Bible Commentaries

3. THE WRITING OF SENNACHERIB TO HEZEKIAH

Isaiah 37:8-13

8So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria ¹¹warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he ¹²was departed from Lacish 9 And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying, 10Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria 11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; ¹³and shalt thou be delivered? 12Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, 13and the children of Eden which were in Telassar? Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arphad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah?

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Isaiah 37:9. The variations from 2 Kings 19:9 are slight; על here instead of אל, and a second וישׁמע instead of וישׁב, 2 Kings 19; which latter is doubtless the correct reading. That second וישׁמע seems to be merely a copyist’s error, unless the reviser of the Isaiah text overlooked the familiar adverbial meaning that the word has here.

Isa 37:10. On השׁיא, comp. on Isa 36:14.—בוטח בו see on Isa 36:7.—לא תנתך ו׳ see on Isa 36:15.

Isaiah 37:11. להחרימם (see Isaiah 11:15; Isaiah 34:5) is that verbal form which we translate by the ablative of the gerund.

Isaiah 37:13. The words הנע ועוה are difficult. The Masorets seem to have regarded them as verbs, seeing that they have punctuated the former as perf. Hiph, and the latter as perf. Piel. So also the Chald. (expulerunt eos et in captivitatcm duxcrunt) and Symmachus (ἀνεστάτωσεν καὶ ἐταπείνωσεν). But the context demands names of localities. The LXX. translates 2 Kings 19:13 Ἀνὰ καὶ Ἀουά; also the Vulg. both 2 Kings and our text.

In Isaiah 37:11-13 the variations from the text in 2 Kings19 are inconsiderable. But such as they are they also give evidence of an effort at simplification and accommodation to the prevalent usus loquendi. For example is, תְּלַשָּׂר (according to sound) instead of 2 Kings תְּלַאשָּׂר (which would correspond to the Assyrian Tul-Assuri, i.e., hill of Assyria).

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. While the events narrated Isaiah 37:1-7 were taking place, Rabshakeh returned to report to his master, whom he found at Libnah. The news received there of the movement of the king of Ethiopia made it impossible to undertake anything against Jerusalem just then. In the event of a prolonged siege, Sennacherib might find himself in the bad situation of having the Jews in his front, and Tirhakah in his rear. This he must not risk. But to check the triumph of Hezekiah, he sends the message of Isaiah 37:10-13, which is virtually a repetition of Rabshakeh’s words Isaiah 36:18-20, except that while the latter warned the people against Hezekiah Sennacherib warns Hezekiah not to let his God deceive him.

2. So Rabshakeh—saying.

Isaiah 37:8-9. Rabshakeh it seems did not tarry long before Jerusalem for a reply. The silence ( Isaiah 36:21) that followed his words was itself an answer. He returned, therefore, to his master to report that neither in king nor people did he meet with any disposition to make a voluntary submission. Libnah, in the siege of which he found his master engaged, was an ancient Canaanite royal city ( Joshua 10:29 sqq.). It belonged ( Joshua 15:42) to the low country of Judah, and was later ( Joshua 21:13; 1 Chronicles 6:42) a Levitical and free city. It must have been near to Lacish ( Joshua 10:29 sqq.), and between that place and Makkedah. Van de Velde supposes it is identical with the Tell of ‘Arâk-el-Menschîjeh, because “this is the only place in the plain between Sumeil (Makkedah) and Um-Lakhis, that can be recognized as an ancient fortified place” (Herz, R-Encycl., XIV. p753). Isaiah 37:9. The subject of “he heard” beginning Isaiah 37:9, is, of course, Sennacherib. Tirhakah was the third and last king of the twenty-fifth or Ethiopic dynasty. Sabako, or Sevechos, I. and II. were his predecessors. He resided in Thebes, where, on the left bank of the Nile, in the palace of Medenet-Habu, sculptures still exist, that represent Tirhakah wielding the war-mace over bearded Asiatics. See Wilkinson, “Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians,” I. p 393 sqq. According to Herod, II, 141, there appears as his contemporary, probably as subordinate king (comp. Ewald,Gesch, d. V. Isr. III. p678), Sethon, a priest of Hephastos, who ruled over middle and lower Egypt. According to the Assyrian monuments, Sargon conquered Seveh (Sevechos) king of Egypt in the year720 B. C. at Rephia (comp. on20). Again in715, the canon of regents mentions a payment of tribute by the Pharaoh of Egypt. In the arrow-headed inscriptions of Sennacherib’s time, the name of Tirhakah has not been found as yet. But Asurbanipal (Sardanapalus), the grandson of Sennacherib, and successor of his son Esarhaddon, relates, that he directed his first expedition against the rebellious Tar-ku-u of Egypt and Meroe (Schrader, p 202 sq.). As Sennacherib reigned till681, and Esarhaddon till668, the statement of Manetho, that Tirhakah arose366 years before Alexander’s conquest of Egypt, agrees, of course, better with the Assyrian statement, according to which Sennacherib came to the throne in705, and undertook the expedition against Egypt in700, than with the chronology hitherto accepted, that places this expedition in714 B. C.

3. Thus shall ye—and Ivah?

[The design to destroy, not the people’s confidence in Hezekiah, but Hezekiah’s confidence in God, makes Sennacherib’s blasphemy much more open and direct than that of Rabshakeh.—J. A. Alex.]. The servant could in flattery ascribe conquests to his master ( Isaiah 36:18-20) which the latter ( Isaiah 37:11 sqq.), more honestly acknowledges as the deed of his predecessors. [“Others, with more probability, infer that the singular form, employed by Rabshakeh, is itself to be understood collectively, like “king of Babylon” in chap14”—J. A. Alex.]. Gozan, in the form Guzanu, is often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, and that as a city (Schrader, p323, 9), and a province (ibid. p327, 11, 12; p331, 8). But opinions differ as to its location, some taking it for a Mesopotamian locality (Gesen, Knobel, on the authority of Ptolemaeus V18, 4, also Schrader, p161, because, in an Assyrian list of geographical contents, Guzana is named along with Nisibis, and in our text with Haran and Rezeph. But others, on the authority of Arab geographers, seek for Gozan in the mountainous region northeast of Nineveh. There is a river Chabur there, flowing from the mountain region of Zuzan. This Chabur, a left branch of the Tigris, appears to be the חָבוֹר נְהַר גּוֹזָן mentioned 2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 18:11, and must be distinguished from the כְּבָר or Chaboras (Chebar) Ezekiel 1:3, etc., that is a branch of the Euphrates. Comp. Delitzschin loc.Ewald,Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. p638, Isaiah 658: “The Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes,” by Asahel Grant. According to 2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 18:11, Gozan belongs to the lands into which the Israelites were deported. Now we find these ( Ezekiel 1:3; Ezekiel 3:15; Ezekiel 3:23; Ezekiel 10:15; Ezekiel 10:22) settled on the כְּבָר, i.e., Chebar. The subject is not yet cleared up. Haran, occurs often as Harran in the inscriptions as a Mesopotamian city (Schrader, p45). It is a very ancient city ( Genesis 11:31; Genesis 12:5; Genesis 27:43, etc.), and well-known to Greeks and Romans under the name Κάῤῥαι, Carrae [famous for the great defeat of Crassus.—Tr.], (see Plutarch,vit. Crassi, 25, 27 sq.). Rezeph, too, is a Mesopotamian city, west of the Euphrates, that frequently appears in the inscriptions as Ra-sa-ap-pa or Ra-sap-pa. Later it appears under the name Resafa, or Rosafa (comp. Ewald,l. c. III. p639). Regarding the “B’ne Eden in Telasser,” it must be noted that Ezekiel 27:23 mentions a people עֶדֶז, that were merchants dealing between Sheba, i.e., Arabia and Tyre, along with חָרָן and כַּנֵּהi.e., כַּלְנֵה or כַּלְנוֹ, Isaiah 10:9). Moreover Amos 1:5 mentions a בית עדן that, as part of the people of Syria, was to emigrate to Kir. Telasser is mentioned only once in the inscriptions, where it is related, that Tiglath-Pileser brought an offering in Tul-Assuri to the god “Marduk (i.e., Merodach) that dwelt at Telassar” (Schrader, p 203 sq.). We must thus consider Eden and Telassar as Mesopotamian localities, though views differ much as to their precise locations. The question ( Isaiah 37:13) “where is the king of Hamath,” etc., is a repetition of Isaiah 36:19, excepting that we have here “king” instead of “the gods.” It is moreover remarkable that here it reads: מֶלֶד לָעִיר ם׳. The reason for this form of expression, if it is not a mere variation, is not clear. For analogies see Joshua 12:18; Numbers 22:4, and in the Chaldee Ezra 5:11. [“Another explanation of these words is that suggested by Luzzatto, who regards them as names of the deities worshipped at Hamath, Arpad and Sepharvaim, and takes מלך in the sense of idol or tutelary deity, which last idea is as old as Clericus. This ingenious hypothesis Luzzatto endeavors to sustain by the analogy of Adrammelech, and Anamelech, the gods of Sepharvaim ( 2 Kings 17:31), the second of which names he regarded as essentially identical with Hena. In favor of this exposition, besides the fact already mentioned that the names, as names of places, occur nowhere else, it may be urged that it agrees not only with the context in this place, but also with 2 Kings 18:34, in which the explanation of the words as verbs or nouns is inadmissible.”—J. A. Alex.].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 36:4 sqq. “Haec proprie est Satanae lingua et sunt non Rabsacis sed ipsissimi Diaboli verba, quibus non muros urbis, sed medullam Ezechiae, hoc Esther, tenerrimam ejus fidem oppugnat.”—Luther. “In this address the chief-butler, Satan performs in the way he uses when he would bring about our apostacy1) He urges that we are divested of all human support, Isaiah 36:5; Isaiah 2) We are deprived of divine support, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 3) God is angry with us because we have greatly provoked Him by our sins, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 4) He decks out the splendor, and power of the wicked, Isaiah 36:8-9; Isaiah 5) He appeals to God’s word, and knows how to turn and twist it to his uses. Such poisonous arrows were used by Satan against Christ in the desert, and may be compared with this light ( Matthew 4:2 sqq.). One needs to arm himself against Satan’s attack by God’s word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.”—Cramer.

The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiah’s confidence, in two of which he was right and in two wrong. He was right in representing that Hezekiah could rely neither on Egypt, nor on his own power. In this respect he was a messenger of God and announcer of divine truth. For everywhere the word of God preaches the same ( Isaiah 30:1-3; Isaiah 31:1-3; Jeremiah 17:5; Psalm 118:8-9; Psalm 146:3, etc.). But it is a merited chastisement if rude and hostile preachers must preach to us what we were unwilling to believe at the mild and friendly voice of God. But in two particulars the Assyrian was wrong, and therein lay Hezekiah’s strength. For just on this account the Lord is for him and against the Assyrian. These two things are, that the Assyrian asserts that Hezekiah cannot put his trust in the Lord, but rather he, the Assyrian is counseled by the Lord against Hezekiah. That, however, was a lie, and because of this lie, the corresponding truth makes all the deeper impression on Hezekiah, and reminds him how assuredly he may build on the Lord and importune Him. And when the enemy dares to say, that he is commissioned by the Lord to destroy the Holy Land, just that must bring to lively remembrance in the Israelite, that the Lord, who cannot lie, calls the land of Israel His land ( Joel 4:2; Jeremiah 2:7; Jeremiah 16:18, etc.), and the people of Israel His people ( Exodus 3:7; Exodus 3:10; Exodus 5:1, etc.).

2. On [“In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe: 1) The Masorets in the Hebrew text have so printed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided2) The customs, habits and modes of expression of people in different nations and times, differ. What appears indelicate at one time or in one country, may not only be tolerated, but common in another3) Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian4) It was of importance to give the true character of the attack which was made on Jerusalem. The coming of Sennacherib was attended with pride, insolence and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it bear the blame.”—Barnes in loc.].

3. On Isaiah 36:18 sqq. “Observandum hic, quod apud gentes olim viguerit πολύθεια adeo, ut quaevis etiam urbs peculiarem habuerit Deum tutelarem. Cujus ethnicismi exemplum vivum et spirans adhuc habemus apud pontificios, quibus non inscite objici potest illud Jeremiae: Quot civitates tibi, tot etiam Dei ( Jeremiah 2:28).”—Foerster.

4. On Isaiah 36:21. Answer not a fool according to his folly ( Proverbs 26:4), much less the blasphemer, lest the flame of his wickedness be blown into the greater rage ( Sirach 8:3). Did not Christ the Lord answer His enemies, not always with words, but also with silence ( Matthew 26:62; Matthew 27:14, etc.)? One must not cast pearls before swine ( Matthew 7:6). After Foerster and Cramer.

5. On Isaiah 36:21. “Est aureus textus, qui docet nos, ne cum Satana disputemus. Quando enim videt, quod sumus ejus spectatores et auditores, tum captat occasionem majoris fortitudinis et gravius premit. Petrus dicit, eum circuire et quaerere, quem devoret. Nullum facit insidiarum finem. Tutissimum autem est non respondere, sed contemnere eum.”—Luther.

6. [On Isaiah 37:1-7. “Rabshakeh intended to frighten Hezekiah from the Lord, but it proves that he frightens him to the Lord. The wind, instead of forcing the traveler’s coat from him, makes him wrap it the closer about him. The more Rabshakeh reproaches God, the more Hezekiah studies to honor Him.” On Isaiah 37:3. “When we are most at a plunge we should be most earnest in prayer. When pains are most strong, let prayers be most lively. Prayer is the midwife of mercy, that helps to bring it forth.”—M. Henry, in loc.]

7. On Isaiah 37:2 sqq. Hezekiah here gives a good example. He shows all princes, rulers and peoples what one ought to do when there is a great and common distress, and tribulation. One ought with sackcloth, i. e., with penitent humility, to bring prayers, and intercessions to the Lord that He would look on and help.

8. On Isaiah 37:6 sq. “God takes to Himself all the evil done to His people. For as when one does a great kindness to the saints, God appropriates it to Himself, Song of Solomon, too, when one torments the saints, it is an injury done to God, and He treats sin no other way than as if done to Himself. He that torments them torments Him ( Isaiah 64:9). Therefore the saints pray: ‘Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily’ ( Psalm 74:22).”—Cramer.

9. On Isaiah 37:7. “God raises up against His enemies other enemies, and thus prepares rest for His own people. Example: the Philistines against Saul who pursued David, 1 Samuel 23:27.”—Cramer.

10. On Isaiah 37:14. Vitringa here cites the following from Bonfin Rerum Hungar. Dec. III. Lib. VI. p464, ad annum Isaiah 1444: “Amorathes, cum suos laborare cerneret et ab Vladislao rege non sine magna caede fugari, depromtum e sinu codicem initi sanctissime foederis explicat intentis in coelum oculis. Haec sunt, inquit ingeminans, Jesu Christe, foedera, quae Christiani tui mecum percussere. Per numen tuum sanctum jurarunt, datamque sub nomine tuo fidem violarunt, perfide suum Deum abnegarunt. Nunc Christe, si Deus es (ut ajunt et nos hallucinamur), tuas measque hic injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere et his, qui sanctum tuum nomen nondum agnovere, violatae fidei poenas ostende. Vix haec dixerat .… cum proelium, quod anceps ac dubium diu fuerat, inclinare coepit, etc.”

[The desire of Hezekiah was not primarily his own personal safety, or the safety of his kingdom. It was that Jehovah might vindicate His great and holy name from reproach, and that the world might know that He was the only true God. We have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when we come before God. This motive of prayer is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 43:25; Deuteronomy 32:39; Psalm 83:18; Psalm 46:10; Nehemiah 9:6; Daniel 9:18-19. Perhaps there could have been furnished no more striking proof that Jehovah was the true God, than would be by the defeat of Sennacherib. The time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror of His name, and the report of His power throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army.”—Barnes, on Isaiah 37:2].

11. On Isaiah 37:15. “Fides Ezechiae verba confirmata magis ac magis crescit. Ante non ausus est orare, jam orat et confutat blasphemias omnes Assyrii. Adeo magna vis verbi Esther, ut longe alius per verbum, quod Jesajas ei nunciari jussit, factus sit.”—Luther.

12. On [“It is bad to talk proudly and profanely, but it is worse to write Song of Solomon, for this argues more deliberation and design, and what is written spreads further and lasts longer, and does the more mischief. Atheism and irreligion, written, will certainly be reckoned for another day.”—M. Henry].

13. On Isaiah 37:21 sqq. [“Those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah’s prayer in God’s name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: ‘Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard.’ Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly to that of chap10), and bid him pick out an answer from thence. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God’s side.”—M. Henry.].

14. On Isaiah 37:31 sqq. “This is a promise of great extent. For it applies not only to those that then remained, and were spared the impending destruction and captivity by the Assyrians, but to all subsequent times, when they should enjoy a deliverance; as after the Babylonish captivity, and after the persecutions of Antiochus. Yea, it applies even to New Testament times from the first to the last, since therein, in the order of conversion to Christ, the Jews will take root and bring forth fruit, and thus in the Jews (as also in the converted Gentiles) will appear in a spiritual and corporal sense, what God at that time did to their fields in the three following years.”—Starke.

15. On Isaiah 38:1. “ is, although of a noble race and condition, does not for that regard it disgraceful, but rather an honor, to be a pastor and visitor of the sick, I would say, a prophet, teacher and comforter of the sick. God save the mark! How has the world become so different in our day, especially in our evangelical church Let a family be a little noble, and it is regarded as a reproach and injury to have a clergyman among its relations and friends, not to speak of a son studying theology and becoming a servant of the church. I speak not of all; I know that some have a better mind; yet such is the common course. Jeroboam’s maxim must rather obtain, who made priests of the lowest of the people ( 1 Kings 12:31). For thus the parsons may be firmly held in rein (sub ferula) and in political submission. It is not at all good where the clergy have a say, says an old state-rule of our Politicorum.” Feuerlein, pastor in Nuremberg, in his Novissimorum primum, 1694, p553. The same quotes Spener: “Is it not Song of Solomon, that among the Roman Catholics the greatest lords are not ashamed to stand in the spiritual office, and that many of them even discharge the spiritual functions? Among the Reformed, too, persons born of the noblest families are not ashamed of the office of preacher. But, it seems, we Lutherans are the only ones that hold the service of the gospel so low, that, where from a noble or otherwise prominent family an ingenium has an inclination to theological study, almost every one seeks to hinder him, or, indeed, afterwards is ashamed of his friendship, as if it were something much too base for such people, by which more harm comes to our church than one might suppose. That is to be ashamed of the gospel.”

16. On [“We see here the boldness and fidelity of a man of God. Isaiah was not afraid to go in freely and tell even a monarch that he must die. The subsequent part of the narrative would lead us to suppose that, until this announcement, Hezekiah did not regard himself as in immediate danger. It is evident here, that the physician of Hezekiah had not informed him of it—perhaps from the apprehension that his disease would be aggravated by the agitation of his mind on the subject. The duty was, therefore, left, as it is often, to the minister of religion—a duty which even many ministers are slow to perform, and which many physicians are reluctant to have performed.

No danger is to be apprehended commonly from announcing to those who are sick their true condition. Physicians and friends often err in this. There is no species of cruelty greater than to suffer a friend to lie on a dying bed under a delusion. There is no sin more aggravated than that of designedly deceiving a dying man, and flattering him with the hope of recovery, when there is a moral certainty that he will not and cannot recover. And there is evidently no danger to be apprehended from communicating to the sick their true condition. It should be done tenderly and with affection; but it should be done faithfully. I have had many opportunities of witnessing the effect of apprising the sick of their situation, and of the moral certainty that they must die. And I cannot now recall an instance in which the announcement has had any unhappy effect on the disease. Often, on the contrary, the effect is to calm the mind, and to lead the dying to look up to God, and peacefully to repose on Him. And the effect of that is always salutary.” Barnes in loc.]

17. On Isaiah 38:2. It is an old opinion, found even in the Chald, that by the wall is meant the wall of the temple as a holy direction in which to pray, as the Mahometans pray in the direction of Mecca. But הקיר cannot mean that. Rather that is correct which is said by Forerius: “Nolunt pii homines testes habere suarum lacrymarum, ut eas liberius fundant, neque sensu distrahi, cum orare Deum ex animo volunt.”

18. On Isa 38:8 :—

Non Deus est numen Parcarum carcere clausum.

Quale putabatur Stoicus esse Deus.

Ille potest Solis cursus inhibere volantes,

At veluti scopulos flumina stare facit.”

—Melanchthon.

19. On Isaiah 38:12. “Beautiful parables that picture to us the transitoriness of this temporal life. For the parable of the shepherd’s tent means how restless a thing it is with us, that we have here no abiding place, but are driven from one locality to another, until at last we find a resting-spot in the church-yard. The other parable of the weaver’s thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks.” Cramer. “When the weaver’s work is progressing best, the thread breaks before he is aware. Thus when a man is in his best work, and supposes he now at last begins really to live, God breaks the thread of his life and lets him die. The rational heathen knew something of this when they, so to speak, invented the three goddesses of life (the three Parcas minime parcas) and included them in this little verse:

Clotho colum gestat, Lachesis trahit,

Atropos occat

But what does the weaver when the thread breaks? Does he stop his work at once? O no! He knows how to make a clever weaver’s knot, so that one cannot observe the break. Remember thereby that when thy life is broken off, yet the Lord Jesus, as a master artisan, can bring it together again at the last day. He will make such an artful, subtle weaver’s-knot as shall make us wonder through all eternity. It will do us no harm to have died.” Ibid.—Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.

[“As suddenly as the tent of a shepherd is taken down, folded up, and transferred to another place. There is doubtless the idea here that he would continue to exist, but in another place, as the shepherd would pitch his tent in another place. He was to be cut off from the earth, but he expected to dwell among the dead. The whole passage conveys the idea that he expected to dwell in another state.” Barnes in loc.].

20. On [“Note1) When God pardons sin, He casts it behind His back as not designing to look upon it with an eye of justice and jealousy. He remembers it no more, to visit for it. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. When we cast our sins behind our back, and take no care to repent of them, God sets them before His face, and is ready to reckon for them; but when we set them before our face in true repentance, as David did when his sin was ever before him, God casts them behind His back2) When God pardons sin, He pardons all, casts them all behind His back, though they have been as scarlet and crimson3) The pardoning of sin is the delivering the soul from the pit of corruption4) It is pleasant indeed to think of our recoveries from sickness when we see them flowing from the remission of sin; then the cause is removed, and then it is in love to the soul.” M. Henry in loc.]

21. On [Cannot hope for thy truth. “They are shut out from all the means by which Thy truth is brought to mind, and the offers of salvation are presented. Their probation is at an end; their privileges are closed; their destiny is sealed up. The idea is, it is a privilege to live because this is a world where the offers of salvation are made, and where those who are conscious of guilt may hope in the mercy of God.” Barnes in loc.] God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance ( 2 Peter 3:9). Such is the New Testament sense of these Old Testament words. For though Hezekiah has primarily in mind the preferableness of life in the earthly body to the life in Hades, yet this whole manner of representation passes away with Hades itself. But Hezekiah’s words still remain true so far as they apply to heaven and hell. For of course in hell, the place of the damned, one does not praise God. But those that live praise Him. These, however, are in heaven. Since then God wills rather that men praise Him than not praise Him, so He is not willing that men should perish, but that all should turn to repentance and live.

22. On Isaiah 39:2. “Primo (Deus) per obsidionem et bellum, deinde per gravem morbum Ezechiam servaverat, ne in praesumtionem laberetur. Nondum tamen vinci potuit antiquus serpens, sed redit et levat caput suum. Adeo non possumus consistere, nisi Deos nos affligat. Vides igitur hic, quis sit afflictionum usus, ut mortificent scilicet carnem, quae non potest res ferre secundas.” Luther.

23. On Isaiah 39:7. “God also punishes the misdeeds of the parents on the children ( Exodus 20:5) because the children not only follow the misdeeds of their parents, but they also increase and heap them up, as is seen in the posterity of Hezekiah, viz.: Manasseh and Amon.”—Cramer.

HOMILETICAL HINTS

[The reader is referred to the ample hints covering the same matter to be found in the volume on 2 Kings18-20. It is expedient to take advantage of that for the sake of keeping the present volume within reasonable bounds. Therefore but a minimum is here given of what the Author offers, much of which indeed is but the repetition in another form of matter already given.—Tr.]

1. On Isaiah 37:36. “1) The scorn and mockery of the visible world2) The scorn and mockery of the unseen world.” Sermon of Domprediger Zahn in Halle, 1870.

2. On the entire38. chapter, beside the 22 sermons in FEUERLEIN’S Novissimorum primum, there is a great number of homiletical elaborations of an early date; Walther Magirus, Idea mortis et vitae in two parts, the second of which contains20 penitential and consolatory sermons on Isaiah 38. Danzig, 1640,1642. Daniel Schaller (Stendal) 4sermons on the sick Hezekiah, on Isaiah 38. Magdeburg, 1611. Peter Siegmund Pape in “Gott geheilighte Wochenpredigten,” Berlin, 1701, 4sermons. Jacob Tichlerus (Elburg) Hiskiae Aufrichtigkeit bewiesen in Gesundheit, Krankheit und Genesung, 18 sermons on Isaiah 38. (Dutch), Campen, 1636. These are only the principal ones.

3. On Isaiah 38:1. “I will set my house in order. This, indeed, will not be hard for me to do. My debt account is crossed out; my best possession I take along with me; my children I commit to the great Father of orphans, to whom heaven and earth belongs, and my soul to the Lord, who has sued for it longer than a human age, and bought it with His blood. Thus I am eased and ready for the journey.” Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, p620.

4. On Isaiah 38:1. “Now thou shouldest know that our word ‘order his house’ has a very broad meaning. It comprehends reconciliation to God by faith, the final confession of sin, the last Lord’s Supper, the humble committing of the soul to the grace of the Lord, and to death and the grave in the hope of the resurrection. In one word: There is an ordering of the house above. In reliance on the precious merit of my Saviour, I order my house above in which I wish to dwell. Moreover taking leave of loved ones, and the blessing of them belongs to ordering the house. And finally order must be taken concerning the guardianship of children, the abiding of the widow, and the friend on whom she must especially lean in her loneliness, also concerning earthly bequests.” Ahlfeld, Das Leben im Lichte des Wortes Gottes, Halle, 1867, p522.

5. On Isaiah 38:2-8. This account has much that seems strange to us Christians, but much, too, that quite corresponds to our Christian consciousness. Let us contemplate the difference between an Old Testament, and a New Testament suppliant, by noticing the differences and the resemblances. I. The resemblances1) Distress and grief there are in the Old, as in the New Testament ( Isaiah 38:3). 2) Ready and willing to help beyond our prayers or comprehension ( Isaiah 38:5-6) is the Lord in the Old as in the New Testament. II. The differences1) The Old Testament suppliant appealed to his having done nothing bad ( Isaiah 38:3). The New Testament suppliant says: “God be merciful to me a sinner,” and “Give me through grace for Christ’s sake what it pleases Thee to give me.” 2) The Old Testament suppliant demands a sign ( Isaiah 38:7-8; comp. Isaiah 38:22); the New Testament suppliant requires no sign but that of the crucified Son of man, for He knows that to those who bear this sign is given the promise of the hearing of all their prayers ( John 16:23). 3) In Hezekiah’s case, the prayer of the Old Testament suppliant is indeed heard ( Isaiah 38:5), yet in general it has not the certainty of being heard, whereas the New Testament suppliant has this certainty.

Footnotes

4. HEZEKIAH’S INTERCESSION

Isaiah 37:14-20

14And Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up unto the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord15, 16And Hezekiah prayed unto the Lord, saying, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that ¹⁴dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, ¹⁵of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth 17 Incline thine ear, O Lord, and hear; open thine eyes, O Lord, and see: and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach ¹⁶the living God 18 Of a truth Lord, the 19 kings of Assyria have laid waste all the ¹⁷Nations, and their countries, And have ¹⁸cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone: ¹⁹therefore they have destroyed them 20 Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that ²⁰thou art the Lord, even thou only.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Isaiah 37:14. ספרים, properly scripta, stands, like the Latin litcrae, for one writing (comp. 1 Kings 21:8; 2 Kings 10:1, where verse2 ספר interchanges with ספרים; 2 Kings 20:12, comp. Isaiah 39:1). The singular suffix following refers to the singular notion ספר, scriptum.

Isaiah 37:15. The contents of this verse forms in 2 Kings19 the beginning of Isaiah 37:15, and instead of לאמר אל־יהוה, which is the more usual form of speech, it reads in 2 Kings לפני י׳ ויאמר.

Isaiah 37:16. אתה הוא האלהים. Grammatically it is, of course, not impossible to take חוא as predicate and האלהים as in apposition with it. But then הוא is in effect a formal, rhetorical emphasis of the predicate. But if הוא is construed in apposition with the subject, then it is materially significant. For then it acquires meaning “talis,” and refers emphatically to the being of God as the inward ground of His works. This emphatic sense (= talis) הוא has in reference to men Jeremiah 49:12.

Isaiah 37:17. עינך, according to the punctuation and according to 2 Kings 19:16, עֵינֶיךָ, is to be construed as plural. פקח is used only of opening the eyes and the ears Isaiah 42:20, comp. Daniel 9:18.

Isaiah 37:18. Instead of את־כל־הארצות we read in 2 Kings 19:17 את־הגוים. If the reading in Isaiah be correct, then the following ואת־ארצם can only mean that the Assyrians have destroyed their own land, and that “by depopulation in consequence of constant War” [comp. Isaiah 14:20.—Tr.]. But אמנם introduces a concession of the truth of what the Assyrian says, who boasts only of what they have done to other nations. It must then be admitted that 2 Kings has the more correct reading. There appears to be an alteration in is, probably occasioned by the החריבו less used of nations than of lands, and possibly also by the לכל־הארצות Isaiah 37:11.—החריב, which reminds of החרים Isaiah 37:11, means properly “to make withered,” then generally “to waste, desolate,” In its radical meaning and primarily it is used of lands, then also of nations ( Isaiah 49:17; Isaiah 60:12; Jeremiah 50:27). [ארצות is used here in the sense of nations, as the singular seems sometimes to denote the inhabitants of the earth or land. This would at the same time account for the masculine suffix in ארצם.—J. A. Alex. The Author’s hypothesis to account for the variation in Isaiah’s text is noticed by J. A. Alex, as urged by Gesenius, as is the case with much beside that the Author has to present on the same subject. In reference to the present instance J. A. Alex. says: “Besides its fanciful and arbitrary character as a mere make-shift, and its gratuitous assumption of the grossest stupidity and ignorance as well as inattention in the writer, it is sufficiently refuted by the emphatic combination of the same verb and noun Isaiah 60:12,—(which) proves that such a writer could not have been so shocked at the expression as to make nonsense of a sentence merely for the purpose of avoiding it. The reader will do well to observe, moreover, that the same imaginary copyist is supposed, in different emergencies, to have been wholly unacquainted with the idioms of his mother tongue [comp. Dr. Naegelsbach above at Isaiah 36:21 on החרישׁו, and at Isaiah 37:9 on וישמע], and yet extremely sensitive to any supposed violation of usage. Such scruples and such ignorance are not often found in combination. A transcriber unable to distinguish sense from nonsense would not be apt to take offence at mere irregularities or eccentricities in the phraseology or diction of his author.” The wisdom of this remark will no doubt in most minds outweigh the considerations that the Author offers, in the progress of his commentary on the present section, in proof of our text being second hand.—Tr.].

Isaiah 37:19. ויאבדום describes, according to the succession of verbs החריבו—ונתן, the concluding result.

Isaiah 37:20. אתה יהוה. In 2 Kings 19:19 the reading is יהוה אלהים, and according to the accents these words belong together, whether construed as predicate or apposition with the subject אתה. Moreover the author of the Isaiah text seem to have combined them, and for this reason to have treated אלהים as superfluous. But it is certainly the most natural to separate the two words and take אלהים as predicate so that we obtain the sense: “that thou Jehovah alone art God.” Then the Isaiah text must be so understood, and יהוה be taken as in apposition with the subject אתה, while the notion God is supplied from the context: “that thou Jehovah, alone art (it, viz. God).”

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. And Hezekiah—saying.

Isaiah 37:14-15. We learn here for the first that the messengers were to deliver a written message, for Isaiah 37:9-10 spoke only of an oral commission. The spreading out of the letter was a symbolic transaction. It verified on the one hand, the reality of the present necessity, on the other, it would, as it were, itself cry to heaven, the blasphemy of it should itself call down the divine vengeance. It recalls all the passages where mention is made of impiety that cried to heaven: comp. e.g., Genesis 4:10; Job 16:18; Job 24:12; Job 31:33; Habakkuk 3:11.

2. O LORD—thou only.

Isaiah 37:16-20. That the Cherubim are only symbolic and not personal angel forms, as Lange would have it ( Genesis 3:24) is hard to believe. What Ezekiel saw ( Isaiah 1:4 sqq.; Isaiah 9:3; Isaiah 10:2 sqq.), were not mere symbols, for symbols are likenesses, in which from a known greatness one infers the unknown. That partially agrees with the Ezekiel visions. For the rest these are of a transcendental nature. They open to us glimpses into the depths of the divinity, consequently into realities in fact, but into such before which we stand as before one that speaks in tongues. We must modestly refer the cherubim to the class of riddles that will not be resolved until the next life. It is a reflection of those heavenly functions of the cherubim, as they are described in Ezekiel, when we see the cherubim forms appear on the ark of the covenant as the bearers of the presence of God in the midst of the congregation of the Old Testament ( Exodus 25:18 sqq.). From the Kapporeth, from out the space between the two cherubim (ibid.22) the Lord will reveal Himself. Hence He is repeatedly designated as the ישׁב הכרבים ( 1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; 2 Samuel 22:11; 1 Chronicles 13:6; Psalm 80:2; Psalm 99:1). The thou art the God, even thou Hezekiah took from the glorious prayer of thanksgiving of his ancestor David ( 2 Samuel 7:28) in which the latter made known his faith in the glorious promise given to his house (ibid. Isaiah 37:12 sqq.). [See Text. and Gram.]. In reference to God, comp. Psalm 44:5. Moreover one needs to examine closely in its context every single passage which may besides be drawn hither ( Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 48:12; Isaiah 51:12; Nehemiah 9:6-7), see on Isaiah 41:4. Hezekiah evidently is at pains right thoroughly to emphasize the aloneness of God. Rabshakeh and Sennacherib himself ( Isaiah 37:12) had most incisively expressed the heathen idea that every land has its gods. In contrast with this Hezekiah most decisively makes prominent that Jehovah is not merely a God, but the God alone for all nations of the earth: and that because he made heaven and earth ( Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 51:13, etc.).

The causal clause for they were no gods,etc. Isaiah 37:19, gives at once the reason why those victories of the Assyrians were possible, and the negative ground of comfort for Israel’s hope. They could desolate those lands and destroy their gods, because the latter were only men’s work of wood and stone. But therein lay the reason for Israel’s hope. For Israel’s God was something very different: therefore the victory over those gave no ground for inferring that Assyria would conquer also the God of Israel. Isaiah 37:20 contains the prayer itself.

[“The adverb now is equivalent to therefore, or since these things are so. The fact that Sennacherib had destroyed other nations, is urged as a reason why the Lord should interpose to rescue His own people from a like destruction: and the fact that He had really triumphed over other gods, as a reason why He should be taught to know the difference between them and Jehovah.”—J. A. Alex.].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 36:4 sqq. “Haec proprie est Satanae lingua et sunt non Rabsacis sed ipsissimi Diaboli verba, quibus non muros urbis, sed medullam Ezechiae, hoc Esther, tenerrimam ejus fidem oppugnat.”—Luther. “In this address the chief-butler, Satan performs in the way he uses when he would bring about our apostacy1) He urges that we are divested of all human support, Isaiah 36:5; Isaiah 2) We are deprived of divine support, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 3) God is angry with us because we have greatly provoked Him by our sins, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 4) He decks out the splendor, and power of the wicked, Isaiah 36:8-9; Isaiah 5) He appeals to God’s word, and knows how to turn and twist it to his uses. Such poisonous arrows were used by Satan against Christ in the desert, and may be compared with this light ( Matthew 4:2 sqq.). One needs to arm himself against Satan’s attack by God’s word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.”—Cramer.

The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiah’s confidence, in two of which he was right and in two wrong. He was right in representing that Hezekiah could rely neither on Egypt, nor on his own power. In this respect he was a messenger of God and announcer of divine truth. For everywhere the word of God preaches the same ( Isaiah 30:1-3; Isaiah 31:1-3; Jeremiah 17:5; Psalm 118:8-9; Psalm 146:3, etc.). But it is a merited chastisement if rude and hostile preachers must preach to us what we were unwilling to believe at the mild and friendly voice of God. But in two particulars the Assyrian was wrong, and therein lay Hezekiah’s strength. For just on this account the Lord is for him and against the Assyrian. These two things are, that the Assyrian asserts that Hezekiah cannot put his trust in the Lord, but rather he, the Assyrian is counseled by the Lord against Hezekiah. That, however, was a lie, and because of this lie, the corresponding truth makes all the deeper impression on Hezekiah, and reminds him how assuredly he may build on the Lord and importune Him. And when the enemy dares to say, that he is commissioned by the Lord to destroy the Holy Land, just that must bring to lively remembrance in the Israelite, that the Lord, who cannot lie, calls the land of Israel His land ( Joel 4:2; Jeremiah 2:7; Jeremiah 16:18, etc.), and the people of Israel His people ( Exodus 3:7; Exodus 3:10; Exodus 5:1, etc.).

2. On [“In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe: 1) The Masorets in the Hebrew text have so printed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided2) The customs, habits and modes of expression of people in different nations and times, differ. What appears indelicate at one time or in one country, may not only be tolerated, but common in another3) Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian4) It was of importance to give the true character of the attack which was made on Jerusalem. The coming of Sennacherib was attended with pride, insolence and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it bear the blame.”—Barnes in loc.].

3. On Isaiah 36:18 sqq. “Observandum hic, quod apud gentes olim viguerit πολύθεια adeo, ut quaevis etiam urbs peculiarem habuerit Deum tutelarem. Cujus ethnicismi exemplum vivum et spirans adhuc habemus apud pontificios, quibus non inscite objici potest illud Jeremiae: Quot civitates tibi, tot etiam Dei ( Jeremiah 2:28).”—Foerster.

4. On Isaiah 36:21. Answer not a fool according to his folly ( Proverbs 26:4), much less the blasphemer, lest the flame of his wickedness be blown into the greater rage ( Sirach 8:3). Did not Christ the Lord answer His enemies, not always with words, but also with silence ( Matthew 26:62; Matthew 27:14, etc.)? One must not cast pearls before swine ( Matthew 7:6). After Foerster and Cramer.

5. On Isaiah 36:21. “Est aureus textus, qui docet nos, ne cum Satana disputemus. Quando enim videt, quod sumus ejus spectatores et auditores, tum captat occasionem majoris fortitudinis et gravius premit. Petrus dicit, eum circuire et quaerere, quem devoret. Nullum facit insidiarum finem. Tutissimum autem est non respondere, sed contemnere eum.”—Luther.

6. [On Isaiah 37:1-7. “Rabshakeh intended to frighten Hezekiah from the Lord, but it proves that he frightens him to the Lord. The wind, instead of forcing the traveler’s coat from him, makes him wrap it the closer about him. The more Rabshakeh reproaches God, the more Hezekiah studies to honor Him.” On Isaiah 37:3. “When we are most at a plunge we should be most earnest in prayer. When pains are most strong, let prayers be most lively. Prayer is the midwife of mercy, that helps to bring it forth.”—M. Henry, in loc.]

7. On Isaiah 37:2 sqq. Hezekiah here gives a good example. He shows all princes, rulers and peoples what one ought to do when there is a great and common distress, and tribulation. One ought with sackcloth, i. e., with penitent humility, to bring prayers, and intercessions to the Lord that He would look on and help.

8. On Isaiah 37:6 sq. “God takes to Himself all the evil done to His people. For as when one does a great kindness to the saints, God appropriates it to Himself, Song of Solomon, too, when one torments the saints, it is an injury done to God, and He treats sin no other way than as if done to Himself. He that torments them torments Him ( Isaiah 64:9). Therefore the saints pray: ‘Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily’ ( Psalm 74:22).”—Cramer.

9. On Isaiah 37:7. “God raises up against His enemies other enemies, and thus prepares rest for His own people. Example: the Philistines against Saul who pursued David, 1 Samuel 23:27.”—Cramer.

10. On Isaiah 37:14. Vitringa here cites the following from Bonfin Rerum Hungar. Dec. III. Lib. VI. p464, ad annum Isaiah 1444: “Amorathes, cum suos laborare cerneret et ab Vladislao rege non sine magna caede fugari, depromtum e sinu codicem initi sanctissime foederis explicat intentis in coelum oculis. Haec sunt, inquit ingeminans, Jesu Christe, foedera, quae Christiani tui mecum percussere. Per numen tuum sanctum jurarunt, datamque sub nomine tuo fidem violarunt, perfide suum Deum abnegarunt. Nunc Christe, si Deus es (ut ajunt et nos hallucinamur), tuas measque hic injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere et his, qui sanctum tuum nomen nondum agnovere, violatae fidei poenas ostende. Vix haec dixerat .… cum proelium, quod anceps ac dubium diu fuerat, inclinare coepit, etc.”

[The desire of Hezekiah was not primarily his own personal safety, or the safety of his kingdom. It was that Jehovah might vindicate His great and holy name from reproach, and that the world might know that He was the only true God. We have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when we come before God. This motive of prayer is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 43:25; Deuteronomy 32:39; Psalm 83:18; Psalm 46:10; Nehemiah 9:6; Daniel 9:18-19. Perhaps there could have been furnished no more striking proof that Jehovah was the true God, than would be by the defeat of Sennacherib. The time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror of His name, and the report of His power throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army.”—Barnes, on Isaiah 37:2].

11. On Isaiah 37:15. “Fides Ezechiae verba confirmata magis ac magis crescit. Ante non ausus est orare, jam orat et confutat blasphemias omnes Assyrii. Adeo magna vis verbi Esther, ut longe alius per verbum, quod Jesajas ei nunciari jussit, factus sit.”—Luther.

12. On [“It is bad to talk proudly and profanely, but it is worse to write Song of Solomon, for this argues more deliberation and design, and what is written spreads further and lasts longer, and does the more mischief. Atheism and irreligion, written, will certainly be reckoned for another day.”—M. Henry].

13. On Isaiah 37:21 sqq. [“Those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah’s prayer in God’s name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: ‘Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard.’ Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly to that of chap10), and bid him pick out an answer from thence. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God’s side.”—M. Henry.].

14. On Isaiah 37:31 sqq. “This is a promise of great extent. For it applies not only to those that then remained, and were spared the impending destruction and captivity by the Assyrians, but to all subsequent times, when they should enjoy a deliverance; as after the Babylonish captivity, and after the persecutions of Antiochus. Yea, it applies even to New Testament times from the first to the last, since therein, in the order of conversion to Christ, the Jews will take root and bring forth fruit, and thus in the Jews (as also in the converted Gentiles) will appear in a spiritual and corporal sense, what God at that time did to their fields in the three following years.”—Starke.

15. On Isaiah 38:1. “ is, although of a noble race and condition, does not for that regard it disgraceful, but rather an honor, to be a pastor and visitor of the sick, I would say, a prophet, teacher and comforter of the sick. God save the mark! How has the world become so different in our day, especially in our evangelical church Let a family be a little noble, and it is regarded as a reproach and injury to have a clergyman among its relations and friends, not to speak of a son studying theology and becoming a servant of the church. I speak not of all; I know that some have a better mind; yet such is the common course. Jeroboam’s maxim must rather obtain, who made priests of the lowest of the people ( 1 Kings 12:31). For thus the parsons may be firmly held in rein (sub ferula) and in political submission. It is not at all good where the clergy have a say, says an old state-rule of our Politicorum.” Feuerlein, pastor in Nuremberg, in his Novissimorum primum, 1694, p553. The same quotes Spener: “Is it not Song of Solomon, that among the Roman Catholics the greatest lords are not ashamed to stand in the spiritual office, and that many of them even discharge the spiritual functions? Among the Reformed, too, persons born of the noblest families are not ashamed of the office of preacher. But, it seems, we Lutherans are the only ones that hold the service of the gospel so low, that, where from a noble or otherwise prominent family an ingenium has an inclination to theological study, almost every one seeks to hinder him, or, indeed, afterwards is ashamed of his friendship, as if it were something much too base for such people, by which more harm comes to our church than one might suppose. That is to be ashamed of the gospel.”

16. On [“We see here the boldness and fidelity of a man of God. Isaiah was not afraid to go in freely and tell even a monarch that he must die. The subsequent part of the narrative would lead us to suppose that, until this announcement, Hezekiah did not regard himself as in immediate danger. It is evident here, that the physician of Hezekiah had not informed him of it—perhaps from the apprehension that his disease would be aggravated by the agitation of his mind on the subject. The duty was, therefore, left, as it is often, to the minister of religion—a duty which even many ministers are slow to perform, and which many physicians are reluctant to have performed.

No danger is to be apprehended commonly from announcing to those who are sick their true condition. Physicians and friends often err in this. There is no species of cruelty greater than to suffer a friend to lie on a dying bed under a delusion. There is no sin more aggravated than that of designedly deceiving a dying man, and flattering him with the hope of recovery, when there is a moral certainty that he will not and cannot recover. And there is evidently no danger to be apprehended from communicating to the sick their true condition. It should be done tenderly and with affection; but it should be done faithfully. I have had many opportunities of witnessing the effect of apprising the sick of their situation, and of the moral certainty that they must die. And I cannot now recall an instance in which the announcement has had any unhappy effect on the disease. Often, on the contrary, the effect is to calm the mind, and to lead the dying to look up to God, and peacefully to repose on Him. And the effect of that is always salutary.” Barnes in loc.]

17. On Isaiah 38:2. It is an old opinion, found even in the Chald, that by the wall is meant the wall of the temple as a holy direction in which to pray, as the Mahometans pray in the direction of Mecca. But הקיר cannot mean that. Rather that is correct which is said by Forerius: “Nolunt pii homines testes habere suarum lacrymarum, ut eas liberius fundant, neque sensu distrahi, cum orare Deum ex animo volunt.”

18. On Isa 38:8 :—

Non Deus est numen Parcarum carcere clausum.

Quale putabatur Stoicus esse Deus.

Ille potest Solis cursus inhibere volantes,

At veluti scopulos flumina stare facit.”

—Melanchthon.

19. On Isaiah 38:12. “Beautiful parables that picture to us the transitoriness of this temporal life. For the parable of the shepherd’s tent means how restless a thing it is with us, that we have here no abiding place, but are driven from one locality to another, until at last we find a resting-spot in the church-yard. The other parable of the weaver’s thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks.” Cramer. “When the weaver’s work is progressing best, the thread breaks before he is aware. Thus when a man is in his best work, and supposes he now at last begins really to live, God breaks the thread of his life and lets him die. The rational heathen knew something of this when they, so to speak, invented the three goddesses of life (the three Parcas minime parcas) and included them in this little verse:

Clotho colum gestat, Lachesis trahit,

Atropos occat

But what does the weaver when the thread breaks? Does he stop his work at once? O no! He knows how to make a clever weaver’s knot, so that one cannot observe the break. Remember thereby that when thy life is broken off, yet the Lord Jesus, as a master artisan, can bring it together again at the last day. He will make such an artful, subtle weaver’s-knot as shall make us wonder through all eternity. It will do us no harm to have died.” Ibid.—Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.

[“As suddenly as the tent of a shepherd is taken down, folded up, and transferred to another place. There is doubtless the idea here that he would continue to exist, but in another place, as the shepherd would pitch his tent in another place. He was to be cut off from the earth, but he expected to dwell among the dead. The whole passage conveys the idea that he expected to dwell in another state.” Barnes in loc.].

20. On [“Note1) When God pardons sin, He casts it behind His back as not designing to look upon it with an eye of justice and jealousy. He remembers it no more, to visit for it. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. When we cast our sins behind our back, and take no care to repent of them, God sets them before His face, and is ready to reckon for them; but when we set them before our face in true repentance, as David did when his sin was ever before him, God casts them behind His back2) When God pardons sin, He pardons all, casts them all behind His back, though they have been as scarlet and crimson3) The pardoning of sin is the delivering the soul from the pit of corruption4) It is pleasant indeed to think of our recoveries from sickness when we see them flowing from the remission of sin; then the cause is removed, and then it is in love to the soul.” M. Henry in loc.]

21. On [Cannot hope for thy truth. “They are shut out from all the means by which Thy truth is brought to mind, and the offers of salvation are presented. Their probation is at an end; their privileges are closed; their destiny is sealed up. The idea is, it is a privilege to live because this is a world where the offers of salvation are made, and where those who are conscious of guilt may hope in the mercy of God.” Barnes in loc.] God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance ( 2 Peter 3:9). Such is the New Testament sense of these Old Testament words. For though Hezekiah has primarily in mind the preferableness of life in the earthly body to the life in Hades, yet this whole manner of representation passes away with Hades itself. But Hezekiah’s words still remain true so far as they apply to heaven and hell. For of course in hell, the place of the damned, one does not praise God. But those that live praise Him. These, however, are in heaven. Since then God wills rather that men praise Him than not praise Him, so He is not willing that men should perish, but that all should turn to repentance and live.

22. On Isaiah 39:2. “Primo (Deus) per obsidionem et bellum, deinde per gravem morbum Ezechiam servaverat, ne in praesumtionem laberetur. Nondum tamen vinci potuit antiquus serpens, sed redit et levat caput suum. Adeo non possumus consistere, nisi Deos nos affligat. Vides igitur hic, quis sit afflictionum usus, ut mortificent scilicet carnem, quae non potest res ferre secundas.” Luther.

23. On Isaiah 39:7. “God also punishes the misdeeds of the parents on the children ( Exodus 20:5) because the children not only follow the misdeeds of their parents, but they also increase and heap them up, as is seen in the posterity of Hezekiah, viz.: Manasseh and Amon.”—Cramer.

HOMILETICAL HINTS

[The reader is referred to the ample hints covering the same matter to be found in the volume on 2 Kings18-20. It is expedient to take advantage of that for the sake of keeping the present volume within reasonable bounds. Therefore but a minimum is here given of what the Author offers, much of which indeed is but the repetition in another form of matter already given.—Tr.]

1. On Isaiah 37:36. “1) The scorn and mockery of the visible world2) The scorn and mockery of the unseen world.” Sermon of Domprediger Zahn in Halle, 1870.

2. On the entire38. chapter, beside the 22 sermons in FEUERLEIN’S Novissimorum primum, there is a great number of homiletical elaborations of an early date; Walther Magirus, Idea mortis et vitae in two parts, the second of which contains20 penitential and consolatory sermons on Isaiah 38. Danzig, 1640,1642. Daniel Schaller (Stendal) 4sermons on the sick Hezekiah, on Isaiah 38. Magdeburg, 1611. Peter Siegmund Pape in “Gott geheilighte Wochenpredigten,” Berlin, 1701, 4sermons. Jacob Tichlerus (Elburg) Hiskiae Aufrichtigkeit bewiesen in Gesundheit, Krankheit und Genesung, 18 sermons on Isaiah 38. (Dutch), Campen, 1636. These are only the principal ones.

3. On Isaiah 38:1. “I will set my house in order. This, indeed, will not be hard for me to do. My debt account is crossed out; my best possession I take along with me; my children I commit to the great Father of orphans, to whom heaven and earth belongs, and my soul to the Lord, who has sued for it longer than a human age, and bought it with His blood. Thus I am eased and ready for the journey.” Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, p620.

4. On Isaiah 38:1. “Now thou shouldest know that our word ‘order his house’ has a very broad meaning. It comprehends reconciliation to God by faith, the final confession of sin, the last Lord’s Supper, the humble committing of the soul to the grace of the Lord, and to death and the grave in the hope of the resurrection. In one word: There is an ordering of the house above. In reliance on the precious merit of my Saviour, I order my house above in which I wish to dwell. Moreover taking leave of loved ones, and the blessing of them belongs to ordering the house. And finally order must be taken concerning the guardianship of children, the abiding of the widow, and the friend on whom she must especially lean in her loneliness, also concerning earthly bequests.” Ahlfeld, Das Leben im Lichte des Wortes Gottes, Halle, 1867, p522.

5. On Isaiah 38:2-8. This account has much that seems strange to us Christians, but much, too, that quite corresponds to our Christian consciousness. Let us contemplate the difference between an Old Testament, and a New Testament suppliant, by noticing the differences and the resemblances. I. The resemblances1) Distress and grief there are in the Old, as in the New Testament ( Isaiah 38:3). 2) Ready and willing to help beyond our prayers or comprehension ( Isaiah 38:5-6) is the Lord in the Old as in the New Testament. II. The differences1) The Old Testament suppliant appealed to his having done nothing bad ( Isaiah 38:3). The New Testament suppliant says: “God be merciful to me a sinner,” and “Give me through grace for Christ’s sake what it pleases Thee to give me.” 2) The Old Testament suppliant demands a sign ( Isaiah 38:7-8; comp. Isaiah 38:22); the New Testament suppliant requires no sign but that of the crucified Son of man, for He knows that to those who bear this sign is given the promise of the hearing of all their prayers ( John 16:23). 3) In Hezekiah’s case, the prayer of the Old Testament suppliant is indeed heard ( Isaiah 38:5), yet in general it has not the certainty of being heard, whereas the New Testament suppliant has this certainty.

Footnotes

5. ISAIAH’S MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH CONCERNING THE DANGER THREATENED BY SENNACHERIB

Isaiah 37:21-35

21then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, ²¹Whereas thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria: 22this is the word which the Lord hath spoken ²²concerning him;

The Virgin, the daughter of Zion hath despised thee,

And laughed thee to scorn;

The daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head ²³at thee.

23 Whom hast thou reproached and ²⁴blasphemed?

And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice,

And lifted up thine eyes on high?

Even against the Holy One of Israel.

24 ²⁵By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said,

By the multitude of my chariots am I come up

To the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon;

And I will cut down ²⁶the tall cedars thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof;

And I will enter into the height of his ²⁷border, and ²⁸the forest ²⁹of his Carmel.

25 I have digged and drunk water;

And with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers ³⁰of the ³¹besieged places.

26 ³²Hast thou not ³³heard long ago, how I have done it;

And of ancient times, that I have formed it?

Now have I brought it to pass,

That thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities into ruinous heaps,

27 ³⁴Therefore their inhabitants were ³⁵of small power,

They were dismayed and confounded:

They were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb,

As the grass on the housetops,

And ³⁶as corn blasted before it be grown up,

28 iBut I know thy ³⁷abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in,

And ³⁸thy rage against me.

29 Because kthy rage against me, and thy ³⁹tumult, is come up into mine ears,

Therefore will I put my hook in thy nose,

And my bridle in thy lips,

And I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.

30 And this shall be a sign unto thee,

Ye shall eat this year such as 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.

31 And ⁴⁰the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah

Shall again ⁴¹take root downward,

And bear fruit upward:

32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant,

And ⁴²they that escape out of Mount Zion:

The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.

33 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria,

He shall not come into this city,

Nor shoot an arrow ⁴³there,

Nor come before it with ⁴⁴shields,

Nor cast a bank against it.

34 By the way that he came, by the same shall he return,

And shall not come into this city, saith the Lord.

35 For I will defend this city to save it

For mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Isaiah 37:21. שׁלח is here, not merely “to send” generally, but to send a message, as appears from לאמר: comp. Genesis 38:25; 2 Samuel 14:32; 1 Kings 9:5; 2 Kings 5:8, etc.—The clause אשׁר התפללת וגו׳ can be construed grammatically as the premise to the apodosis זה הדבר וגו׳ Isaiah 37:22, or as a relative explanatory clause to יהוה אלהי י׳ Isaiah 37:21. The latter is possible because in Hebrew, by a prepositive אשׁרְ even the casus obliqui of the pronouns of the first and second persons can receive a relative meaning. Comp. Isaiah 41:8-9; Isaiah 64:10; Genesis 45:4. But the latter explanation seems to me unsuitable because a clause like “I to whom thou hast prayed,” does not sound well in the mouth of God. For does not that assume that Hezekiah might have prayed to some other? But the harshness of the first explanation, according to which in the premise Jehovah Himself speaks, while in the conclusion He is spoken of, is an objection to it. Hence the reading of 2 Kings 19:22, at the end, שׁמעתי, which the Isaiah text omits as needless, is the more correct; especially as there appears to be an intentional echo of God’s promise to Solomon 1 Kings 9:3.

Isaiah 37:22. The accents designate the verb בָּזָה as Milra. According to that, it would be either part. fem. from בּוּז, or 3 pers. masc. Kal from בָּזָה. The latter would be grammatically possible, so far as בזה can be regarded as prepositive predicate. But, although בוז and בזה mean the same, still the latter is more frequently joined with the accusative and the former with the dative. For בזה occurs with ל only 2 Samuel 6:16 ( 1 Chronicles 15:29), whereas בוז mostly appears joined with לְ ( Proverbs 6:30; Proverbs 11:12; Proverbs 13:13; Proverbs 14:21; Proverbs 23:9; Proverbs 30:17; Zechariah 4:10; Song of Solomon 8:1; Song of Solomon 8:7). Besides these בוז occurs only Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 23:22. As the Masoretic pointing is not binding, I would rather regard our בזה as 3 pers. fem. Kal. from בוז, corresponding to לעגה.—Also לעג is mostly joined with לְ; Psalm 2:4; Psalm 59:9; Psalm 80:7; Proverbs 17:5; Proverbs 30:17; Jeremiah 20:7, etc.—הניע ראשׁ a gesture of derision as in Psalm 22:8; Psalm 109:25; Job 16:4; Lamentations 2:15.

Isaiah 37:23. חרף and גדף comp. Isaiah 37:4; Isaiah 37:6.—קדוֹשׁ י׳ is a specifically Isaianic expression.

Isaiah 37:24. This verse contains a number of variations on 2 Kings 19:23, that, from the stand-point of our author, represent emendations.—On קומה see Isaiah 10:33.—In יער כרמלו of an adjective notion is made a substantive. For כדמל has here its appellative meaning: “fruitful field or garden.”

Isa 37:25. יאדי מצור comp. on Isa 19:1; Isa 19:6.

Isaiah 37:26. למדחוק, is, like מימי קדם (simplified from למימי 2 Kings 19:25), to be referred to what follows. Properly the prep, מן before רחוק would suffice; but the Hebrew favors the cumulation of prepositions (comp. 2 Samuel 7:19; Job 36:9; 2 Chronicles 26:15. etc.). By the prefixed לְ is expressed the thought that the divine doing relates to a period beginning far back.—On ימי קדם comp. Isaiah 23:7; Isaiah 51:9.—By עתה הבאתיה (comp. Isaiah 46:11) the Prophet affirms that precisely what the Assyrian pretended he had done by his own power, was only the accomplishment of Jehovah’s thought. Hence ותהי must also be construed as 2 pers. masc. and referred to the Assyrian. היח with לְ following is used in the sense of “to serve for something” as in Isaiah 5:5; Isaiah 44:15.—השׁאות is Hiph. from שׁאה strepere, tumultuari. But the word means also the noise, the cracking of something falling in, and hence not only Kal ( Isaiah 6:11) and the corresponding Niph. (ibid.) and Hiph. (our text and 2 Kings) have the meaning “to fall in ruins, to be laid waste,” but also the substantive שָׁאוֹן means interitus, pernicies Psalm 40:3; Jeremiah 44:11).—The words גלים נצים, according to Heb. usage, express the result of the destruction in the form of apposition with the thing to be destroyed; comp. Isaiah 6:11; Isaiah 24:12. נִצִּים is part. Niph. from נצה, and occurs in the sense of “waste” only here and Jeremiah 4:7.

Isaiah 37:27. The expression קצרי־יד “short-handed,” i. e., weak, original in Numbers 11:23, occurs again only Isaiah 50:2; Isaiah 59:1, the adjective קָצֵר only here.—חתו ובשׁו as in Isaiah 20:5.—Everywhere else the expression “grass of the field” reads עֵשֶׂב הַשָׂדֶה as in Genesis 2:5; Genesis 3:18, etc.—ירק דשא only here; comp. Psalm 37:2.—In 2 Kings 19:26 the fourth comparison is שְׁדֵפָה “blasting,” or “blasted field,” instead of שְׁדִמָה “a field.” It is no doubt a stronger figure, and as a climax, more in place. It is far more likely that it is the primitive reading and that our text is secondary.

[In some editions it is precisely the reverse.—Tr.]. Are both Infin. as Olshausen (§ 187, a and § 251, b, p552) maintains; or is only the former, as Ewald seems to assume (§ 157, b, comp. §120, a) [also Green, see § 122, 1,187, 1, d—Tr.]? To me the latter seems more probable, for I do not see why, when שַֽׁאֲנַן is infin, it would be pointed שַֽׁאֲנָנּךָ whereas this is quite easily explained if שַֽׁאֲנָנְךָ be derived from the adjective שַֽׁאֲנָן “quiet.”

Isaiah 37:30. אָכוֹל in the inf. absol. presents the verbal notion without determining the time or manner. The Prophet thereby affirms simply what actually is, what occurs according to nature.—שָׁחִים is ἅπ. λεγ. 2 Kings 19:29 has סָחִישׂ. The latter word is devoid of any etymological basis, as there is no root סָחַשׁ either in Hebrew or the kindred dialects. Moreover there is no agreement about the root of the form שׁחים. There is no root שָׁחַם in Hebrew. Of various explanations, that may deserve the preference which connects שׁהים with the Arabic schahis, which means “scattered, standing thin,” unless perhaps the fundamental meaning is “to divide itself, to cut loose from,” so that שׁחים would mean “that which separates itself from the root, grows out of it.” שׁחים would then be the sprouts of the root (Aquila and Theod. translate αὐτοφυῆ).—The imperative in זרעו וגו׳ involves so for an exhortation that the Prophet would say to the Israelites to lay aside all anxiety about the enemy for the third year, and carry on agriculture confidently.—Instead of ואכול K’ri has וְאִכְלוּ which is also the reading of 2 Kings 19:29, and seems to be the more original. For ואכול may be suspected of being imitated from the same word beginning the verse, and moreover it would involve a certain emphasis which, accurately considered, would be out of place here. It would = “and—in short—eat your fruit;” thus it would recapitulate and say in brief. It can, however, naturally refer only to כרמים (comp. Isaiah 65:21; Jeremiah 29:5; Jeremiah 29:28; Amos 9:14).

Isaiah 37:32. The word צבאות is wanting in K’thibh of 2 Kings 19:31. The books of Kings have this word of the divine name only three times, viz., 1 Kings 18:15; 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Kings 19:14; 2 Kings 3:14 in the history of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. In is, on the other hand, it is of frequent occurrence; see Isaiah 9:6 (7) the parallel passage and on Isaiah 1:9.

Isaiah 37:33. שָׁם here stands for שָׁמָּה as in 1 Samuel 2:14; 1 Kings 18:10; Jeremiah 19:14.—קִדֵּם is never used in the transitive sense = “to make come before, cause to meet,” so as to construe the word with a double accusative of the place and the nearer object. But as after other verbs the instrument can be designated by the accusative (comp. Isaiah 1:20), as well as the use of בְּ, so also קִדְּם can be used with בְּ (comp. Deuteronomy 23:5; Isaiah 21:14; Psalm 95:2) and with the simple accus. instrum. as in Psalm 21:4. We have here a double accusative of the place and of the instrument.

Isaiah 37:34. יבא intimates that the Assyrian must be thought of as not in the land, but on the way to Jerusalem.

Isa 37:35. On גנותי see on Isa 31:5; Isa 38:6.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. To Hezekiah’s prayer ( Isaiah 37:16-20) the Lord gives an answer through is, which announces the triumph of Jerusalem ( Isaiah 37:22), convicts the Assyrian of blasphemy against God, in that he spoke haughtily against the Holy One of Israel, and ascribed to himself the glory of conquests in which he was only the instrument ( Isaiah 37:23-27). But the Lord knows him thoroughly, and will make him know himself by unmistakable treatment ( Isaiah 37:28-29). To Judah a sign is given, that it is to be free forever from the Assyrian ( Isaiah 37:30-32). For the immediate future it is announced that the Assyrian shall not even come near Jerusalem, but shall return home by the way he came; and God is declared to be the protector of Jerusalem ( Isaiah 37:33-35).

2. Then Isaiah—at thee

Isaiah 37:21-22. See Text. and Gram. Jerusalem shall see the Assyrian retreating with aims unaccomplished. Then it will look after him (אחרִיך) with derision. [“Hitzig supposes that the shaking of the head, with the Hebrews as with us, was a gesture of negation, and that the expression of scorn consisted in a tacit denial that Sennacherib had been able to effect his purpose. Thus understood, the action is equivalent to saying in words, no, no! i. e., he could not do it. A similar explanation is given by Hentgstenberg, on Psalm 22:8.”—J. A. Alex. For another view see Baehr, on 2 Kings 19:21.—Tr.].

3. Whom hast thou reproached—besieged places.

Isaiah 37:23-25. The question extends to “thine eyes;” and thus “against the Holy,” etc., is the answer to all the preceding questions (Vitringa, Gesen, Delitz.). Others construe “against the Holy,” etc., with the foregoing words “and lifted up,” etc., as the answer; so that the question ends with “voice.” But against the latter it may be urged that the question and answer do not correspond; the question is not answered, and the answer given refers to something about which nothing is asked. According to our construction it is asked: “Whom hast thou blasphemed, and against whom hast thou insolently raised voice and eyes (comp. Psalm 18:28; Psalm 101:5; Proverbs 6:17; Proverbs 21:4)?” The answer is: “against the Holy,” etc.; wherein, according to familiar usage, the form of the answer corresponds to the final member of question. This appears more evident in 2 Kings 19:22, as על־קדושׁ י׳ connects more exactly with על־מי ה׳ [“Ewald carries the interrogation through the verse, and renders ו at the beginning of the last clause, that or so that, while Hitzig makes the whole of that clause an exclamation. This construction is more natural—the answer begins with the next verse where he is expressly charged with blasphemy against Jehovah.”—J. A. Alex.].

Isaiah 37:24-25 express more exactly how he has blasphemed. It was done by his servants. (The “hand of” figurative expression for “organ, service, means” generally Isaiah 20:2; Jeremiah 37:2; Jeremiah 50:1; Haggai 1:1; Haggai 1:3; Haggai 2:1). The emphatic thought is that servants of men have blasphemed the Lord of the world.

This blasphemy consisted mainly ( Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 36:15; Isaiah 36:18) in representing trust in Jehovah as folly, and in the inference that, because they had conquered heathen nations, it was logically necessary that the people of God might be conquered, and thus in placing Jehovah on a level with idols. Moreover what they did, they supposed they had done by their own might, and that what was to be done yet could be done in the same way. Isaiah expresses this thought in Isaiah 37:24-25, with close adherence to the circumstances, so as to divide as it were the task of the Assyrian into two parts. The first part was the conquest of the Syrian, Phœnician and Palestinian districts. All these lands lie about Lebanon. One traveling from Nineveh by Carchemish to Phœnicia must in any case go past Lebanon, which, by its lofty, snow-covered summits, gives distant notice of the locality of these lands. Lebanon therefore may serve as an emblem. Moreover in the Scriptures it is not uncommon to represent Zion under the image of Lebanon (comp. Jeremiah 22:6-7; Jeremiah 22:23; Ezekiel 17:3), partly because in general Lebanon is the image of what is lofty and admirable (comp. Isaiah 2:13; Isaiah 10:33 sq.; Isaiah 35:2; Isaiah 60:13; Hosea 14:6 sqq.; Zechariah 11:1 sq.), partly and especially because the king’s palace in Zion had grown on Lebanon, i. e., was built of cedars of Lebanon, (comp. 1 Kings 7:2 “house of the forest of Lebanon,” or “house of the forest,” Isaiah 22:8). It is inconceivable that Sennacherib or one of his predecessors ever scaled Lebanon with horse and chariot, and destroyed the cedars. The Prophet rather makes him boast that he had conquered the lands of Lebanon. And Hamath, Arphad, Syria, Phœnicia, the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, the greater part of Judah and Philistia, were actually in his possession. With reference to this, one might well represent him as saying: I have ascended up the heights of the mountains, up the sides (properly the shanks, comp. on Isaiah 14:13) of Lebanon. The chief work seemed done, the chief summits were surmounted. It only remained to penetrate into the inmost part, and there destroy the ornament of Lebanon, its glorious standing timber of cedar and cypress. By עליהי the Prophet manifestly refers to what has been accomplished, i. e., the occupation of the Lebanon districts. But ואכדת and ואבוא refer to what remains to be done. Only Jerusalem remained for Sennacherib to conquer (comp. on Isaiah 36:1). Thus the best, the real ornament, the central point of the Palestinian Lebanon lands was not yet his. Jerusalem with its temple and its king’s palace, the two Lebanon houses (because with both cedars of Lebanon had so much to do, comp, 1 Kings 6:9 sqq.; Isaiah 7:2 sqq.) might well be compared to the crown of Lebanon with its ornament of cedars. Such is the understanding of Thenius and Baehr, with whom I agree. The expression “tall-growth of its cedars, choice of its cypress,” quite agrees with the Latin mode of expression, by which can be said e.g.cibum partim unguium tenacitate arripiunt, partim aduncitate rostrorum” (Cic.Deor. Nat. II:47, 122). Comp. Friedr. Naegelsbach’sLatein. Stilistik, § 74; Isaiah 1:16; Isaiah 22:7; Isaiah 25:12; Isaiah 30:30. The Prophet does not ascribe to the Assyrian the intention of destroying the height of the cedars, while he would leave them their other qualities, but that he would utterly cut down the high cedars as they are.—On ברושׁ, the cypress, comp. on Isaiah 14:8. “The height of his end or border” is also no more than his highest summit. The notion height is not already expressed in “the uttermost,” as Baehr supposes. For a mountain has an uttermost in every direction. One may therefore speak of an uttermost in the direction upward, and of a height of the uttermost.—The forest of his garden-land is then the forest that, as it were, forms the garden of Lebanon, that adorns Lebanon like a pleasure park. The most luxuriant, glorious standing forest of Lebanon is meant.

In Isaiah 37:25 the Prophet speaks of the second task presented to Sennacherib, which was to conquer Egypt. That concerned a certain campaign, not in a mountainous region, but in a level land, partly waste and without water, partly abounding in water. While Sennacherib stood on the south of Palestine the great army had no superabundance of water. When, e. g., we read of Moses’ request to Edom ( Numbers 20:17 sqq.) it cannot seem strange that the Prophet imputed to Sennacherib the boastful assertion that so far he has provided his mighty host with water in a strange land, that he has dug wells, because the existing ones were insufficient, and had drunk away their water from the inhabitants. For such is the meaning of מים זרים, 2 Kings 19:24, which our author has omitted for the sake of simplicity. Had the Assyrian traversed the desert et-Tih, digging wells would, of course, have been a still greater necessity. But on the border of it, whither Sennacherib penetrated, it may have been needful. He boasts, moreover, that where there is much water, and the water is a bulwark for the inhabitants, as the Nile with its canals is to Egypt, he will easily destroy this bulwark. For by the sole of his tramp shall the streams of Egypt be dried up. Thus his warriors will dry up the streams of Egypt like a puddle, merely by the tramp of their feet. The expression “sole of the tramp” is found only here. It is metonymy. Still in respect to the act of stepping, “step” and “foot” are often interchanged. Comp. Psalm 140:5 with Psalm 116:8; Psalm 17:5 with Psalm 38:17, etc. [“The drying up of the rivers with the soles of the feet is understood by Vitringa as an allusion to the Egyptian mode of drawing water with a tread-wheel ( Deuteronomy 11:10).”—J. A. Alex.].

4. Hast thou not heard—thou camest?

Isaiah 37:26-29. The Assyrian imagined that he pushed, and he was pushed. He regarded all he did as the product of his own free fancy, and of his power to do. The Prophet however says to him that he had only been an instrument in the hands of God. With “hast thou not heard,” the Prophet, so to speak, appeals to the better understanding of the Assyrian. Has it not somehow, if not from without, still from within, come to thy hearing (comp. Psalm 62:12) that it is not as thou thinkest? Does not thy conscience, the voice of God within thee say that it was not thou that hast planned and carried out all this, but that I, the Almighty God, long ago ( Isaiah 22:11; Isaiah 25:1) laid it out and have accomplished it? Therefore the Assyrian was to be a thorough destroyer of things. But when God destroys the things, He intends always a corresponding effect on the persons. The latter is the thought of Isaiah 37:27. Their inhabitants (i. e., of the cities named Isaiah 37:26), as short-handed, (i. e., weak), are dismayed and confounded. Then with strong figures this effect is more nearly characterized. The sorely visited inhabitants are compared to the “grass of the field,” “the green herb,” “the grass on the house tops” (in shallow soil, weak rooted; the expression again only Psalm 129:6), “the grain field before the standing fruit” (i. e., all blade and no stalk), and thus soft and tender like grass.—But not only is the foregoing true of the Assyrian as the instrument of God’s purpose, but all his doing and not doing has been directed by the Lord without his knowing it: what he proposed at home, his march forth, his coming into the Holy Land, and his hostile raging against the people of God, all was under the notice of the Lord, and must run the course determined by Him. “Sitting, going forth, coming home,” are expressions for the total activity of a man (comp. Deuteronomy 28:6; Psalm 121:8; Psalm 139:2). רגז stands for every vehement emotion whether of fear, of anger, or of joy (comp. Isaiah 5:25; Isaiah 13:13; Isaiah 14:9; Isaiah 14:16; Isaiah 23:11; Isaiah 28:21, etc.). The Hithp. occurs only here and Isaiah 37:29. Because the Assyrian with this התדגז had sinned against the Lord and rebelled, and would not hear of his being dependent on the Lord, but only the report of his proud security came to the Lord, he must feel his dependence in the most incisive way. He must return home by the way he came, as it were, led by a ring through the nose like a wild beast (comp. Ezekiel 19:4; Ezekiel 19:9; Ezekiel 29:4; Ezekiel 38:4), or by a bridle between the lips, like a tame beast. On the ruins of Chorsabad are figures of prisoners whom the “royal victor holds to a rope by means of a ring fastened in their lips.” Comp. Thenius on 2 Kings 19:28.

5. And this shall—do this.

Isaiah 37:30-32. The Prophet turns to Hezekiah. In Isaiah 37:22; Isaiah 37:29 he had in a general way held out the prospect of the pitiful retreat of the Assyrian out of the Holy Land. Now he names a sign to the king that shall be a pledge of the promise given and place it in the right light. It may be asked: how can this sign, that requires two years for its accomplishment, be a pledge for an event that is to take place at once; according to 2 Kings 19:35, even that very night? I believe that two things are to be considered here. First: Israel receives the promise, not merely of a momentary, but of a definite deliverance from the power of Assyria. This appears, evident from our prophecy itself. The scorn with which Zion greets the retreat of the Assyrian ( Isaiah 37:22) would be ill-timed if he could return to take vengeance. According to Isaiah 37:29 he is so thoroughly led off that he is certain to have no wish to come back. According to Isaiah 37:33; Isaiah 37:35 he is not to come before Jerusalem. It is not said, however, that this shall not happen only this time and in the present danger. The Assyrian shall never come any more. Assyria is done away. The Theocracy has nothing more to fear from it. We have shown above that this thought occurs in chaps28–33, especially in33. It cannot surprise one that a promise so all-important, that Assyria shall nevermore hurt the Theocracy, is guaranteed by a sign requiring years for its realization. A promise to be fulfilled after some hours properly requires no pledge.

In the second place: it is to be noticed that there is no exact statement in our prophecy as to the way in which Assyria is to be expelled from Judah. It is neither said that it shall be so suddenly, nor in this fashion. Hence the question might arise after the event, whether this sudden expulsion is to be explained by accidental or natural causes, or as the operation of divine omnipotence. Did the Lord give a sign and the sign come about, it would prove that that first mighty blow carried out against Assyria was also intended by the Lord. But it may be asked: how can a series of events serve for a sign, which in fact take a very natural course, which could not happen otherwise? It might be urged that it took mighty little prophetic insight to know that no regular seeding and harvest could be possible before the third year. That is true. Yet only He for whom there is properly no future could know beforehand that in the third year there would certainly be a seeding and harvest. For it was quite possible that the Assyrian invasion would last for years still. What the Prophet predicts here is the favorable aspect of the future that was in general possible. Better could not happen. I construe Isaiah 37:30 essentially as Drechsler does, and think that the subject has been needlessly made hard. According to the Assyrian monuments, the expedition of Sennacherib against Syria, Palestine and Egypt occupied only the one year, 700 B. C. For in the year699 we find him on another theatre of war, employed against Suzub of Babylon. Comp. the canon of Regents in Schrader, p319, and our remarks on Isaiah 39:1. If, then, this campaign lasted no longer than a year, still it certainly demanded the whole of the time of a year suitable for warfare. Therefore Sennacherib certainly was in Palestine in Spring before the harvest, and when it was ripe seized on it, for his immense army. He conquered in fact the whole land, and shut up Hezekiah in Jerusalem “like a bird in its cage.” But he must have remained in Canaan till late in the year. For when one considers that in this year he made the conquest of Phœnicia, several Philistine cities (Beth-Dagon, Joppa, B’ Nehemiah -Barak, Azur), forty-six fortified cities of Judah, besides countless castles and smaller places, and then also fought a considerable battle with the Ethiopic army, there is presented a labor for whose accomplishment three-quarters of a year does not appear too much time. But with that the invasion lasted so long that the season for preparing a harvest had passed by; especially when it is considered that the inhabitants needed first to assemble again, put their houses to rights, and provide beasts of labor, as their stock must certainly have fallen a prey to the enemy. Comp. Isaiah 32:10; Isaiah 32:12-13 and Isaiah 33:8-9, which may be taken as a suitable description of the condition brought about by this invasion. For the year after the invasion, therefore, there was no product of the land to be expected in general, but such as would spring up of itself. Not before the third year could there be regular cultivation and a corresponding harvest. And, as already said, that was much, in fact, the best that could happen as things then were. For that end it would be necessary that the Assyrian by the end of the second year should no more be in the land, and have no more power to hinder field-labor. According to this explanation, we have no need of assuming a Sabbatic year, nor a year of jubilee, nor a return of the Assyrian out of Egypt to Palestine, nor an invasion lasting three years, nor that agriculture in Palestine at that time was carried on in the same ceremonious way that, according to Wetstein (in Delitzsch, p389 sq.), is the case now-a-days. Naturally, during the invasion, in the first year, there was no fruit of harvest to eat, since the Assyrian had carried it off, but only ספיח ( Leviticus 25:5; Leviticus 25:11; Job 14:19). The word comes from ספח, which undoubtedly means effundere, profundere, infundere ( Habakkuk 2:15; Job 30:7; Isaiah 5:7), in Niph. and Hithp.: “to pour” (of rivers), “to mouth, debouch,” i. e., se adjungere, adjungi ( Isaiah 14:1; 1 Samuel 26:19). ספיח, therefore, is effusio, “the outpour, what is poured out, spilt.” Thus all field produce is meant that comes from spilling at seeding or harvest, or that comes from such spilt fruit. In the present case it would be first the former, like crumbs from the rich man’s table, and then the latter, of which the Israelites would get the benefit. On שׁחים see Text. and Gram. See in Gesen. and Knobel proof that in warm countries grain propagates itself partly by spilt seeds and partly by shoots from the root. [The stooling of winter wheat is familiar to agriculturists.—Tr.]

But the Prophet has not only deliverance from ruin to announce to Judah, but also new growth. The escaped (פליטה, comp. Isaiah 4:2; Isaiah 10:20; Isaiah 15:9) of the house of Judah (בית י׳ again only Isaiah 22:21), the remnant (comp. Isaiah 11:11; Isaiah 11:16), shall add on root downwards ( Isaiah 27:6). It shall, however, also bear fruit upwards, thus be a firm-rooted and fruitful tree. It is true that Judah somewhat more than an hundred years later was uprooted. Still it was not, like Israel, quite and forever wrested away from its indigenous soil, but only transplanted for a while, to be replanted again, in order to go and meet a new and final judgment, with which, however, was also combined a transition into a new and higher stage of existence. And precisely for this higher stage of existence the remnant, according to our passage and former statements of the Prophet ( Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 10:20 sqq.), formed the point of connection. By Isaiah 37:32 a the Prophet explains how this revivescence of Judah shall be brought about. All Judah fell into the hand of the enemy, and by him was hostilely treated and desolated. Only the capital remained unhurt. Therefore in it had been preserved an untouched nucleus, formed partly of the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves, partly of such men of Judah as had taken refuge in the capital. Hence the Prophet can say: “out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and the escaped from mount Zion.” For of course the repeopling and restoration of the land must proceed from Jerusalem, as from the intact core and heart of the land. On the last clause of Isaiah 37:32 see on Isaiah 9:6. The words here are evidently intended in a consolatory sense, and to intimate that what the Lord has promised, He will perform with zeal.

6. Therefore thus saith—David’s sake‍.

Isaiah 37:33-35. In these verses, what was given in the foregoing in a general way is now definitely formulated and applied to the present situation. The Prophet affirms most positively that Jerusalem shall not be besieged by the Assyrian. It is commonly assumed that the Assyrian of course enclosed Jerusalem, and that he met the fearful overthrow narrated Isaiah 37:36 before its walls. But when Sennacherib received intelligence of the approach of the Ethiopian army, he was at Libnah. From there he retired a little further north to Altakai (Eltekeh), where occurred the battle. Evidently he avoided encountering the Ethiopian near, and especially obliquely south of Jerusalem, so as not to tempt the Jews to aid the enemy, and to avoid having to sustain their attack on his rear. But it is thought that the “great army’ ( Isaiah 36:2) with which Rabshakeh appeared before Jerusalem remained there while he returned to the king ( Isaiah 37:8). The text, however, says nothing of this, and moreover, it is internally not probable. For with the prospect of encountering so great a host as the army of Egypt and Ethiopia doubtless was, Sennacherib would not have weakened himself by sending away a great part of his own army. He might have sent a small corps of observation: but the185,000 men of which Isaiah 37:36 speaks certainly did not lie before Jerusalem. There is therefore a climax in Isaiah 37:33. First it says, Sennacherib shall not come into the city. Then, he shall not shoot an arrow into it. In sieges among the ancients, the shield played a great part as a protection against spears, stones, etc., that were hurled down from the walls, as also against melted pitch (comp. Herz.Real-Encycl. IV. p 392 sqq.). סללה, “the besiegers’ wall” ( 2 Samuel 20:15; Jeremiah 6:6; Ezekiel 4:2, etc.). Isaiah 37:35 is causal as to its contents. The first clause names, as the reason of the Assyrian’s expulsion, Jehovah’s purpose to protect Jerusalem. But the reason for this protection is the promise given to David ( 2 Samuel 7:12 sqq.; comp. 1 Kings 15:4) whereby the honor of the Lord itself was at stake (comp. Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 48:11) and thus the preservation of Jerusalem was necessary. It is true that Jerusalem was destroyed, after all, at a later period, and the kingdom of David demolished; but this occurred under circumstances that did not exclude a restoration. Had Judah been destroyed at that time by Sennacherib, it would have had the same fate as the kingdom of Israel.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 36:4 sqq. “Haec proprie est Satanae lingua et sunt non Rabsacis sed ipsissimi Diaboli verba, quibus non muros urbis, sed medullam Ezechiae, hoc Esther, tenerrimam ejus fidem oppugnat.”—Luther. “In this address the chief-butler, Satan performs in the way he uses when he would bring about our apostacy1) He urges that we are divested of all human support, Isaiah 36:5; Isaiah 2) We are deprived of divine support, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 3) God is angry with us because we have greatly provoked Him by our sins, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 4) He decks out the splendor, and power of the wicked, Isaiah 36:8-9; Isaiah 5) He appeals to God’s word, and knows how to turn and twist it to his uses. Such poisonous arrows were used by Satan against Christ in the desert, and may be compared with this light ( Matthew 4:2 sqq.). One needs to arm himself against Satan’s attack by God’s word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.”—Cramer.

The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiah’s confidence, in two of which he was right and in two wrong. He was right in representing that Hezekiah could rely neither on Egypt, nor on his own power. In this respect he was a messenger of God and announcer of divine truth. For everywhere the word of God preaches the same ( Isaiah 30:1-3; Isaiah 31:1-3; Jeremiah 17:5; Psalm 118:8-9; Psalm 146:3, etc.). But it is a merited chastisement if rude and hostile preachers must preach to us what we were unwilling to believe at the mild and friendly voice of God. But in two particulars the Assyrian was wrong, and therein lay Hezekiah’s strength. For just on this account the Lord is for him and against the Assyrian. These two things are, that the Assyrian asserts that Hezekiah cannot put his trust in the Lord, but rather he, the Assyrian is counseled by the Lord against Hezekiah. That, however, was a lie, and because of this lie, the corresponding truth makes all the deeper impression on Hezekiah, and reminds him how assuredly he may build on the Lord and importune Him. And when the enemy dares to say, that he is commissioned by the Lord to destroy the Holy Land, just that must bring to lively remembrance in the Israelite, that the Lord, who cannot lie, calls the land of Israel His land ( Joel 4:2; Jeremiah 2:7; Jeremiah 16:18, etc.), and the people of Israel His people ( Exodus 3:7; Exodus 3:10; Exodus 5:1, etc.).

2. On [“In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe: 1) The Masorets in the Hebrew text have so printed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided2) The customs, habits and modes of expression of people in different nations and times, differ. What appears indelicate at one time or in one country, may not only be tolerated, but common in another3) Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian4) It was of importance to give the true character of the attack which was made on Jerusalem. The coming of Sennacherib was attended with pride, insolence and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it bear the blame.”—Barnes in loc.].

3. On Isaiah 36:18 sqq. “Observandum hic, quod apud gentes olim viguerit πολύθεια adeo, ut quaevis etiam urbs peculiarem habuerit Deum tutelarem. Cujus ethnicismi exemplum vivum et spirans adhuc habemus apud pontificios, quibus non inscite objici potest illud Jeremiae: Quot civitates tibi, tot etiam Dei ( Jeremiah 2:28).”—Foerster.

4. On Isaiah 36:21. Answer not a fool according to his folly ( Proverbs 26:4), much less the blasphemer, lest the flame of his wickedness be blown into the greater rage ( Sirach 8:3). Did not Christ the Lord answer His enemies, not always with words, but also with silence ( Matthew 26:62; Matthew 27:14, etc.)? One must not cast pearls before swine ( Matthew 7:6). After Foerster and Cramer.

5. On Isaiah 36:21. “Est aureus textus, qui docet nos, ne cum Satana disputemus. Quando enim videt, quod sumus ejus spectatores et auditores, tum captat occasionem majoris fortitudinis et gravius premit. Petrus dicit, eum circuire et quaerere, quem devoret. Nullum facit insidiarum finem. Tutissimum autem est non respondere, sed contemnere eum.”—Luther.

6. [On Isaiah 37:1-7. “Rabshakeh intended to frighten Hezekiah from the Lord, but it proves that he frightens him to the Lord. The wind, instead of forcing the traveler’s coat from him, makes him wrap it the closer about him. The more Rabshakeh reproaches God, the more Hezekiah studies to honor Him.” On Isaiah 37:3. “When we are most at a plunge we should be most earnest in prayer. When pains are most strong, let prayers be most lively. Prayer is the midwife of mercy, that helps to bring it forth.”—M. Henry, in loc.]

7. On Isaiah 37:2 sqq. Hezekiah here gives a good example. He shows all princes, rulers and peoples what one ought to do when there is a great and common distress, and tribulation. One ought with sackcloth, i. e., with penitent humility, to bring prayers, and intercessions to the Lord that He would look on and help.

8. On Isaiah 37:6 sq. “God takes to Himself all the evil done to His people. For as when one does a great kindness to the saints, God appropriates it to Himself, Song of Solomon, too, when one torments the saints, it is an injury done to God, and He treats sin no other way than as if done to Himself. He that torments them torments Him ( Isaiah 64:9). Therefore the saints pray: ‘Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily’ ( Psalm 74:22).”—Cramer.

9. On Isaiah 37:7. “God raises up against His enemies other enemies, and thus prepares rest for His own people. Example: the Philistines against Saul who pursued David, 1 Samuel 23:27.”—Cramer.

10. On Isaiah 37:14. Vitringa here cites the following from Bonfin Rerum Hungar. Dec. III. Lib. VI. p464, ad annum Isaiah 1444: “Amorathes, cum suos laborare cerneret et ab Vladislao rege non sine magna caede fugari, depromtum e sinu codicem initi sanctissime foederis explicat intentis in coelum oculis. Haec sunt, inquit ingeminans, Jesu Christe, foedera, quae Christiani tui mecum percussere. Per numen tuum sanctum jurarunt, datamque sub nomine tuo fidem violarunt, perfide suum Deum abnegarunt. Nunc Christe, si Deus es (ut ajunt et nos hallucinamur), tuas measque hic injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere et his, qui sanctum tuum nomen nondum agnovere, violatae fidei poenas ostende. Vix haec dixerat .… cum proelium, quod anceps ac dubium diu fuerat, inclinare coepit, etc.”

[The desire of Hezekiah was not primarily his own personal safety, or the safety of his kingdom. It was that Jehovah might vindicate His great and holy name from reproach, and that the world might know that He was the only true God. We have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when we come before God. This motive of prayer is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 43:25; Deuteronomy 32:39; Psalm 83:18; Psalm 46:10; Nehemiah 9:6; Daniel 9:18-19. Perhaps there could have been furnished no more striking proof that Jehovah was the true God, than would be by the defeat of Sennacherib. The time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror of His name, and the report of His power throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army.”—Barnes, on Isaiah 37:2].

11. On Isaiah 37:15. “Fides Ezechiae verba confirmata magis ac magis crescit. Ante non ausus est orare, jam orat et confutat blasphemias omnes Assyrii. Adeo magna vis verbi Esther, ut longe alius per verbum, quod Jesajas ei nunciari jussit, factus sit.”—Luther.

12. On [“It is bad to talk proudly and profanely, but it is worse to write Song of Solomon, for this argues more deliberation and design, and what is written spreads further and lasts longer, and does the more mischief. Atheism and irreligion, written, will certainly be reckoned for another day.”—M. Henry].

13. On Isaiah 37:21 sqq. [“Those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah’s prayer in God’s name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: ‘Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard.’ Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly to that of chap10), and bid him pick out an answer from thence. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God’s side.”—M. Henry.].

14. On Isaiah 37:31 sqq. “This is a promise of great extent. For it applies not only to those that then remained, and were spared the impending destruction and captivity by the Assyrians, but to all subsequent times, when they should enjoy a deliverance; as after the Babylonish captivity, and after the persecutions of Antiochus. Yea, it applies even to New Testament times from the first to the last, since therein, in the order of conversion to Christ, the Jews will take root and bring forth fruit, and thus in the Jews (as also in the converted Gentiles) will appear in a spiritual and corporal sense, what God at that time did to their fields in the three following years.”—Starke.

15. On Isaiah 38:1. “ is, although of a noble race and condition, does not for that regard it disgraceful, but rather an honor, to be a pastor and visitor of the sick, I would say, a prophet, teacher and comforter of the sick. God save the mark! How has the world become so different in our day, especially in our evangelical church Let a family be a little noble, and it is regarded as a reproach and injury to have a clergyman among its relations and friends, not to speak of a son studying theology and becoming a servant of the church. I speak not of all; I know that some have a better mind; yet such is the common course. Jeroboam’s maxim must rather obtain, who made priests of the lowest of the people ( 1 Kings 12:31). For thus the parsons may be firmly held in rein (sub ferula) and in political submission. It is not at all good where the clergy have a say, says an old state-rule of our Politicorum.” Feuerlein, pastor in Nuremberg, in his Novissimorum primum, 1694, p553. The same quotes Spener: “Is it not Song of Solomon, that among the Roman Catholics the greatest lords are not ashamed to stand in the spiritual office, and that many of them even discharge the spiritual functions? Among the Reformed, too, persons born of the noblest families are not ashamed of the office of preacher. But, it seems, we Lutherans are the only ones that hold the service of the gospel so low, that, where from a noble or otherwise prominent family an ingenium has an inclination to theological study, almost every one seeks to hinder him, or, indeed, afterwards is ashamed of his friendship, as if it were something much too base for such people, by which more harm comes to our church than one might suppose. That is to be ashamed of the gospel.”

16. On [“We see here the boldness and fidelity of a man of God. Isaiah was not afraid to go in freely and tell even a monarch that he must die. The subsequent part of the narrative would lead us to suppose that, until this announcement, Hezekiah did not regard himself as in immediate danger. It is evident here, that the physician of Hezekiah had not informed him of it—perhaps from the apprehension that his disease would be aggravated by the agitation of his mind on the subject. The duty was, therefore, left, as it is often, to the minister of religion—a duty which even many ministers are slow to perform, and which many physicians are reluctant to have performed.

No danger is to be apprehended commonly from announcing to those who are sick their true condition. Physicians and friends often err in this. There is no species of cruelty greater than to suffer a friend to lie on a dying bed under a delusion. There is no sin more aggravated than that of designedly deceiving a dying man, and flattering him with the hope of recovery, when there is a moral certainty that he will not and cannot recover. And there is evidently no danger to be apprehended from communicating to the sick their true condition. It should be done tenderly and with affection; but it should be done faithfully. I have had many opportunities of witnessing the effect of apprising the sick of their situation, and of the moral certainty that they must die. And I cannot now recall an instance in which the announcement has had any unhappy effect on the disease. Often, on the contrary, the effect is to calm the mind, and to lead the dying to look up to God, and peacefully to repose on Him. And the effect of that is always salutary.” Barnes in loc.]

17. On Isaiah 38:2. It is an old opinion, found even in the Chald, that by the wall is meant the wall of the temple as a holy direction in which to pray, as the Mahometans pray in the direction of Mecca. But הקיר cannot mean that. Rather that is correct which is said by Forerius: “Nolunt pii homines testes habere suarum lacrymarum, ut eas liberius fundant, neque sensu distrahi, cum orare Deum ex animo volunt.”

18. On Isa 38:8 :—

Non Deus est numen Parcarum carcere clausum.

Quale putabatur Stoicus esse Deus.

Ille potest Solis cursus inhibere volantes,

At veluti scopulos flumina stare facit.”

—Melanchthon.

19. On Isaiah 38:12. “Beautiful parables that picture to us the transitoriness of this temporal life. For the parable of the shepherd’s tent means how restless a thing it is with us, that we have here no abiding place, but are driven from one locality to another, until at last we find a resting-spot in the church-yard. The other parable of the weaver’s thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks.” Cramer. “When the weaver’s work is progressing best, the thread breaks before he is aware. Thus when a man is in his best work, and supposes he now at last begins really to live, God breaks the thread of his life and lets him die. The rational heathen knew something of this when they, so to speak, invented the three goddesses of life (the three Parcas minime parcas) and included them in this little verse:

Clotho colum gestat, Lachesis trahit,

Atropos occat

But what does the weaver when the thread breaks? Does he stop his work at once? O no! He knows how to make a clever weaver’s knot, so that one cannot observe the break. Remember thereby that when thy life is broken off, yet the Lord Jesus, as a master artisan, can bring it together again at the last day. He will make such an artful, subtle weaver’s-knot as shall make us wonder through all eternity. It will do us no harm to have died.” Ibid.—Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.

[“As suddenly as the tent of a shepherd is taken down, folded up, and transferred to another place. There is doubtless the idea here that he would continue to exist, but in another place, as the shepherd would pitch his tent in another place. He was to be cut off from the earth, but he expected to dwell among the dead. The whole passage conveys the idea that he expected to dwell in another state.” Barnes in loc.].

20. On [“Note1) When God pardons sin, He casts it behind His back as not designing to look upon it with an eye of justice and jealousy. He remembers it no more, to visit for it. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. When we cast our sins behind our back, and take no care to repent of them, God sets them before His face, and is ready to reckon for them; but when we set them before our face in true repentance, as David did when his sin was ever before him, God casts them behind His back2) When God pardons sin, He pardons all, casts them all behind His back, though they have been as scarlet and crimson3) The pardoning of sin is the delivering the soul from the pit of corruption4) It is pleasant indeed to think of our recoveries from sickness when we see them flowing from the remission of sin; then the cause is removed, and then it is in love to the soul.” M. Henry in loc.]

21. On [Cannot hope for thy truth. “They are shut out from all the means by which Thy truth is brought to mind, and the offers of salvation are presented. Their probation is at an end; their privileges are closed; their destiny is sealed up. The idea is, it is a privilege to live because this is a world where the offers of salvation are made, and where those who are conscious of guilt may hope in the mercy of God.” Barnes in loc.] God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance ( 2 Peter 3:9). Such is the New Testament sense of these Old Testament words. For though Hezekiah has primarily in mind the preferableness of life in the earthly body to the life in Hades, yet this whole manner of representation passes away with Hades itself. But Hezekiah’s words still remain true so far as they apply to heaven and hell. For of course in hell, the place of the damned, one does not praise God. But those that live praise Him. These, however, are in heaven. Since then God wills rather that men praise Him than not praise Him, so He is not willing that men should perish, but that all should turn to repentance and live.

22. On Isaiah 39:2. “Primo (Deus) per obsidionem et bellum, deinde per gravem morbum Ezechiam servaverat, ne in praesumtionem laberetur. Nondum tamen vinci potuit antiquus serpens, sed redit et levat caput suum. Adeo non possumus consistere, nisi Deos nos affligat. Vides igitur hic, quis sit afflictionum usus, ut mortificent scilicet carnem, quae non potest res ferre secundas.” Luther.

23. On Isaiah 39:7. “God also punishes the misdeeds of the parents on the children ( Exodus 20:5) because the children not only follow the misdeeds of their parents, but they also increase and heap them up, as is seen in the posterity of Hezekiah, viz.: Manasseh and Amon.”—Cramer.

HOMILETICAL HINTS

[The reader is referred to the ample hints covering the same matter to be found in the volume on 2 Kings18-20. It is expedient to take advantage of that for the sake of keeping the present volume within reasonable bounds. Therefore but a minimum is here given of what the Author offers, much of which indeed is but the repetition in another form of matter already given.—Tr.]

1. On Isaiah 37:36. “1) The scorn and mockery of the visible world2) The scorn and mockery of the unseen world.” Sermon of Domprediger Zahn in Halle, 1870.

2. On the entire38. chapter, beside the 22 sermons in FEUERLEIN’S Novissimorum primum, there is a great number of homiletical elaborations of an early date; Walther Magirus, Idea mortis et vitae in two parts, the second of which contains20 penitential and consolatory sermons on Isaiah 38. Danzig, 1640,1642. Daniel Schaller (Stendal) 4sermons on the sick Hezekiah, on Isaiah 38. Magdeburg, 1611. Peter Siegmund Pape in “Gott geheilighte Wochenpredigten,” Berlin, 1701, 4sermons. Jacob Tichlerus (Elburg) Hiskiae Aufrichtigkeit bewiesen in Gesundheit, Krankheit und Genesung, 18 sermons on Isaiah 38. (Dutch), Campen, 1636. These are only the principal ones.

3. On Isaiah 38:1. “I will set my house in order. This, indeed, will not be hard for me to do. My debt account is crossed out; my best possession I take along with me; my children I commit to the great Father of orphans, to whom heaven and earth belongs, and my soul to the Lord, who has sued for it longer than a human age, and bought it with His blood. Thus I am eased and ready for the journey.” Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, p620.

4. On Isaiah 38:1. “Now thou shouldest know that our word ‘order his house’ has a very broad meaning. It comprehends reconciliation to God by faith, the final confession of sin, the last Lord’s Supper, the humble committing of the soul to the grace of the Lord, and to death and the grave in the hope of the resurrection. In one word: There is an ordering of the house above. In reliance on the precious merit of my Saviour, I order my house above in which I wish to dwell. Moreover taking leave of loved ones, and the blessing of them belongs to ordering the house. And finally order must be taken concerning the guardianship of children, the abiding of the widow, and the friend on whom she must especially lean in her loneliness, also concerning earthly bequests.” Ahlfeld, Das Leben im Lichte des Wortes Gottes, Halle, 1867, p522.

5. On Isaiah 38:2-8. This account has much that seems strange to us Christians, but much, too, that quite corresponds to our Christian consciousness. Let us contemplate the difference between an Old Testament, and a New Testament suppliant, by noticing the differences and the resemblances. I. The resemblances1) Distress and grief there are in the Old, as in the New Testament ( Isaiah 38:3). 2) Ready and willing to help beyond our prayers or comprehension ( Isaiah 38:5-6) is the Lord in the Old as in the New Testament. II. The differences1) The Old Testament suppliant appealed to his having done nothing bad ( Isaiah 38:3). The New Testament suppliant says: “God be merciful to me a sinner,” and “Give me through grace for Christ’s sake what it pleases Thee to give me.” 2) The Old Testament suppliant demands a sign ( Isaiah 38:7-8; comp. Isaiah 38:22); the New Testament suppliant requires no sign but that of the crucified Son of man, for He knows that to those who bear this sign is given the promise of the hearing of all their prayers ( John 16:23). 3) In Hezekiah’s case, the prayer of the Old Testament suppliant is indeed heard ( Isaiah 38:5), yet in general it has not the certainty of being heard, whereas the New Testament suppliant has this certainty.

Footnotes

6. THE DELIVERANCE.

Isaiah 37:36-38

36Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses 37 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh 38 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of ⁴⁵Armenia: and Esar-haddon his son reigned in his stead.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. Then the angel—in his stead.

Isaiah 37:36-38. In 2 Kings 19:35 it is said: “And it came to pass that night that the angel,” etc. If these additional words were supplied by some later copyist or glossarist, it is incomprehensible how they do not appear in both texts. For whoever made the addition must have wished to be credited. But in order to credibility both documents must agree in this respect. Or if it be assumed that these words were originally in the Isaiah text, but were omitted by some one who could not harmonize them with the view of Isaiah 37:29; then the question arises: why did not the same one omit the words at 2 Kings19.? We must therefore hold that the words in 2 Kings19 are genuine, and that the Author of our text omitted them, as he has done much beside, because they appeared to him superfluous or obscure. Of course, on a first view, this datum may appear strange. The events narrated in Isaiah 37:9-35 are unmarked by any data to indicate the time they required. Thus it may appear that they followed in quick succession, and that there is left no room for the battle between Sennacherib and Tirhaka, if the185,000 were destroyed the night following Isaiah’s response. Yet that battle must have occurred between the announcement of Tirhaka’s approach ( Isaiah 37:9) and the destruction of the185,000.

According to the inscriptions on the hexagon cylinder (Schrader, p171) and on the Kujundschick bulls (ibid. p184), the battle of Altaku took place even before the payment of tribute by Hezekiah. But Schrader is undoubtedly correct in remarking (p190): “he (Sennacherib) purposely displaces the chronological order and concludes with the statement of the rich tribute, as if this stamped its seal on the whole, whereas we know from the Bible that this tribute was paid while the great king was encamped at Lacish, and before the battle of Altaku ( 2 Kings 18:14).” The Assyrian documents, therefore, cannot prevent us from placing the battle in the period between Isaiah 37:9-36. But it could not have been attended with decisive results. For had Sennacherib sustained a decisive defeat, he must have retreated, and the destruction of the185,000 would not have been necessary. On the contrary, had he conquered, then the Egyptians must have retreated, of which we have no trace. Moreover the Assyrian account of the battle sounds pretty modest. For though it speaks of a defeat of the Egyptians, and of the capture of “the charioteer and sons of the Egyptian king, and of the charioteer of the king of Meroe,” yet there is wanting that further statement of the number of prisoners taken, the chariots captured, etc., statements that otherwise never fail to be made. Schrader also concludes from this that it must have been a Pyrrhus victory, if a victory at all. According to Isaiah 31:8, Assyria was even not to fall by the sword of man. The Lord had reserved him for Himself.

If the battle of Altaku occurred as we have said, then it follows that the events narrated, Isaiah 37:9-36, cannot have occurred in such very rapid succession. “In that night,” 2 Kings 19:35, therefore does not refer to a point of time immediately near the total events previously narrated. It seems to me to relate only to the day in which Isaiah gave his response. When Sennacherib heard of the approach of Tirhaka ( Isaiah 37:9) he did not necessarily send off at once his message to Hezekiah. He had likely more important matters on hand. It sufficed for his object if he sent his messengers two or three days later. Then the messengers would require several days to reach Jerusalem. If, then, on the same day [of its receipt] Hezekiah spread the letter of the Assyrian before the Lord, still it is not at all to be assumed that the response immediately followed. That could not follow sooner than the Lord commissioned the Prophet. But the Lord postponed His response to the moment when the fulfilment could follow on the heels of the promise. It is apparent that, after days of anxious waiting, the facts of the comforting assurance and of the unspeakably glorious help, coming blow on blow, must have had a quite overpowering effect. It is, after all, but the Lord’s wise and usual way, in order to exercise men in faith and patience, to let them wait for His answer, that, when they have stood the trial, He may then let His help burst in on them mightily, to their greater joy (comp. Psalm 22:3; Proverbs 13:12; Jeremiah 42:7; 1 Samuel 14:37; 1 Samuel 14:41 sq, etc.).

The mention of “the angel of the Lord” calls to mind the destruction of the first-born in Egypt ( Exodus 12:12 sqq.), and the plague in Jerusalem ( 2 Samuel 24:15 sqq.). In these three places the angel is said “to smite” (הִכָּה, Exodus 12:12 sq.; 2 Samuel 24:17 or נָגַף, Exodus 12:13; Exodus 12:23; 2 Samuel 24:21; 2 Samuel 24:25). He is therefore designated as מַשְׁחִית “destruction” ( Exodus 12:13; Exodus 12:23; 2 Samuel 24:21; 2 Samuel 24:25). But in 2 Samuel 24:15 the destruction wrought by the angel is expressly called דֶּבֶר, “pest,” which word is employed by Amos 4:10, probably with reference to that destruction of the first-born. Thus, then, in our passage a pest is to be understood as the sword with which the angel smote the host of Assyria; to the rejection of other explanations, such as a tempest, a defeat by the enemy, or forsooth poisoning (comp. Winer, R. W. B., Art. Hezekiah). Even that plague in David’s time carried off in a short space (probably in less than a day, according as one understands עת מועד, 2 Samuel 24:15) 70,000 men in Palestine. Other examples of great pest-catastrophes in ancient and modern times, none of which however equal what is told here, see in Gesen. and Delitzsch. What is told here receives indirect confirmation from Herod. (II:141), who narrates that “Sanacharibos, king of the Arabians and Assyrians” was compelled to retreat before king Sethos at Pelusium, because swarms of field mice had gnawed away the leather work of the Assyrian arms. As a monument of this victory there stands in the temple of Hephaestos [Vulcan], whose priest Sethos was, a stone statue of this king with a mouse on his hand, and the superscription “ἐς ἐμέ τις ὁρέων εὐσεβἠς ἕστω.” This superscription Herodotus accounts for, by narrating that this king in his necessity before the battle prayed to his god, and received the assurance of divine help. If this be perhaps a trace that the overthrow of Sennacherib was recognized as evidently a demonstration of divine help, Song of Solomon, too, the mouse is probably a reminiscence of the rescuing plague. For the hieoroglyphics employ the mouse as the symbol of wasting and dsestruction; so that the narrative of Herodotus contains probably only the signification of the mouse supporting statue ascribed to it by those of later times. This combination was first made by J. D. Michaelis, who has been followed by Gesen. [?], Hitzig, Thenius [Barnes, J. A. Alex, per contra see Baehr, 2 Kings 19]. Comp. Leyrer in Herz, R-Encycl. XI. p411.

Though the plague is a natural agent, still the great number carried off in one night is something wonderful. It appears inadmissible to me to assume with Hensler and others (Delitzsch, too,) a longer prevalence of the plague. The deliverance of Israel was not to come about by the sword of Egypt, nor by a natural event of a common sort. Both Israel and the heathen must recognize the finger of God, that every one may fear Him and trust in Him alone. Comp. Isaiah 10:24 sqq.; Isaiah 14:24-27; Isaiah 17:12-14; Isaiah 29:1-8; Isaiah 30:7-15 sqq, 30 sqq.; Isaiah 31:1-9; Isaiah 33:1-4; Isaiah 33:10 sqq, 22sqq. The subject of וישׁכימו is the surviving Assyrians, as those who actually in the morning came upon the corpses. In מתים is evidently to be made prominent the notion of inability to Acts, especially to fight. The strong warriors of Sennacherib were become motionless, harmless corpses. The ויסע וילך וישב, as has often been remarked, recalls Cicero’sabiit, evasit, excessit, erupit. The three verbs depict the haste of the retreat. In “and dwelt at Nineveh” the verb וישׁב has manifestly the meaning of remaining, comp. Genesis 21:16; Genesis 22:5; Genesis 24:55; Exodus 24:14, etc. In fact, after this overthrow, Sennacherib reigned still twenty years, and undertook five more campaigns. But these were all directed toward the north or south of Nineveh. He came no more to the west (Schrader, l. c. p205). What is narrated, therefore, in Isaiah 37:38, did not occur till twenty years after this.

According to Oppert (Exped. scient. en Mesop. II. p339) נִסְרֹךְ means “binder, joiner,” and as the prayers that have been found addressed to him have for their subject chiefly the blessing of marriage, the conclusion seems justified that Nisroch corresponded to Hymen of the Greeks and Romans. Schrader assents to this view, only that, according to him, the root “sarak” in Assyrian means “to vouchsafe, to dispense,” rather than “to bind,” so that נסדך would more properly be “the good, the gracious” or “the dispenser.” An inscription of Asurbanipal, the son and successor of Esar-haddon, in which he narrates his mounting the throne in the month Iyyar, calls this month “the month of Nisroch, the lord of humanity” (Schrader, p208). In the list of gods found in the library of Asurbanipal (comp. on Isaiah 46:1, and Schrader in the Stud. and Krit., 1874, II. p336 sq.), the name of Nisroch is not found. While Sennacherib worshipped in the house of his god, his two sons slew him. An awful deed: parricide and sacrilege at the same moment, each aggravating the other. Such was the end of the haughty Sennacherib who had dared to blaspheme the God of Israel. Hebrews, who had boasted that no god nor people could resist him, must fall before the swords of his sons. He that regarded himself unconquerable by the help of his idols, must suffer death in the temple and in the presence of his idol. [How different the experience of Hezekiah in the temple of Jehovah, and the fate of Sennacherib in the temple of his idol!—Tr.]. Hendewerk cites, as parallel instances of monarchs murdered while at prayer, the cases of Caliph Omar, and the emperor Leo V. No mention has been discovered thus far, in the Assyrian inscriptions of the murder of Sennacherib, whereas they do inform us of the murder of his father Sargon. Polyhystor, among profane historians, relates (in Euseb.Armen. Chron. ed. Mai, p19) the murder of Sennacherib. But he only names Ardumusanus, i.e., Adrammelech as the murderer. Abydenus, on the other hand (ibid. p25) makes Nergilus the son of Sennacherib succeed the latter. This one was murdered by his brother Adramelus, and the latter in turn by his brother Axerdis. Here Adramelus is evidently = Adrammelech, Axerdis = Esarhaddon. Nergilus, however, according to Schrader’s sagacious conjecture, = Sarezer. For Sarezer in Assyrian is Sar-usur, i.e., protect the king. But to this Imperative is prefixed the name of the god that protects, so that the complete name may sound, sometimes Bil-sar-usur, sometimes, Asur-sar-usur, sometimes Nirgal-sar-usur, etc. But the name may also be used in an abbreviated form, viz.: with the omission of the name of the god: so that thus this Sarezer when the name in full was spoken, may have been Nirgal-sar-usur.Abydenus then may have preserved the first half of this name, while the Bible preserved the latter half (Schrader, p206) Adrammelech occurs as the name of a god 2 Kings 17:31. The word in Assyrian is Adar-malik, i.e. Adar is prince. (Schrader, p168).

According to Armenian tradition, the two sons of Sennacherib were to have been offered in sacrifice by their father (see Delitzschin loc.). According to the book of Tobit ( Isaiah 1:18 sqq.), Sennacherib wreaked his vengeance for the overthrow he suffered on the captives of the Ten Tribes. On the other hand he was a hated person by the Jews, whence also they held his murderers in high honor. Later Rabbins were of the opinion that these became Jews, and in the middle ages their tombs were pointed out in Galilee (comp. Ewald, Hist. d. V. Isr. III. p690, Anm.). Our text says the parricides escaped to the land of Ararat, i.e., Central Armenia The Assyrian for Ararat is Ur-ar-ti. The word often occurs in the lists of government as the designation of Armenia (comp. Schrader, p10, 324, lines37–40, 42, 44; p329, lines31, 39). According to Armenian historians, the posterity of those two sons of the king long existed in the two princely races of the Sassunians, and Arzerunians. From the latter descended the Byzantine Emperor Leo the Armenian, from whom in turn a long row of Byzantine rulers were descended. “Not less than ten Byzantine Emperors, if such were the case, may be regarded as the posterity of Sennacherib: so that thus the prophecy of Nahum 1:14 received its fulfilment only very late. Delitzsch, in loc.; Ritter, Erdkunde, X. p585 sq. Esar-haddon in Assyrian is Asur-ah-iddin, i.e., Asur gives a brother (Schrader, p208). According to the canon of regents (ibid. p320), Esarhaddon ascended the throne in the year681 b. c. Ewald places the date of Isaiah’s entrance on his office under Uzziah in the year757, his death under Manasseh in the year695 (Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. p844, 846). Delitzsch, following Duncker sets the beginning of Esar-haddon’s reign in the year693, and admits that in this case Isaiah must have been almost ninety years old. Now in as much as, according to the very certain data of the Assyrian documents, is, if he lived when Esar-haddon’s reign began, must have become almost100 years old, one must recognize at least in Isaiah 37:37 sq, an addition by a later hand, which also Delitzsch admits. [The reader that desires to inform himself more particularly on these questions of chronology, and to see a defence of Isaiah’s data, is hereby referred to Birk’sComm. on is, Appendix III., “The Assyrian Reigns in Isaiah.” The same article will serve as an introduction to the English literature on the subject.—Tr.].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 36:4 sqq. “Haec proprie est Satanae lingua et sunt non Rabsacis sed ipsissimi Diaboli verba, quibus non muros urbis, sed medullam Ezechiae, hoc Esther, tenerrimam ejus fidem oppugnat.”—Luther. “In this address the chief-butler, Satan performs in the way he uses when he would bring about our apostacy1) He urges that we are divested of all human support, Isaiah 36:5; Isaiah 2) We are deprived of divine support, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 3) God is angry with us because we have greatly provoked Him by our sins, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 4) He decks out the splendor, and power of the wicked, Isaiah 36:8-9; Isaiah 5) He appeals to God’s word, and knows how to turn and twist it to his uses. Such poisonous arrows were used by Satan against Christ in the desert, and may be compared with this light ( Matthew 4:2 sqq.). One needs to arm himself against Satan’s attack by God’s word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.”—Cramer.

The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiah’s confidence, in two of which he was right and in two wrong. He was right in representing that Hezekiah could rely neither on Egypt, nor on his own power. In this respect he was a messenger of God and announcer of divine truth. For everywhere the word of God preaches the same ( Isaiah 30:1-3; Isaiah 31:1-3; Jeremiah 17:5; Psalm 118:8-9; Psalm 146:3, etc.). But it is a merited chastisement if rude and hostile preachers must preach to us what we were unwilling to believe at the mild and friendly voice of God. But in two particulars the Assyrian was wrong, and therein lay Hezekiah’s strength. For just on this account the Lord is for him and against the Assyrian. These two things are, that the Assyrian asserts that Hezekiah cannot put his trust in the Lord, but rather he, the Assyrian is counseled by the Lord against Hezekiah. That, however, was a lie, and because of this lie, the corresponding truth makes all the deeper impression on Hezekiah, and reminds him how assuredly he may build on the Lord and importune Him. And when the enemy dares to say, that he is commissioned by the Lord to destroy the Holy Land, just that must bring to lively remembrance in the Israelite, that the Lord, who cannot lie, calls the land of Israel His land ( Joel 4:2; Jeremiah 2:7; Jeremiah 16:18, etc.), and the people of Israel His people ( Exodus 3:7; Exodus 3:10; Exodus 5:1, etc.).

2. On [“In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe: 1) The Masorets in the Hebrew text have so printed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided2) The customs, habits and modes of expression of people in different nations and times, differ. What appears indelicate at one time or in one country, may not only be tolerated, but common in another3) Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian4) It was of importance to give the true character of the attack which was made on Jerusalem. The coming of Sennacherib was attended with pride, insolence and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it bear the blame.”—Barnes in loc.].

3. On Isaiah 36:18 sqq. “Observandum hic, quod apud gentes olim viguerit πολύθεια adeo, ut quaevis etiam urbs peculiarem habuerit Deum tutelarem. Cujus ethnicismi exemplum vivum et spirans adhuc habemus apud pontificios, quibus non inscite objici potest illud Jeremiae: Quot civitates tibi, tot etiam Dei ( Jeremiah 2:28).”—Foerster.

4. On Isaiah 36:21. Answer not a fool according to his folly ( Proverbs 26:4), much less the blasphemer, lest the flame of his wickedness be blown into the greater rage ( Sirach 8:3). Did not Christ the Lord answer His enemies, not always with words, but also with silence ( Matthew 26:62; Matthew 27:14, etc.)? One must not cast pearls before swine ( Matthew 7:6). After Foerster and Cramer.

5. On Isaiah 36:21. “Est aureus textus, qui docet nos, ne cum Satana disputemus. Quando enim videt, quod sumus ejus spectatores et auditores, tum captat occasionem majoris fortitudinis et gravius premit. Petrus dicit, eum circuire et quaerere, quem devoret. Nullum facit insidiarum finem. Tutissimum autem est non respondere, sed contemnere eum.”—Luther.

6. [On Isaiah 37:1-7. “Rabshakeh intended to frighten Hezekiah from the Lord, but it proves that he frightens him to the Lord. The wind, instead of forcing the traveler’s coat from him, makes him wrap it the closer about him. The more Rabshakeh reproaches God, the more Hezekiah studies to honor Him.” On Isaiah 37:3. “When we are most at a plunge we should be most earnest in prayer. When pains are most strong, let prayers be most lively. Prayer is the midwife of mercy, that helps to bring it forth.”—M. Henry, in loc.]

7. On Isaiah 37:2 sqq. Hezekiah here gives a good example. He shows all princes, rulers and peoples what one ought to do when there is a great and common distress, and tribulation. One ought with sackcloth, i. e., with penitent humility, to bring prayers, and intercessions to the Lord that He would look on and help.

8. On Isaiah 37:6 sq. “God takes to Himself all the evil done to His people. For as when one does a great kindness to the saints, God appropriates it to Himself, Song of Solomon, too, when one torments the saints, it is an injury done to God, and He treats sin no other way than as if done to Himself. He that torments them torments Him ( Isaiah 64:9). Therefore the saints pray: ‘Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily’ ( Psalm 74:22).”—Cramer.

9. On Isaiah 37:7. “God raises up against His enemies other enemies, and thus prepares rest for His own people. Example: the Philistines against Saul who pursued David, 1 Samuel 23:27.”—Cramer.

10. On Isaiah 37:14. Vitringa here cites the following from Bonfin Rerum Hungar. Dec. III. Lib. VI. p464, ad annum Isaiah 1444: “Amorathes, cum suos laborare cerneret et ab Vladislao rege non sine magna caede fugari, depromtum e sinu codicem initi sanctissime foederis explicat intentis in coelum oculis. Haec sunt, inquit ingeminans, Jesu Christe, foedera, quae Christiani tui mecum percussere. Per numen tuum sanctum jurarunt, datamque sub nomine tuo fidem violarunt, perfide suum Deum abnegarunt. Nunc Christe, si Deus es (ut ajunt et nos hallucinamur), tuas measque hic injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere et his, qui sanctum tuum nomen nondum agnovere, violatae fidei poenas ostende. Vix haec dixerat .… cum proelium, quod anceps ac dubium diu fuerat, inclinare coepit, etc.”

[The desire of Hezekiah was not primarily his own personal safety, or the safety of his kingdom. It was that Jehovah might vindicate His great and holy name from reproach, and that the world might know that He was the only true God. We have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when we come before God. This motive of prayer is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 43:25; Deuteronomy 32:39; Psalm 83:18; Psalm 46:10; Nehemiah 9:6; Daniel 9:18-19. Perhaps there could have been furnished no more striking proof that Jehovah was the true God, than would be by the defeat of Sennacherib. The time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror of His name, and the report of His power throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army.”—Barnes, on Isaiah 37:2].

11. On Isaiah 37:15. “Fides Ezechiae verba confirmata magis ac magis crescit. Ante non ausus est orare, jam orat et confutat blasphemias omnes Assyrii. Adeo magna vis verbi Esther, ut longe alius per verbum, quod Jesajas ei nunciari jussit, factus sit.”—Luther.

12. On [“It is bad to talk proudly and profanely, but it is worse to write Song of Solomon, for this argues more deliberation and design, and what is written spreads further and lasts longer, and does the more mischief. Atheism and irreligion, written, will certainly be reckoned for another day.”—M. Henry].

13. On Isaiah 37:21 sqq. [“Those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah’s prayer in God’s name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: ‘Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard.’ Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly to that of chap10), and bid him pick out an answer from thence. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God’s side.”—M. Henry.].

14. On Isaiah 37:31 sqq. “This is a promise of great extent. For it applies not only to those that then remained, and were spared the impending destruction and captivity by the Assyrians, but to all subsequent times, when they should enjoy a deliverance; as after the Babylonish captivity, and after the persecutions of Antiochus. Yea, it applies even to New Testament times from the first to the last, since therein, in the order of conversion to Christ, the Jews will take root and bring forth fruit, and thus in the Jews (as also in the converted Gentiles) will appear in a spiritual and corporal sense, what God at that time did to their fields in the three following years.”—Starke.

15. On Isaiah 38:1. “ is, although of a noble race and condition, does not for that regard it disgraceful, but rather an honor, to be a pastor and visitor of the sick, I would say, a prophet, teacher and comforter of the sick. God save the mark! How has the world become so different in our day, especially in our evangelical church Let a family be a little noble, and it is regarded as a reproach and injury to have a clergyman among its relations and friends, not to speak of a son studying theology and becoming a servant of the church. I speak not of all; I know that some have a better mind; yet such is the common course. Jeroboam’s maxim must rather obtain, who made priests of the lowest of the people ( 1 Kings 12:31). For thus the parsons may be firmly held in rein (sub ferula) and in political submission. It is not at all good where the clergy have a say, says an old state-rule of our Politicorum.” Feuerlein, pastor in Nuremberg, in his Novissimorum primum, 1694, p553. The same quotes Spener: “Is it not Song of Solomon, that among the Roman Catholics the greatest lords are not ashamed to stand in the spiritual office, and that many of them even discharge the spiritual functions? Among the Reformed, too, persons born of the noblest families are not ashamed of the office of preacher. But, it seems, we Lutherans are the only ones that hold the service of the gospel so low, that, where from a noble or otherwise prominent family an ingenium has an inclination to theological study, almost every one seeks to hinder him, or, indeed, afterwards is ashamed of his friendship, as if it were something much too base for such people, by which more harm comes to our church than one might suppose. That is to be ashamed of the gospel.”

16. On [“We see here the boldness and fidelity of a man of God. Isaiah was not afraid to go in freely and tell even a monarch that he must die. The subsequent part of the narrative would lead us to suppose that, until this announcement, Hezekiah did not regard himself as in immediate danger. It is evident here, that the physician of Hezekiah had not informed him of it—perhaps from the apprehension that his disease would be aggravated by the agitation of his mind on the subject. The duty was, therefore, left, as it is often, to the minister of religion—a duty which even many ministers are slow to perform, and which many physicians are reluctant to have performed.

No danger is to be apprehended commonly from announcing to those who are sick their true condition. Physicians and friends often err in this. There is no species of cruelty greater than to suffer a friend to lie on a dying bed under a delusion. There is no sin more aggravated than that of designedly deceiving a dying man, and flattering him with the hope of recovery, when there is a moral certainty that he will not and cannot recover. And there is evidently no danger to be apprehended from communicating to the sick their true condition. It should be done tenderly and with affection; but it should be done faithfully. I have had many opportunities of witnessing the effect of apprising the sick of their situation, and of the moral certainty that they must die. And I cannot now recall an instance in which the announcement has had any unhappy effect on the disease. Often, on the contrary, the effect is to calm the mind, and to lead the dying to look up to God, and peacefully to repose on Him. And the effect of that is always salutary.” Barnes in loc.]

17. On Isaiah 38:2. It is an old opinion, found even in the Chald, that by the wall is meant the wall of the temple as a holy direction in which to pray, as the Mahometans pray in the direction of Mecca. But הקיר cannot mean that. Rather that is correct which is said by Forerius: “Nolunt pii homines testes habere suarum lacrymarum, ut eas liberius fundant, neque sensu distrahi, cum orare Deum ex animo volunt.”

18. On Isa 38:8 :—

Non Deus est numen Parcarum carcere clausum.

Quale putabatur Stoicus esse Deus.

Ille potest Solis cursus inhibere volantes,

At veluti scopulos flumina stare facit.”

—Melanchthon.

19. On Isaiah 38:12. “Beautiful parables that picture to us the transitoriness of this temporal life. For the parable of the shepherd’s tent means how restless a thing it is with us, that we have here no abiding place, but are driven from one locality to another, until at last we find a resting-spot in the church-yard. The other parable of the weaver’s thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks.” Cramer. “When the weaver’s work is progressing best, the thread breaks before he is aware. Thus when a man is in his best work, and supposes he now at last begins really to live, God breaks the thread of his life and lets him die. The rational heathen knew something of this when they, so to speak, invented the three goddesses of life (the three Parcas minime parcas) and included them in this little verse:

Clotho colum gestat, Lachesis trahit,

Atropos occat

But what does the weaver when the thread breaks? Does he stop his work at once? O no! He knows how to make a clever weaver’s knot, so that one cannot observe the break. Remember thereby that when thy life is broken off, yet the Lord Jesus, as a master artisan, can bring it together again at the last day. He will make such an artful, subtle weaver’s-knot as shall make us wonder through all eternity. It will do us no harm to have died.” Ibid.—Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.

[“As suddenly as the tent of a shepherd is taken down, folded up, and transferred to another place. There is doubtless the idea here that he would continue to exist, but in another place, as the shepherd would pitch his tent in another place. He was to be cut off from the earth, but he expected to dwell among the dead. The whole passage conveys the idea that he expected to dwell in another state.” Barnes in loc.].

20. On [“Note1) When God pardons sin, He casts it behind His back as not designing to look upon it with an eye of justice and jealousy. He remembers it no more, to visit for it. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. When we cast our sins behind our back, and take no care to repent of them, God sets them before His face, and is ready to reckon for them; but when we set them before our face in true repentance, as David did when his sin was ever before him, God casts them behind His back2) When God pardons sin, He pardons all, casts them all behind His back, though they have been as scarlet and crimson3) The pardoning of sin is the delivering the soul from the pit of corruption4) It is pleasant indeed to think of our recoveries from sickness when we see them flowing from the remission of sin; then the cause is removed, and then it is in love to the soul.” M. Henry in loc.]

21. On [Cannot hope for thy truth. “They are shut out from all the means by which Thy truth is brought to mind, and the offers of salvation are presented. Their probation is at an end; their privileges are closed; their destiny is sealed up. The idea is, it is a privilege to live because this is a world where the offers of salvation are made, and where those who are conscious of guilt may hope in the mercy of God.” Barnes in loc.] God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance ( 2 Peter 3:9). Such is the New Testament sense of these Old Testament words. For though Hezekiah has primarily in mind the preferableness of life in the earthly body to the life in Hades, yet this whole manner of representation passes away with Hades itself. But Hezekiah’s words still remain true so far as they apply to heaven and hell. For of course in hell, the place of the damned, one does not praise God. But those that live praise Him. These, however, are in heaven. Since then God wills rather that men praise Him than not praise Him, so He is not willing that men should perish, but that all should turn to repentance and live.

22. On Isaiah 39:2. “Primo (Deus) per obsidionem et bellum, deinde per gravem morbum Ezechiam servaverat, ne in praesumtionem laberetur. Nondum tamen vinci potuit antiquus serpens, sed redit et levat caput suum. Adeo non possumus consistere, nisi Deos nos affligat. Vides igitur hic, quis sit afflictionum usus, ut mortificent scilicet carnem, quae non potest res ferre secundas.” Luther.

23. On Isaiah 39:7. “God also punishes the misdeeds of the parents on the children ( Exodus 20:5) because the children not only follow the misdeeds of their parents, but they also increase and heap them up, as is seen in the posterity of Hezekiah, viz.: Manasseh and Amon.”—Cramer.

HOMILETICAL HINTS

[The reader is referred to the ample hints covering the same matter to be found in the volume on 2 Kings18-20. It is expedient to take advantage of that for the sake of keeping the present volume within reasonable bounds. Therefore but a minimum is here given of what the Author offers, much of which indeed is but the repetition in another form of matter already given.—Tr.]

1. On Isaiah 37:36. “1) The scorn and mockery of the visible world2) The scorn and mockery of the unseen world.” Sermon of Domprediger Zahn in Halle, 1870.

2. On the entire38. chapter, beside the 22 sermons in FEUERLEIN’S Novissimorum primum, there is a great number of homiletical elaborations of an early date; Walther Magirus, Idea mortis et vitae in two parts, the second of which contains20 penitential and consolatory sermons on Isaiah 38. Danzig, 1640,1642. Daniel Schaller (Stendal) 4sermons on the sick Hezekiah, on Isaiah 38. Magdeburg, 1611. Peter Siegmund Pape in “Gott geheilighte Wochenpredigten,” Berlin, 1701, 4sermons. Jacob Tichlerus (Elburg) Hiskiae Aufrichtigkeit bewiesen in Gesundheit, Krankheit und Genesung, 18 sermons on Isaiah 38. (Dutch), Campen, 1636. These are only the principal ones.

3. On Isaiah 38:1. “I will set my house in order. This, indeed, will not be hard for me to do. My debt account is crossed out; my best possession I take along with me; my children I commit to the great Father of orphans, to whom heaven and earth belongs, and my soul to the Lord, who has sued for it longer than a human age, and bought it with His blood. Thus I am eased and ready for the journey.” Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, p620.

4. On Isaiah 38:1. “Now thou shouldest know that our word ‘order his house’ has a very broad meaning. It comprehends reconciliation to God by faith, the final confession of sin, the last Lord’s Supper, the humble committing of the soul to the grace of the Lord, and to death and the grave in the hope of the resurrection. In one word: There is an ordering of the house above. In reliance on the precious merit of my Saviour, I order my house above in which I wish to dwell. Moreover taking leave of loved ones, and the blessing of them belongs to ordering the house. And finally order must be taken concerning the guardianship of children, the abiding of the widow, and the friend on whom she must especially lean in her loneliness, also concerning earthly bequests.” Ahlfeld, Das Leben im Lichte des Wortes Gottes, Halle, 1867, p522.

5. On Isaiah 38:2-8. This account has much that seems strange to us Christians, but much, too, that quite corresponds to our Christian consciousness. Let us contemplate the difference between an Old Testament, and a New Testament suppliant, by noticing the differences and the resemblances. I. The resemblances1) Distress and grief there are in the Old, as in the New Testament ( Isaiah 38:3). 2) Ready and willing to help beyond our prayers or comprehension ( Isaiah 38:5-6) is the Lord in the Old as in the New Testament. II. The differences1) The Old Testament suppliant appealed to his having done nothing bad ( Isaiah 38:3). The New Testament suppliant says: “God be merciful to me a sinner,” and “Give me through grace for Christ’s sake what it pleases Thee to give me.” 2) The Old Testament suppliant demands a sign ( Isaiah 38:7-8; comp. Isaiah 38:22); the New Testament suppliant requires no sign but that of the crucified Son of man, for He knows that to those who bear this sign is given the promise of the hearing of all their prayers ( John 16:23). 3) In Hezekiah’s case, the prayer of the Old Testament suppliant is indeed heard ( Isaiah 38:5), yet in general it has not the certainty of being heard, whereas the New Testament suppliant has this certainty.

Footnotes