whether the degrees here mentioned were the graduated iscale of a dial, or the steps of a staircase. It was alleged by some early writers on the subject, that the use of dials was unknown in the days of Ilezekiah. 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 As- syrians (2 Kings 16:10). There is therefore no historical necessity for assuming 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 Hezeldah'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 con- structed for the purpose of measuring time, it does not follow that it must have been a dial of modern or of any very artificial Btructure. It is quite as probable that a column at the top of a CHAPTER XXX y III. 59 staircase cast a shadow wliich was found available for a rude measurement of time. 9. A meriting of Hczekiah^ king of Judali^ lohen he teas sick, and lived (i. e. recovered) from his sickness. This is the title or in- scription of the following psalm (vs. 10-20), prefixed, according to the ancient oriental usage, by the author himself, and there- fore forming an integral part of the text. 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. There is nothing in the psalm itself at all inconsistent with the supposition, that it was con- ceived, 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 emba4Tass and perplex the interpretation, as will be more distinctly seen below. The idiomatic phrase to live from sickness^ in the sense of convales- cence or recovery, occurs repeatedly elsewhere, either fully or in an abbreviated form. (See for example 1 Kings I : 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 words in the pause of my days may naturally qualify either the foregoing or the following verb, I said in the pause of my days, or, in thi pause of my days I shall go ; but the latter construction is the best The general idea is the same as in Ps. 102 : 24, I said, O my God, take me not aioay in the midst of my days. The preposi- tion before gates may mean either to, through, or into ; but the last is its usual sense after verbs of motion. As parallel ex- pressions may be mentioned the gates of death (Ps 9: 13) and the gates of hell (Matt. 16:18). The last verb expresses not mere loss or privation, but penal infliction. It was because Hezekiah regarded the threatened abbreviation of his life ae 60 CHAPTER XXXY III. a token of God's wrath, that he so importunatelj depreca ted it. 11. I said, I shall not see Jah, Jah in the land of the hvi?ig ; j. shall not behold man again (or longer) ivith the inhabitants of thi world. Jah Jah is an intensive repetition similar to those in vs. 17, 19, Or the second maybe added to explain and qualify the first. He did expect to see God, but not in the land of the living. For other explanations of the name see above, on ch. 12:2 and 26:4. The land of the liinng is the present life. The preposition with may connect what follows either with the subject or the object of the verb ; I with the inhabitants, or, man ivith the inhabitants. The last words of the verse bear the same relation to I shall not see ma7i, that the words i?i 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. 12. My dwelling is plucked u