Notes on the Old and New Testaments

Thi3 chapter commences the historical portion of Isaiah, which continues to the close: f tie txxixth chapter. The main suliject is the destruction of Sennacherib and his army. It contai:u also an account of the sickness and recovery of Hezekiah; the song with which he celebrated his recovery; and an account of his ostentation in showing his treasures to the ambassadors of the king of Be nylon. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, the following record occurs. " Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and his goodness, behold they are wr",£n in the vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz;" and it is to tluS portion ot Isaiah to which the author or'the Book of Chronicles doubtless refers.

There was an obvious propriety in Isaiah's making a record of the invasion and destruction of Sennacherib. That event has occupied a considerable portion of his prophetic announcements; *nd as he lived to see them fulfilled, it was proper that he should record the event. The prophecj and its fulfilment can thus be compared together; and while there is t lie strongest internal testimony that the prophecy was uttered beibre the event, there is also the most striking and clear fulfilment of all the predictions on the subject.

A parallel history of these transactions occurs in 2 Kings xvii. — xx.; and in 2 Chron. xxxii. The history in Chronicles, though it contains an account of the same transaction, i3 evidently by another hand, as it bears no further resemblance to this than that it contains an account of the same transactions. But between the account here and in 2 Kings, there is a most striking resemidance, so much so as to show that they were mainly by the suae hand. It has been made a matter of inquiry whether Isaiah was the original author, or whether he copied a history which he found in the book of Kings, or whether both he and the author of the book of Kings copied from some original document which is now lost, or whether the collectors of the prophetic writings after the return from the captivity at Babylon, judging that such a history would appropriately explain the prophecies of Isaiah, copied the account, from some historical record, and inserted it among his prophecies. This last is the opinion of llcsenmuller— an opinion which evidently lacks all historical evidence, and indeed all probability. The most obvious and fair supposition undoubtedly is, that this history was inserted here by Isaiah, or that he made this record according to the statement in 2 Chron, xxxii. 32. — Gesenius also accords substantially with Rosenmuller in supposing that this history is an elaboration of that in the book of Kings, and that it was reduced to its present form by some one who collected and edited the Bocks of Isaiah after the Babylonish captivity. Vitringa supposes that both the accounts in Kings and in Isaiah have been derived from a common historical document, and have been adopted and some what L>ridged or modified by the author of the Book of Kings and by Isaiah.

It is impo-sible now to determine the truth in regard to this subject; nor is it of much importance. Those who are desirous ofseeing the subject discussed more at length may consult Vitringa, Rosenmuller, and Gesenius. The view of Gesenius is chiefly valuable because he has gone into a comparison ofthe account in Isaiah with that in Kings, The following remarks are all that occur to me is desirable to make, and express the conclusion which I have been able to form on the subject.

(1.) The two accounts have a common origin, or are substantially the production of the same hand. This is apparent on the face of them. The same course of the narrative is pursued, tho sa'ne expressions occur, and the same style of composition is lound. It is possible, indeed, that the I!o!y Spirit might have inspired two different, authors to adopt the same style and expressions in recording the same events, but this is not the mode elsewhere observed in the Scriptures. Every.sacred wriicr is allowed to pursue his own method of narration, and to express himself in a style and maimer of his own.

(2.) There is no cvidc.net. that the two accounts were abridged from a more full narrative. Such a thing is possib'e; nor is there anv impropriety in the supposition. But it lacks historical sup; ort. That there were, histories among the Jews which are now lost; that, there were public records wi icli were the fountains whence the authors ofthe histories which we now have drew their information, no one c;in doubt who reads the Old Testament, Thus we have accounts ofthe writings of Gad, and Mdo the seer, an 1 Nathan, and the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and ofthe Book of Jehu the prophet (2 Cnron. i.x. 2i, xx. 34. 1 Kings xvi. I), all of which are now lost except so far as they are incorporated in the historical and prophetical books of the Old Testament. It is pos&ib'e, therefore, tnat these accounts may have been abridged from some such common record, but there is no historical testimony to the fact.

(S.) There is no evidence 'hat these chapters in Isaiah were inserted by Ezra, or the other inspired men who collected the sacred writings, and published a recension, or an odition id' them after the return from B.v' y!on. That there was such a work performed by Ezra and his contemporaries is the testimony of «L.# the Jewish historians. See Dr. Alexander on the canon of Scripture. But there is no historical evidence that they thus introduced into the writings of Isaiah an entire historical narrative from the previous histories, or that they composed this history to be inserted h ire. It is done no where else. And had it been done on this occasion, we should have had reason to expect that they would have inserted historical records ofthe fulfilment of all the other prophecies which had been uliilled. We should have looked, therefore, for historical statement; of the downfall of Damascus and Syria; of the destruction of Samaria, of Moab, of Babylon, and of Tyre, as proofs of the fulfiimcn' of the predictions of Isaiah. There can be no reason why the account of the destruction of Sen nacherib should have been singled out and inserled in preference to others. And this is especial'] true in regard to Babylon. The prophecy of Isaiah (ch. xiii. xiv.) had been most striking, and clea j the fulfilment had also been most remarkable; Ezra and his contemporaries must have felt a much deeper interest in that than in the destruction of Sennacherib; and it is unaccountable, therefore, if they inserted this narrative respecting Sennacherib, that they did not give us a /nil account also of the overthrow of Babylon and of their deliverance, as showing the fulfilment of the prophecies on that subject.

(4) The author of the Books of Kings is unknown. There is reason to believe that these looks, as well as the Books of Chronicles, and some other of the historical books of the O.d Testament were written by the prophets; or at least compiled and arranged by some inspired man from historical sketches that were made by the prophets. To such sketches or narratives we. find frequent reference in the books themselves. Thus Nathan the prophet, and Ahijah the Shilonite, and lddo tha seer, recorded the acts of Solomon (2 Chron. ix. 29): thus the same lddo the seer and Sheniaiah the prophet recorded the acts of Kehoboam (2 Chron. xii. 15); thus the acts of Jehoshaphatwere written in the Book of Jehu (2 Chron. xx. 31); and thus Isaiah wrote the acts of king Uzziah (2 Chion. xxvi. 22), and also of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). Many of these historical sketches or fragments hav3 not come down to us; but all that was essential to us has been doubtless incorporated into the sacred narrative and transmitted to our own times. It is not improbable that many of these histories were mere fragments or public documents; narratives or sketches of a single reign, or some important fact in a reign, which were subsequently revised and inserted in the more extended history, so that, alter all, it may be that we have all, or nearly all of those fragments incorporated in the histories which we now possess.

(5.) As Isaiah is thus known to have written some portions of the history of the kings, it is probable that his history would be incorporated into the record of the kings by whomsoever that record might be composed. Indeed, the composition of the entire books of Kings has been ascribed by many writers to Isaiah, though GrOfius and some others ascribe it to Jeremiah. The general, and the probable opinion is. however, that the books of Kings were digested into their present form by Tzra. It is probable therefore. 1 think, that Isaiah wrote tho chapters in Kings respecting the invasion of Sennacherib; that trie compiler of the Books of Kings, whoever he might be, adopted the fragment as a par! or'h:s history, and that the portion which we have here in Isaiah is the same fragment revised, abridged in some places, and enlarged in others, lo adapt it to his purpose in introducing it into hi.; hook ot prophecy. Hut it is admitted that this is conjecture. Every consideration, however, must lead us to suppose that this is the work of Isaiah. Ccmp. the Intro. §5.

The portion of history contained in these chapters differs from the record in the Kinrs in several respects. There is no difference in regard to the historical facts, but the difference has respect to the fulness of the narratives, and to the change of a few words. The most material difference is that a few.-entiMUH s, and members of sentences, arc omitted in Isaiah which are found in Kings. These variations will be noticed in the exposition, and it is not necessary more particularly to reter lo them here.

The xxxvith chapter contains flic following parts, or subjects, (i.) Sennacherib, having taken most of the strong holds of Judea. sent Rabshakeh with a great force to besiege Jerusalem, and to summon it to surrender, vs. l, 2. (ii.) Hezekiah sent an embassy to meet with Rabshakeh, evidently to induce him to depart from the city, ver. 3. (iii.) This embassy Babshakeh addressed in a proud, insolent and taunting speech, reproaching them with putting their trust in Egypt, and with their feebleness, and assuring them that Sennacherib had come up against the city at the command of JEHOVAH, vs. 4—10. (iv.) The Jewish embassy requested Rabshakeh to speak in the Aramean or Syrian language, that the common people on the wall might not hear, ver. 11. (v.) To this, he replied that he came that they might hear; to endeavour to draw them off from trusting to Hes-e kiah, and to induce them to submit to Sennacherib, promising them abundance in the land to which he would take them, vs. 12—20. (vi.) To all this, the embassy of Hezekiah said nothing, but returned as they had been instructed into the city, with deep expressions of sorrow and grief, vs. SI, 22.

"VTOW cit came to pass in the J_^l fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king

1. In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. Of his reign, B. C. 709. IT That Sennacherib. Sennacherib was son and successor of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and began to reign A. M. 3290, or 714 before Christ, and reigned according to Calmet but four years, according to Prideaux eight years, and according to Gesenius eighteen years. The immediate occasion of this war against Judah was the fact that Hezekiah had shaken off the yoke of Assyria, by which his father Ahaz and the ration aad suffered so much uider Tiglath

of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them.

Pileser, or Shalmaneser. 2 Kings xviii. 7. To reduce Judea again to subjection, as well as to carry his conquests into Egypt, appears to have been the design of this celebrated expedition. He ravaged the country, took the strong towns and fortresses, and prepared then tc lay siege to Jerusalem itself. Hezekiah, how - ever, as soon as the army of Seraacherib had entered Judea, prepared to put Jerusalem into a state- of complete defence. At the advice of his counsellors he stopped the waters that flowed in the neighbourhood of the city, and that migh'

2 And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to

furnish refreshment to a besieging army; built up the broken walls; inclosed one of the fountains within a wall, and prepared shields and darts in abundance to reptl the invader. 2 Chron. xxxii. 2-5. Sennacherib, seeing that all hope of easily taking Jerusalem was taken away, apparently became inclined to hearken to terms of accommodation. Hezekiah sent to him to propose peace, and to ask the conditions on which he would withdraw his forces. He confessed his error in not paying the tribute stipulated by his father, and his willingness to pay now what should be demanded by Sennacherib. Sennacherib demanded three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold. This was paid by Hezekiah, by exhausting the treasury, and by stripping even the temple of its gold. 2 Kings xviii. 13-16. It was evidently understood in this treaty that Sennacherib was to withdraw his forces, and return to his own land. But this treaty he ultimately disregarded. See Note ch. xxxiii. 8. He seems, however, to have granted Hezekiah some respite, and to have delayed his attack on Jerusalem until his return from Egypt. This war with Egypt he prosecuted at first with great success, and with a fair prospect of the conquest of that country. But having laid siege to Pelusium, and having spent much time before it without success, he was compelled at length to raise the siege, and to retreat. Tirhakah king of Ethiopia having come to the aid of Sevcchus, the reigning monarch of Egypt, and advancing to the relief of Pelusium, Sennacherib was compelled to raise the siege, and retreated to Judea. Here, having taken Lachish, and disregarding his compact with Hezekiah, he sent an army to Jerusalem under Rabshakeh to lay siege to the city. This is the point in the history of Sennacherib to which the pnssnge before us refers. See Pridcaux' Connection, vol. i. p. 138-141, Josephus Ant. B. x. ch. i. Gesenius in loco, and Robinson's Calmet. IT All the defenced Hiics. All the towns on the way to

Jerusalem, unto king Hezekiah, with a great army: and he stood

Egypt, and in the vicinity of Jerusalem. See Notes on ch. x. 28-32.

2. And the king of Assyria, sem Rabshakeh. In 2 Kings xviii. 17, it is said that he sent Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh. In regard to Tartan, sec Note ch. xx. 1. It is probable that Rabshakeh only is mentioned in Isaiah because the expedition may have been mainly under his direction, or more probably because he was the principal speaker on the occasion to which he refers. IF From Lachish. This was a city in the south of the tribe of Judah, and was south-west of Jerusalem. Josh. x. 23, xv. 39. It was situated in a plain, and was the seat of an ancient Canaanitish king. It was rebuilt and fortified by Rehoboam, 2 Chron. xi. 9. It was in some respects a border town, and was a defence against the incursions of the Philistines. It was therefore situated between Jerusalem and Egypt, and was in the direct way of Sennacherib in his going to Egypt, and on his return. It lay, according to Eusebius and Jerome, seven Roman miles from Eleutheropolis towards the south. No trace of the town, however, is now to be found. See Robinson's Biblical Researches, ii. pp. 388, 389. IT With a great army. Sennacherib remained himself for a time at Lachish, though he followed not long after. It is probable that he sent forward a considerable portion of his immense army, retaining only so many forces as he judged would be necessary to carry on the siege of Lachish. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 9, it is said that Sennacherib while he sent his servants to Jerusalem, " laid siege to Lachish and all his power with him;" but this must mean that he retained with him a considerable part of his army, and doubtless all that contributed to his magnificence and splendour. The word " power" in 2 Chron. xxxii. 9, means also "dominion" (see the margin), and denotes all the insignia of royalty; and this might have been retained while a considerable part of his forces had been sent forward to Jenua*

by the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller's field.

'3 Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the 'scribe, and Joah, Asaph's Ron, the recorder.

4 And Rabshakeh said unto them, Say ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What confi-

lem. ^ And he stood. lie halted; he encamped there; he intended to make that the point of attack. IT By the conduit, &,c. See Notes on ch. vii. 3.

3. Then came forth unto him. Isaiah has here omitted what is recorded in 2 Kings xviii. 18, that Rabshakeh and his companions " called to the king," and as the result of that probably Hezekiah Bent out Eliakim. IT Eliakim, Ililkiah*s son, which was over the house. Respecting Eliakim, and his character, see Notes on ch. xxii. 20-25. IF And Shebna the scribe. This may have been some other man than the one mentioned in ch. xxii. 15. He is there Baid to have been " over the house," and it is stated that he should be degraded from that ofiice and succeeded by Eliakim. It is possible however that Hezekiah retained him as scribe, or as secretary. See the analysis of ch. xxii. 15-25. *5T And Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder. The chronicler; the officer to whom was intrusted the keeping of the records of state. The Hebrew word means the remembrancer; him by whose means former events might be recalled and remembered, perhaps an officer such as would be called historiographer.

4. What confidence. What is the ground of ycur confidence, on what do you trust I The appellation " great king" was the customary title of lljn kings of the Persians and Assyrians

5 I say, sayest thou (but thei} are but vain * words,) SI have counsel and strength for war? now, on whom dost thou trust, that thou rcbellest against me?

6 Lo, thou trustest in the stafi of this broken reed, on Egypt; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him.

thus many MSS. read it here, and Lowth and Noyes have adopted that reading. So the Syria c reads it. But the sense is not affected whichever reading is adopted. It is designed to show to Hezekiah that hi3 reliance, either on his own resources or on Egypt, was vain. 1T But they are but vain words. Marg. as in the Hebrew, " a word of lips;" that is, mere words; vain and empty boasting. IT On whom dost thou trust, that thou rcbellest against me? Hezekiah had revolted from the Assyrian power, «nd had refused to pay the tribute which had been imposed on the Jews in the time of Ahaz. 2 Kings xviii. 7.

6. Lo, thou trustest. It is possible that Sennacherib might have been apprised of the attempt which had been made by the Jews to secure the cooperation of Egypt (see Notes on ch. xxx. 1-7, xxxi. 1, seq.), though he might not have been aware that the negotiation was unsuccessful. IT In the staff of this broken reed. The same comparison of Egypt with a broken reed, or a reed which broke while they were trusting to it, occurs in Ezek. xxix. 6, 7. Heeds were doubtless used often for staves as they are now. They are light, and hollow, with long joints. Thrt idea here is, that as a slender reed would break when a man leaned on it, and would pierce his hand, so it would ba with Egypt. Their reliance would giva way, and their trusting to Egypt would be attended with injury to themsel-vesi Comp. ch. xxx. 5, 7, xxxi. 3.

7 But if thou say to me, We trust in the Lord our God: is it not he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away,a and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?

7. But if thou say to me. If you shall make this plea, that you believe Jehovah will protect you in your revolt. The word a thou " here refers to Hezekiah, or, to the ambassadors speaking in his name. In 2 Kings xviii. 22, it is, " but if ye say unto me;" that is, you ambassadors. The sense is substantially the same. IT Is it not ke, &c. This is given as a reason why they should net put their confidence in Jehovah. The reason is, that he supposed that Hezekiah had removed all the altars of Jehovah from all parts of the land, and that they could not calculate on the protection of a God whose worship had been abolished. It is probable that Sennacherib and Rabshakeh had heard of the reformation which had been effected by Hezekiah; of his destroying the groves and altars which had been consecrated in the reign of his father to idolatry, and perhaps of the fact that he had even destroyed the brazen serpent which Moses had made and which had become an object of idolatrous worship (2 Kings xviii. 4), and he may have supposed that all these altars and groves had been devoted to Jehovah, and were connected with his worship. He did not seem to understand that all that Hezekiah had done was only to establish the worship of Jehovah in the land. f High places. The worship of idols was usually performed in groves on high Dlaces; or on the tops of hills and mountains. It seems to have been supposed that worship in such places was more acceptable to the Deity. Perhaps it may have been because they thus seemed nearer the residence of the gods; or perhaps, because there is sublimity and Bolemnity in such places — a stillness and elevation above the world which seem favourable to devotion. See 1 Sam. ix. 12. 1 Chron. xiii. 29. 1 Kings iii. 4. 2

8. Now therefore, give 'pledg es, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand dhorses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.

Kings xii. 2. Chapels, temples, and altars were erected on such places (1 Kings xiii. 22. 2 Kings xvii. 29), and ministers and priests attended there to officiate. 1 Kings xii. 32. 2 Kings xvii. 32. Even the kings of Judah, notwithstanding the expitss prohibition of Moses (Deut. xii.), were engaged in such acts of worship (2 Kings xii. 4, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35. 2 Chron. xx. 33. xv. 17); and Solomon himself sacrificed in chapels of this kind. 1 Kings iii. 2. These places Hezekiah had destroyed; that is, he had cut down the consecrated groves, and had destroyed the chapels and temples which had been erected there. The fact that Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, had been distinguished for worshipping in such places had probably led the king of Assyria to suppose that this was the proper worship of the God of the Jews; and now that Hezekiah had destroyed them all, he seems to have inferred that he was guilty of gross irreligion, and could no longer depend on the protection of Jehovah. H And said to Judah and Jerusalem. He had commanded them to worship only in Jerusalem, at the temple. This was in strict accordance with the law of Mojips but this seems to have been understood by Sennacherib as in fact almost or rpite banishing the worship of Jehovah from the land. Probably this was said to alien ate the minds of the people from Hezekiah by showing them that he had tak- J en away their rights and privileges of worshipping God where they chose.

8. Now, therefore, give \ilcdge$. Marg. hostages. The Hebrew verb (2^5) means properly to mix or mingle; then to exchange commodities by barter or traffic, then to become surety for any one, to exchange with him, to stand in his place; then to pledge, tc

9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of mv master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt* for chariots and for horsemen?

pledge one's life, or to give security of any kind. Here it is used in a spirit of taunting or derision, and is equivalent to what would be said among us, ' I will bet you, or I will lay a wager, that if we should give you only two thousand horses, ycu could not find men enough to ride them, or men that had knowledge of horsemanship enough to guide them.' There was much severity in this taunt. The Jews hoped to defend themselves. Yet here was an immense army coming up to lay siege against them. What hope had they of defence 1 So weak and feeble were they, that Rabshakeh said they could not furnish even two thousand horsemen to resist all the host of the Assyrians. There was also doubtless much truth in this taunt. It was not permitted by the law of Moses for the Jews to keep cavalry, nor for their kings to mullinly horses. The reason of this may be seen in the Notes on ch. ii. 7. Though some of the kings, and especially Solomon had disregarded this law of Moses, yet Hezekiah had endeavoured to restore the observance of the law, and it is probable that he had no cavalry, and that the art of horsemanship was little known in Jerusalem. As the Assyrians prided themselves on their cavalry, they consequently looked with contempt on a people who were destitute of this means of defence.

9. How then wilt thou turn away the face. The most unimportant captain in the army of Assyria commands more horsemen than this, and how can you expect to oppose even him, much more how can you be able to resist all the mighty army of the Assyrian? H One captain of the least. The word "captain" here, rns. construct state from J"*^?, denotes a prefect or governor of a province less than a satrap, in officer who was under the satrap

10 And am 1 Jtow come up without the Lord against this land to destioy it? The Lord fsaid unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.

and subject to him. It is applied to an officer in the Assyrian empire (2 Kings xviii. 24); in the Chaldean empire (Jer, li. 23); the Persian (Esth. viii. 9, ix. 3); and to the prefects of Judea in the time of Solomon, 1 Kings x. 15. The word is of foreign origin.

10. And am I note come vp icithout the Lord. Am I come up without his permission or command? Rabshakeh here speaks in the name of his master; and he means to say that he had the express command of Jehovah to inflict punishment on the Jews. It is possible that there had been conveyed to Sennacherib a rumour of what Isaiah had said (see ch. x. 5, 6,) that God woula bring the Assyrians upon the Jewish people to punish them for their sins, and that Rabshakeh now pleads that as his authority, in order to show them that resistance would be vain. Or it may be that he uses the name Jehovah here as synonymous with the name of God, and means to say that he had been divinely directed to come up in that expedition. All the ancient warriors usually consulted the gods and endeavoured by auguries to obtain the divine approbation of their plans of conquest, and Rabshakeh may mean simply to say that his master came now under the divine sanction and direction. Or (which is more probable) he mado use of this as a mere pretence for the purpose of influencing the people who heard him, and to whom he said he was sent (ver. 12), in order to alienate their minds from Hezekiah, and to induce them to surrender. He knew that it was one of the principles of the Jews, however little they regarded it in practice, to yield to his authority. Wicked men will be glad to plead divine authority for their purposes and plana when they can have the subtest pretence for it.

11 Then said Eliakim, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

11. Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language. Heb. tTO^jjj, Aramean. Aram, or Aramea, properly meaning a high region, or the highlands, was of wider extent than Syria proper, and comprehended not only Syria, but Mesopotamia. It usually denotes however Syria proper, of which the capital was Damascus. The language of all this country was probably the same — the Syrian or Aramean, a language of the same family as the Hebrew, and having a strong resemblance to that and to the Chaldee. This was not properly the language of Assyria, where probably a dialect composed of the language of the Medes and Persians was employed. Bat the Syriac language was spoken in different parts of Assyria. It was spoken in Mesopotamia, and doubtless in some of the provinces of the Assyrian empire, and might be presumed to be understood by Rabshakeh, and those with him. The Jews had intercourse with the Syrians, and those who had been sent out by Hezekiah had learned to speak that. It is not probable that they understood the Medio-Persian tongue that was spoken by the Assyrians usually. The Syriac or Aramean was probably the most common language which was spoken in that region. Its knowledge prevailed in the time of the Saviour, and was that which he usually spoke.

IT In the Jems' language, iyW*. The language of Judah. It is remarkable that they did not call it the Hebrew language. But there might have been some national pride in regard to this. The Hebrew language had been the common language of all the Jews, and had been spoken by those of the king- •ol. II. — 1*

12 But Rabshakeh said, IlatK romy master sent me to thy mas. ter and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung and drink their own piss with you?

dom of Israel or Samaria, as well as by those of the kingdom of Judah. But after the revolt of the ten tribes it is possible that they might have claimed the language as their own and regarded the Hebrew — the venerable language of their fathers — as belonging to them peculiarly as they claimed every thing that was sacred or venerable in the nation, and hence they spoke of it as the language of Judah. The name of Judah or Jews, which i3 derived from Judah, was after the removal of the ten tribes given to the entire nation; a name which is retained to the present time. In Isa. xix. 18, it is called the language of Canaan See Note on that place.? In the cars of the people that are on the wall. Thia conference took place evidently near the city, and within hearing distance. Doubtless the people of the city, feeling a curiosity to hear the message of the Assyrian, crowded the walls. The Jewish ambassadors were apprehensive that what was said by Rabshakeh would alienate their minds from Hezekiah, and requested that the conference might be conducted in a language which they could not understand.

12. Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee. To Hezekiah, and to you alone. A part of my purpose ia to address the people, to induce them to leave Hezekiah, and to offer no resistance to the Assyrian. 1T To the men that sit on the wall, &c. The meaning of this is, that the inhabitants of the city, if they do not surrender, will be subjected to the severest evils of famine. If they did not surrender, it was the j purpose of the Assyrian to lay siege to the city, and to reduce it. Bat it was often the work of years to reduce and | take a city. Nebuchadnezzar speut

13 Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with "a loud voice in the Jews' language, and said, Hear

thirteen years before Tyre, and the Greeks employed ten in reducing ancient Troy. The sense here is, therefore, that unless the people could be induced to surrender to Sennacherib, they would be subjected to all the horrors of a siege, when they would be reduced to the most deplorable state of necessity and want. The idea in the whole verse is clearly expressed in the parallel place in 2 Chron. xxxii. 11: " Doth not Hezekiah persuade you to give over yourselves to die by famine and by thirst, saying the Lord our God sliall deliver us out of the hand of the king of Assyria V — In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe (1,) that the Masorites in the Hebrew text have so pointed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided. It is common in the Hebrew Scriptures, when a word is used in the text that is indelicate, to place another word in the margin, and the vowel points that belong to the word in the margin are applied to the word in the text, and the word in the margin is thus commonly read. In accordance with this custom among the Jews, it is evident that more delicacy might have been observed by our translators in this, and in some other places of the Scriptures. (2.) 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 another. Many things are esteemed indelicate among us which are not so in polite and refined France; many expressions are so regarded now which were not in the time when the Bible was translated into Eng.ish. Many things may be to U3 offensive which were not so to the Syrians, the Babylonians, and the Jews; and many modes of expression which are common now, and consistent with all our notions of refinement, may appear improper in some other period of bt world. There are many things in

Shakspeare, and in most of the old English writers, which cannot now be read without a blush. Yet need I say that those expressions will be heard with unconcern in the theatre by those whose delicacy is most offended by some expression in the Bible 1 There are things infinitely more offensive to delicacy in Byron, and Moore, and even Burns, than there are in the Scriptures; and yet are these not read without a murmur by those who make the loudest complaints of the slightest departure from delicacy in the Bible? (3.) There is another remark to be made in regard to this. Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian. He did not say it; nor is he responsible for it. If there is indelicacy in it, it is not in recording it, but in saying it; and the responsibility is on Rabshakeh. If Isaiah undertook to make a record of an important transaction, what right had he to abridge it, or contract it, or to make it different from what it was 1 (4.) And again. 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, and insolence, and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Hence, Isaiah as a faithful historian, recorded the coming of the Assyrians; the expressions of their haughtiness, insolence, and pride; their vain-boasting, and their reproaches of Jehovah; and for the same reason he has recorded the gross and indelicate language which they used to add to the trials of the Jews. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it, bear the blame.

13. Then Rabshakeh stood. Indicating the posture of a man who intend* to speak to them at a distance. IT And cried with a loud voice. So that thosti on the wall could hear. IT The icordt of the king, &c. Note ver. 4.

14 Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you; for he shall not be able to deliver you.

15 Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord, saying, The Lord will surely deliver us: this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria.

14. Let not Hezekiah deceive yGU. By inducing you to put your trust in Jehovah or in himself, or with promises that you will be delivered. IT Not be able to deliver you. In 2 Kings xviii. 29, it is added " out of his hand;" but the sense is substantially the same.

15. Make you trust in the Lord. Rabshakeh knew that Hezekiah was professedly devoted to Jehovah, and that he would endeavour to induce the people to trust in him. The Jews had now no other refuge but God, and as long as they put their confidence there, even Rabshakeh knew that it was hazardous to attempt to take and destroy their city. It was his policy, therefore, first to endeavour to undermine their reliance on God, before he could have any hope of success. — The enemies of God's people cannot succeed in their designs against them until they can unsettle their confidence in Him.

16. Hearken not to Hezekiah. Do not listen to his entreaties to confide in him, and in Jehovah; do not unite with him in endeavouring to make any resistance or opposition to us. IT Make nn agreement with me by a present. The LXX read this, Et 0ov\so6e iv\oyn- Bnvai, * If you wish to be blessed, or happy, come out to me.' The Hebrew is literally, ' Make with me a blessing,' RS^S, The idea of its being done " by a present " is not in the Hebrew text. The word ' blessing ' here probably means the same as peace. * Make peace with me,' perhaps because peace was regarded as a blessing; and perhaps the word is used with a reference

10 Hearken not to Hezekiah; for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make 5an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me; and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern;

which is to kneel down, and this word may refer to their kneeling down; that is, to their offering allegiance to the king of Assyria. The former is. however, the more probable sense, that the word means peace, because this was an evident blessing, or would be the source of rich blessings to them. It is not, however, used in this sense elsewhere in the Bible. The Chaldee renders it,

* make peace (^"J^) w^tn me-' ^ -^n^ come out to me. Surrender yourselves to me. It is evident, however, that he did not mean thai he would then remove them from their city and country, but he demanded a surrender, intending to come and remove them at some other period, ver. 17. IT And eat ye every one of his own vine. An emblem of safety, when every man might be permitted to partake of the fruit of his own labour. All that he now professed to desire was, that they should surrender the city, and give up their means of defence, and then he would leave them in security and quietness, until it should please his master to come and remove them to a land as fertile as their own. IT And drink ye every one. Another emblem of security and happiness. Thia promise was made to induce them tc surrender. On the one hand, he threat* ened them with the dreadful evils of famine if they refused and allowed their city to be besieged (ver. 12); and on the other he promised them, for a time at least, a quiet and secure residence in their own city, and then a removal to a land not inferior to their own.

away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards.

18 Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you, saying, The Lord will deliver us. 'Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?

10 Where are the gods of Hamath and Arphad? where are

by Rabshakeh. It was proposed that they should remain safely in Jerusalem until Sennacherib should himself come and remove them to his own land. He was now engaged in the siege of Lachish (ver. 2), and it ia probable that he purposed to take some other of the unsubdued towns in that part of Palestine. T And take you away. It was common for conquerors in ancient times to remove a vanquished people from their own country. They did this either by sending them forth in colonies to people some unsettled region, or by removing the body of them to the land of the conqueror. This was done for various purposes. It was sometimes to make slaves of them; sometimes for the purposes of triumph; but more commonly to secure them from revolt. In this manner the ten tribes were removed from the kingdom of Samaria; and thus also the Jews were carried to Babylon. Suetonius says (ch. xxi.) of Augustus that he removed the Suevi and the Sicambri into Gaul and stationed them on the Rhine. The same thing was also practised in Egypt for the purpose of securing the people from revolt. Gen. xlvii. 21. IT A land like your own land. A fertile land, abounding in the same productions as your own. IT And wine. Palestine was celebrated for the vine. The idea is, that in the land to which he would remove them, they should not want.

18. Hath any of tht gods of the nations, Sec. This is said to show them the impossibility, as he supposed, of being delivered from the arm of the king of Assyria. He had conquered all before the gods of Sepharvaim? ana have they delivered Samaria ov4, 6of my hand?

20 Who are they among als the gods cof these lands that have delivered their land out of my hand, that the L»rd should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand •

21 But they held their peacp and answered him not a word

him, and not even the gods of the na tions had been able to rescue the landf where they were worshipped from th$ hands of the victorious invader. He inferred, therefore, that Jehovah, tht God of Palestine, could not save theii

19. Where are the gods of Harrat'i &c. In regard to these places see Notes on ch. x. 9-11. 1T Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? Sepharvaim was probably in Mesopotamia. Ptolemy mentions a city there of the name oi Sipphara, as the most southern city oi Mesopotomia, which is probably the same. It is evident that it was in the vicinity of Hamath and Arphad, an*' these are known to have been in Mesopotamia. When Shalmancser carried Israel away captive from Samaria, he sent colonies of people into Palestine in their stead, among whom were the Sepharvaim. 2 Kings xvii. 24, 31. TT And have they delivered Samaria. Note ch. x. 11. The author of the Books of Chronicles expresses this in a more summary manner, and says that Rabshakeh joined Jehovah with the gods of the nations in the same language of reproach: " And he spake against the God of Jerusalem, as against the gods of the people of the earth, which were the work of the hands of man." 2 Chron. xxxii. 19.

21. But they held their peace. Hezekiah had commanded them not to answer. They were simply to hear what Ralehakeh had to propose, and to report to him, that he might decide on what course to pursue. It was a case also in whjeh it yvas cysry vyay propel

for the king's commandment was, saying, Answer him not.'

22 Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, that was over the

'-hat they should be silent. There was so much insolence, self-confidence, blasphemy, the proposals were so degrading, and the claims were so arrogant, that it •.vas not proper that they should enter into conference, or listen a moment to the terms proposed. Their minds also were so horror-stricken with the language of insolence and blasphemy, and their hearts so pained by the circumstances cf the city, that they would not feel like replying to him. — There are circumstances when it is proper to maintain a profound silence in the presence of revilers and blasphemers, and when we should withdraw from them, and go and spread the case before the Lord. This was done her: (ch. xxxvii. l),and

household, and Shebna t'iio scribe., and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with thei* clothes rent, and told him the words of Rabshakeh.

22. With their clothes rent. This was a common mark of grief among the Jews. See 2 Sam. iii. 21. 1 Kings xxi. 27. Jer. xxxvi. 24. Ezra ix. 3. Job i. 20, ii. 12, and Notes on Matt. xxvi. 65. Acts xiv. 14. The causes of the.: griefs were the insolence and arrogance of Rabshakeh; the proposal to surrender the city; the threatening of the siege on the one hand and of the removal on the other, and the blasphemy of the name of their God, and the reproach of the king. All these things filled their hearts with grief, and they hastened to make report to Hezekiah.

This chapter contains a continuation of the historical narrative commenced in the previous chap ter. Hezekiah went with expressions of grief to:ho temple, to spread the cause of his d.sireaa before the Lord, ver. l. He sent an embassage to Isaiah to ask his counsel in the time of the general distress, vs. 2—3. Isaiah replied that he should not be afraid of the Assyrian, tor that he should soon ba destroyed, vs. 6, 7. The return of Rabshakeh to Sennacherib, ver. 8. Sennacherib heard that Tir hakah kin;: of Ethiopia was preparing to make war upon him, and sent another embassy, with sub Etantially the same message as the former, to induce him to surrender, vs. 9—13. Hezekiah having read the letter which lie sent, went again to the temple, and spread it before the Lord, ver 14. His prayer is recorded, vs. 15— -it). Isaiah, in answer to his prayer, reproves the pride and arrogance of Sennacherib, and gives the assurance that Jerusalem fha II be safe, and that the Assyrian shall be destroyed, ve. '21— sb. The chapter closes with an account of the destruction of the army of the Assyrians, and the death of Sennacherib, vs. 36—33.

1 And 'it came to pass, when; himself with sackcloth, and went king Hezekiah heard it, that he | "into the house of the Lord. rent whis clothes, and covered; H Kings i», i. &e. mJobi.sa. nvcr.u.

1. When king Hezekiah heard it. Heard the account of the words of Rabshakeh, ch. xxxvi. 22. f That he rent his clothes. Note ch. xxxvi. 22. TT He covered himself xcith sackcloth. See Note ch. iii. 24. IT And went into the kense cj the Lord. Went up to the temple to spread out the case before Jehovah (ver. 14). This was in accordance with the usual habit of Hezekiah; and it teaches us that when we are environed with difficulties or danger, and when the name of our God is blasphemed, we should go and spread otif

I And he sent Eliakim, who was o" cr the household, and SHebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with ^sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz.

3 And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of "trouble, and of rebuke/ and of 2 blasphemy; for the children are ccme to the birth,

2. And he sent Eliakim. Note ch. xxxvi. 3. If And the elders of the priests. It was a case of deep importance, and one th»it pertained in a special manner to the interests of religion; and he, therefore, selected the most respectable embassage that he could to ^resent the case to the prophet. 1T 0> vered with sackcloth. Religion.ad been Insulted. The God whom the priests served had been blasphemed, and the very temple was threatened, and it was proper that the priests should go with the habiliments of mourning. if Unto Isaiah. It was customary on occasions of danger to consult prophets, as those who had direct communication with God, and seek counsel from them. Thus Balak sent messengers to Balaam to consult him in a time of perplexity (Num. xxii. 5 seq.); thus Jehoshaphat and the king of Israel consulted Micaiah in time of danger from Syria (1 Kings xxii. 1-13); thus Ahaziah, when sick, Bent to consult Elijah (2 Kings i. 1-9); and thus Josiah sent an embassage to Hu.dah the prophetess to inquire in regard to the book which was found in the temple of the Lord, 2 Kings xxii. 14. 3. This is a day of rebuke. This may refer either to the reproaches of Rabshakeh, or more probably to the fact that Hezekiah regarded the Loud as rebuking his people for their sins. The word which is here used,?in3^, means more properly chastisement or punishment. Ps. cxlix. 7. Hos. v. 9

4 It may be the Loud thy God will hear the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria hia master hatl sent to reproach;'the living God, and will reprove the words wnich the Loud thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy nrayer for the ^remnant that is Heft.

IT And of blasphemy. Marg. " or provocation." The word here used, ""^M, means properly reproach or contumely; and the sense is, that God and his cause had been vilified by Rabshakeh, and it was proper to appeal to him to vindicate the honour of his own name, ver. 4. If For the children are come, &,c. The meaning of this figure is plain. There was the highest danger, and need of aid. It was as in childbirth in which the pains had been protracted, the strength exhausted, and where there was moot imminent danger in regard to the mother and the child. So Hezekiah said there was the most imminent danger in the city of Jerusalem. They had made all possible preparations for defence. And now, in the most critical time, they felt their energies exhausted, their strength insufficient for their defence, and they needed the interposition of God.

4. It may be the Lord thy God. The God whom thou dost serve, and in whose name and by whose authority thou dost exercise the prophetic office. 1f Will hear the words. Will come forth and vindicate himself in regard to the language of reproach and blasphemy which has been used. See a similar use of the word " hear " in Ex. ii. 24, in. 7. "if To reproach the living God. The revilings of Rabshakeh were really directed against the true God. The reproach of the " living God " consisted in comparing him to idols, rind Baying that he was no more able to defend Je- ' rusalem than the Idol gods had been

5 So the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah.

6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say unto your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid' of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me.

able to defend their lands. See Note ch. xxxvi. 18. The phrase " the living God " is often applied to Jehovah in contradistinction from idols which were mere blocks of wood or stone. IT For the remnant that is left. For those who survive; or probably for those parts of the land, including Jerusalem, that have not fallen into the hands of the Assyrian. Sennacherib had taken many towns, but there were many also that had not yet been subdued by him.

The word properly denotes boys, youths, young men; and is used here probably by way of disparagement, in contradistinction from an embassy that woukl be truly respectable made up of aged men. IT Have blasphemed me. God regarded these words as spoken against himself, and he would vindicate his own iionour and name.

The word rendered " blast," H*n, is commonly rendered spirit. It may denote breath, air, soul, or spirit. There is no reason to think that the word is here used in the sense of blast of wind, as our translators seem to have supposed. The sense is probably, ' I will infuse into him a spirit of fear, by which he shall be alarmed by the rumour which he shall hear, and rr'um to his own land.' The word is often used in this sense. Comp. 1 Sam. xvi. 14. See also Isa. xxxi. 8, 9. Gesenius understands it her© in the sense of will or disposition. ' I will change his will or upon him; and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own

8 So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah:° for he had heard that he was departed from 'Lachish.

disposition, so that he will return to his own land.' H And he shall hear a rumour. The rumour or report here referred to, was doubtless that respecting Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, ver. 9. It was this which would alarm him, and drive him in haste from the cities which he was now besieging, and be the means of expelling him from the land. ^ And

1 will cause him, ccc. This is said in accordance with the usual statements in the Scriptures, that all events are under God's providential control. Comp. Note on ch. x. 5, 6. IT By the sword in his own land. See Note on ver. 38.

8. So Rabshakeh returned. Returned from Jerusalem to the camp of his master. He had received no answer to his insulting message (ch. xxxvi. 21); he saw there was no prospect that the city would surrender; and he therefore returned again to the camp. IT And found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah. He had departed from Lachish. Why he had done this is unknown. It is possible that he had taken it, though this is not recorded any where in history. Or it is possible that he had found it impracticable to subdue it as speedily as he had desired, and had withdrawn from it for the purpose of subduing other places that would offer a more feeble resistance. Libnah was a city in the south of Judah (Josh. xv. 42), given to the priests, and declared a city of refuge. 1 Chron. vi. 54, 57. Eusebius and Jerome say it was in the district of Eleutheropolis. Calmet. It was about ten miles to the northwest of Lachish. This city was taken by Joshua, and all its inhabitants

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,

10 Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou

trustest deceive thee, sc put to the sword. After taking this, Joshua next assaulted and took Lachish. Josh. x. 29-32.

9. And he heard say. The report or r.anour referred to in ver. 7. In what way he heard this is not intimated. It is probable that the preparations which Tirhakah had made were well known to the surrounding regions, and that he was already on his march against Sennacherib. IT Tirhakah. This king, who by Eusebius and by most ancient writers, is called Tapaxds, Tarakos, was a celebrated conqueror, and had subdued Egypt to himself. lie reigned over Egypt eighteen years. When Sennacherib marched into Egypt, Sevechus or Sethon was on the throne. Sennache- j rib having laid siege to Pelusiam, Tir- ' hakah came to the aid of the city, and in consequence of his aid, Sennacherib was compelled to raise the siege and returned to Palestine, and laid siege to Lachish. Tirhakah succeeded Sevechus in Egypt, and was the third and last of the Ethiopian kings that reigned over that country. He probably took advantage of the dislracted state that succeeded the death of Sevechus, and secured the crown for himself. This was, however, after the death of Sennacherib. The capital which he occupied was Thebes. See Prideaux's Connection vol. i. pp. 141, 145, 149. Ed. 1815. As he was celebrated as a conqueror, und as he had driven Sennacherib from Pelusium and from Egypt, we may see the cause of the alarm of Sennacherib when it was rumoured that he was about to follow him into Palestine, and to make war on him there. IT He is tifme forth. He has made preparations,

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 lanas, by destroying them utterly; and shalt thou be delivered?

12 Have the gods of the na- and is on his way. 1f He sent messengers., &C With letters or despatches, ver. 14. Hezekiah was probably ignorant of the approach of Tirhakah, or at all events Sennacherib would s.ppose that he was ignorant of it; and ki Sennacherib knew that there would be no hope that Hezekiah would yiell if he knew that Tirhakah was approaching to make war on him, he seema to have resolved to anticipate the intelligence, and to see if it were possible to induce him to surrender. He, therefore, sent substantially the same message as before, and summoned him to capitulate.

10. Let not thy God deceive thee. The similar message which had been sent by Rabshakeh (ch. xxxvi. 14, 15) had been sent mainly to the people to induce them not to put confidence in Hezekiah, as if he would deceive them by leading them to rely on the aid of Jehovah. As that had failed, he, as a last resort, sent a similar message to Hezekiah himself, designed to alienate his mind from God, and assuring him that resistance would be vain. To convince him, he referred him (vs. 11- 13) to the conquests of the Assyrians, and assured him that it would be impossible to resist a nation that had subdued so many others. He had it not in his power to add Egypt to the list of subdued kingdoms, or it would have been done.

11. And shalt thou he delivered? How will it be possible for you to stand out against the conquerors of the world \

12. My fathers. My predecessor* on the throne. IT Gozan. This was a region or country in the northern part of Mesopotamia, and on the river Cha-

'.ions delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan,"

boras. There was a river of the name Gozan in Media, which ran through the province a&tl gave it its name. The 'iver fell probably into the Chaboras. This region is known to have been under the dominion of Assyria, for Shalmaneser, when he had subdued the ten tribes, carried them away beyond the Euphrates to a country bordering on the river Gozan. 2 Kings xvii. 6. According to Gesenius, the river which is referred to is the Chaboras itself. He translates the passage in 2 Kings xvii. 6, thus, " And placed them in Chaleitis (Halah), and on the Chabor (Habor) a river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." According to this, the river was the Chaboras, the Chabor of Ezekicl, and the region was situated on the Chaboras. This river falls into the Euphrates from the East. Ptolemy calls the region lying between the Chaboras and Laocoras by the name of Gauzanitis, which is doubtless the same as the Hebrew Gozan. Gozan is usually mentioned in connection with cities of Mesopotamia. 1 Chron. v. 26. 2 Kings xix. 42. H And Haran. This was a city of Mesopotamia, to which Abraham went after he left Ur of the Chaldees. His father died here; and from this place he was called to go into the land cf promise. Gen. xi. 31,32. Comp. Note Acts vii. 4. It is now called Harran and is situated in 36° 52' N. lat. and 39° 5' E Long, in a flat and sandy plain, and is only peopled by a few wandering Arabs who select it as the place of residence on account of ihe delicious waters it contains. It belonged by conquest to the Assyrian empire, j? And Eezeph. According to Abulfeda there were many towns of this name. One, however, was more celebrated than the others, and is probably the one here referred to. It was situated about a day's journey west of the Euphrates, and is mentioned by Ptolemy by the name of 'P^c-a/m, JResapha. IT And the children of Eden. Eden was evidently

and Haran,19 and Rezeph, and the children of Eden* which were in

a country well known in the time of Isaiah, and was doubtless the tract within which man was placed when he was created. The garden or Paradise was in Eden, and was not properly itself called Eden. Gen. ii. 8. It is probable that Eden was a region or tract of country of considerable extent. Its situation ha3 been a subject of anxious inquiry. It is not proper here to go into an examination of this subject. It is evident from the passage before us that it was either in Mesopotamia or in the neighbourhood of that country, since it is mentioned in connection with cities and towns of that region. It is mentioned by Ames (B. C. 787) as a country then well known, and as a part of Syria, not far from Damascus.

I will break also the bar of Damascus,

And cut oil' the inhabitant from the plain of Aven,

And him thatholdeth the sceptre from the houst

of Eden. And the people of Syria shall go into captivity to

In Isa. Ii. 3, Eden is referred to as a country well known and as distinguished for its fertility.

He will comfort all her waste places.

And he will make her wilderness like Eden,

And her desert l.ke the gardens of JEHOVAH.

Thus also in Ezek. xxvii. 23, we find Eden mentioned in connection with Haran and Canneh. Canneh was probably the same as Calneh (Gen. x. 10), the Calno of Isaiah (Isa. x. 9), and was doubtless situated in Mesopotamia, since it is joined with cities that are known to have been there. Comp. also Ezek. xxxi. 9, 16, 18. All those passages demonstrate that there was such a country, and prove also that it was either in Mesopotamia or in a country adjacent to Mesopotamia. It is not, however, possible now to designate its exact boundaries. H In Telassar. This place is nowhere else mentioned in the Scriptures. Nothing, therefore, is known of its situation. The connection de« mantis that it should be in Mesopotamia

13 Where is the king of Hamath,y and the king of Arphad, and the king of the tuty of Sepharvaim, Hena, and lvah?

14 And 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 Lord.

The names of ancient places were so often lost or changed that it is often impossible to fix their exact locality.

13. The king of Hamath. Note ch. xxxvi. 19. IT Hena, and lvah. Hena is mentioned in 2 Kings xviii. 34, xix. 13. It was evidentiy in Mesopotamia, and was probably the same which was afterwards called Ana, situated near a ford of the Euphrates. The situation of lvah is not certainly known. It was under the Assyrian dominion, and was one of the places from which colonists were brought to Samaria. 2 Kings xvii. &4, 31. Michaelis supposes that it was between Bcrytus and Tripoli, but was under the dominion of the Assyrians.

14. And Hezekiah received the letter. Heb. letters, in the plural. It is not mentioned in the account of the embassy (ver. 9) that a letter was sent, but it is not probable that an embassage would be sent to a monarch without a written document. IT Went up into the house of the Lord. The temple, ver. 1. TT And spread it before the Lord. Perhaps unrolled the document there, and spread it out; or perhaps it means simply that he spread out the contents of the letter, that is, made mention of it in his prayer. Hezekiah had no other resource. He was a man of God; and in his trouble he looked to God for aid. He, therefore, before he formed any plan went up to the temple, and laid his case before God. What an example for all monarchs and rulers! And what an example fb* all the people >f God in times of perplexity!

15 And Hezekiah prayed unto the Lord, saying,

16 O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellcst dbetween the cherubims, thou 'art the God, even thou •'alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.

IT That dwcllest between the cherubim. On the cherubim see Note on ch. xiv. 13. The reference here is doubtless to the fact that the symbol of the divine presence in the temple — the Shechinah

(from *\~'& shakhun to dwell, to inhabit; so called because it was the symbol of God's dwelling with his people or inhabiting the temple) — rested on the cover of the ark in the temple. Hence God is frequently represented as dwelling between the cherubim. Ex. xxv. 22. Ps. lxxx. 1, xcix. 1. On the whole subject of the cherubim the reader may consult an article in the Quarterly Christian Spectator for September, 1836. IT Thou art the God. The only God, ch. xliii. 10, 11. IT Even thou alone. There is none besides thee — a truth which is often affirmed in the Scriptures. Ps. lxxxvi. 10. Deut. xxxii. 39. 1 Cor. viii. 4. IT Thou hast made heaven and earth. It was on the ground of this power and universal dominion that Hezekiah pleaded that God would interpose.

17. Incline thine ear. This is evidently language taken from what occurs among men. When they are desirous of hearing distinctly, they incline the ear or apply it close to the speaker. Similar language is not unfrequently used in the Scriptures as applicable to God. 2 Kings xix. 16. Ps. lxxxvi. 1, xxxi. 2,lxxxviii.2. Dan. ix. 18. If Open thine eyes. This is similar language applied to God, derived from the fact that when we wish to see an object the eyes are fixed upon it. Comp. Job xiv. 3, xxvii. 19. IT And hear nil the word*

Lord, and sec; and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach the living God.

18 Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the •nations, and their countries,

19 And have 7cast their gods into the fire: for they were no

That is, attend to their words, and inflict suitable punishment. This was the burden of the prayer of Hezekiah, that God would vindicate his own honour, and save his name from reproach. *X Which he hath sent. In the letters which he had sent to Hezekiah, as well as the words which he had sent to the people by Rabshakeh, ch. xxxvi. 18-20. % To reproach the living God. Note

18. Of a truth. It is as he has said, that all the nations have been subjected to the arms of the Assyrian. He now intends to add Jerusalem to the number of vanquished cities and kingdoms, and to boast that he has subdued the nation under the protection of Jehovah, as he had done the nations under the protection of idol gods. IT Have laid waste all the nations. Hcb. as in the margin, all the lands. But this is evidently an elliptical form of expression meaning all the inhabitants or people of the lands. In 2 Kings xix. 17, it is thus expressed: " The kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their lands."

19. And have cast their gods into the fire. This appears to have been the usual policy of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was contrary to the policy which the Romans afterwards pursued, for they admitted the gods of other nations among their own, and even allowed them to have a place in the Pantheon. Their design stems not to have been to alienate the feelings of the vanquished, but to make them feel that they were a part of the same people. They supposed that a vanquished people would be conciliated with the idea that their gods were admitted to participate in the honours of those which were worship- gods, but *the work of men'a hands, wood and stone; therefore 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 thou art the Lord, even thou only.

ped by the conquerors of the world But the policy of the Eastern conquerors was different. They began usually by removing the people themselves whom they had subdued, to another land. Note ch. xxxvi. 17. They thus intended to alienate their minds as much as possible from their own country. They laid every thing waste by fire and sword, and thus destroyed their homes, and all the objects of their attachment They destroyed their temples, their groves, and their household gods. They well knew that the civil policy of the nation was founded in religion, and that to subdue them effectually it was necessary to abolish their religion. Which was the wisest policy, may indeed admit of question. Perhaps in each case the policy was well adapted to the particular end which was had in view. 1T Foi they were no gods. They were not truly gods, and therefore they had no power of resistance, and it was easy to destroy them.

20. That all the kingdoms of tht earth may know. Since he has been able to subdue all others; and since Judea alone, the land under the protection of Jehovah, would be saved, all the nations would know that it could not be by the power of an idol. The desire of Hezekiah, therefore, was not primarily that of 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. A supreme regard to the glory of God influenced this pious monarch in his prayers, and we have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when w«

21 Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God;>f Israel, Whereas thou hast prayed 6to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria:

22 This is the word which the Lord hath spoken concerning him; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised dthee, and

come before God. It is not primarily that we may be saved; it is not, as the leading motive, that our friends, or that the world may be saved; it is that the name of God may be honoured. This motive of prayer, is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. eh. xlii. 8, xliii. 10, 13, 25. Deut. xxxii. 39. Ps. lxxxiii. 18,xlvi. 10. Neh. ix. 6. Dan. ix. 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. No other nation had been able to resist the Assyrian arms. The great power of that empire was now concentrated in the single army of Sennacherib. He was coming with great confidence of success. He was approaching the city devoted to Jehovah — the city where the temple was, and the city and people that were every where understood to be under his protection. The affairs of the world had arrived at a crisis; and the time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror cf his name, and the report of his powei throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army. God intended that his power should be felt, and that inonarchs and people that arrayed themselves against him, and blasphemed him, should have a striking demonstration \\at he was God, and that none of the devices of his enemies could succeed.

21. IVlter eas \ thou hast prayed. Becans? thou hast come to me instead of relying on thy own resources and sirengih.

laughed thee to scorn; the daugh* ter of Jerusalem hath shaken he* head at thee.

23 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel.

24 By 8thy servants hast thou

In 2 Kings xix. 20, it is, " That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib, king of Assyria, I have heard."

22. The virgin,the daughter of Zion, Jerusalem. See Note ch. i. 8. Comp. Note ch. xxiii. 12. The parallelism in this and the following verses shows that the poetic form of speech is here introduced. II Ha si despised thee. That is, it is secure from thy contemplated attack. The idea is, that Jerusalem would exult over the ineffectual attempts of Sennacherib to take it, and over his complete overthrow. IT Hath laughed thee to scorn. Will make thee an object of derision. IT Hath shaken her head at thee. This is an indication of contempt and scorn. Comp. Ps. xxii. 7, cix. 25. Jer. xviii. 16. Zeph. ii. 15. Matt, xxvii. 39.

23. Whom hast thou reproached. Not an idol. Not one who has no power to take vengeance, or to defend the city under his protection, but the living God. *S Exalted thy voice. That is, by thy messenger. Thou hast spoken in a loud, confident tone; in the language of reproach and threatening. IT And lifted up thine eyes on high. To lift up the eyes is an indication of haughtiness and pride. He had evinced arrogance in hi3 manner, and he wae yet to learn that it was against the living and true God.

24. By thy servants. Heb. By the hand of thy servants. That is, by Rabshakeh, ch. xxxvi., and by those whom he had now sent to Hezekiah with letters, vs. 9, 14. IT And host said. Isaiah does not here quote tha precise words which Rabfjuakeh or th*

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 the stall cedars thereof, and

C talln&ss of the cedars thereof, and the choice of the Jir- trees thereof other messengers had used, but quotes the substance of what had been uttered, and expresses the real feelings and intentions of Sennacherib. IT By the multitude of my chariots. The word chariots here denotes war -chariots. See Notes ch. ii. 7, lxvi. 20. IT To the height of the mountains. Lebanon is here particularly referred to. Chariots were commonly used, as cavalry was, in plains. But it is probable that Lebanon was accessible by chariots drawn by horses. V To the sides of Lebanon. On the situation of Lebanon see Notes chs. x. 34, xxix. 17. Sennacherib is represented as having carried desolation to Lebanon, and as having cut down its stately trees. See Note ch. xxxiii. 9. t I will cut down the tall cedars thereof. Marg. the tallness of the cedars thereof. The boast of Sennacherib was that he would strip it of its beauty and ornament; that is, that he would lay the land waste. IT And the choice fir-trees thereof. See Note ch. xiv. 8. The LXX render it " the beauty of the cypress, vTrapicTtrov." The word here denotes the cypress, a tree resembling the white cedar. It grew on Lebanon, and together with the cedar constituted its glory. Its wood, like that of the cedar, was employed for the floors and ceilings of the temple. 1 Kings v. 22, 24, vi. 15, 34. It was used for the decks and sheathing of ships, Ezek. xxvii. 5; for spears, Neh. ii. 4; and for musical instruments, 2 Sam. vi. 5. IT The height of his border. The extreme retreats; the farthest part of Lebanon. In 2 Kings xix. 23, it is, " I will enter the lodgings of his borders;" perhaps referring to the fact that on the ascent to the top of the mountain there was a place for the repose of travellers; a species of inn or taravansera which bounded the usuul the choice fir-trees thereof: and I will enter into the height cf hia border, and the forest °of hia Carmel.

25 I have digged, and drunk water; and with the sole of my

6 or, and his fruitful field.

attempts of persons to ascend the mountain. Such a lodging place on the sides or tops of mountains which are frequently ascended is not uncommon. IT And the forest of his Carmel. On the meaning of the word Carmel, see Note ch. xxix. 17. Here it means, as in that passage, a rich, fertile, and beautiful country. It is known that Lebanon was covered on the top, and far down the sides, with perpetual snow. But there was a region lying on its sides, between the snow and the base of the mountain, that was distinguished for fertility, and that was highly cultivated. This region produced grapes in abundance; and this cultivated part of the mountain thick set with vines and trees might be called a beautiful grove. This was doubtless the portion of Lebanon which is here intended. At a distance, this tract on the sides of Lebanon appeared doubtless as a thicket of shrubs and trees. The phrase " garden-forest," will probably express the sense of the passage. " After leaving Baalbec, and approaching Lebanon, towering walnuttrees, either singly or in groups, and a rich carpet of verdure, the offspring of numerous streams, give to this charming district the air of an English park, majestically bordered with snow-tipped mountains. At Deir el Akmaar the ascent begins — winding among dwarf oaks, hawthorns, and a great variety of shrubs and flowers. A deep bed of snow had now to be crossed, and the horsea sunk cr slipped at every moment. To ride was impracticable, and to walk dangerous, for the melting snow penetrated our boots, and our feet were nearly frozen. An hour ari a hal. brought us to the cedars." Hogg.

feet have I dried up till the rivers | of the 7besieged places.

eastern nations as an important achievement. It wa3 difficult to find water, tven by digging, in sandy deserts; and in a country abounding with rocks, it was an enterprise of great difficulty to sink a well. Hence the possession of a well became a valuable property, and was sometimes the occasion of contention between neighboring tribes. Gen. xxvi. 20. Hence also to stop up the wells of water, by throwing in rocks or sand, became one of the most obvious ways of distressing an enemy, and was often resorted to. Gen. xxvi. 15, 18. 2 Kings iii. 19, 25. To dig wells, or to furnish water in abundance to a people, became also an achievement which was deemed worthy to be recorded in the history of kings and princes. 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Many of the most stupendous and costly of the works of the Romans in the capital of their empire, and in the principal towns of their provinces, consisted in building aqueducts to bring water from a distance into a city. An achievement like this I understand Sennacherib as boasting he had performed; that he had furnished water for the cities and towns of his mighty empire; that he had accomplished what was deemed so difficult, and what required so much expense, as digging wells for his people; and that he had secured them from being stopped up by his enemies so that he and his people drank of the water in peace. Gesenius, however, understands this as a boast that he had extended the bounds of his empire beyond its original limits, and unto regions that were naturally destitute of water, and where it was necessary to dig wells to supply his armies. Rosenmuller understands it as saying: " I have passed over, and taken possession of foreign lands." Drusius regards it as a proverbial saying, meaning ' I have happily and successfully accomplished all that I have undertaken, as he who digs a well accomplishes that which he particularly desires.' Vitringa regards it as saying, ' that to A\g wells, and to drink the water of them, is to enjoy the fruit of our labours, to ba successful and happy.' But it seems ta me that the interpretation above suggested, and which I have not found in any of the commentators before me, ia the correct exposition. IT And drunk water. In 2 Kings xix. 24, it is, " I have drunk strange waters ■" that is, the waters of foreign lands. I have conquered them, and have dug wells iis them. But the sense is not materially changed. IT And with the sole of my feet. Expressions like this, denoting the desolations of a conqueror, are found in the classic writers. Perhaps the idea there is, that their armies were so numerous that they drank up all the waters in their march — a strong hyperbole to denote the number of their armies, and the extent of their desolations when even the waters failed before them. Thus Claudian (de hello Getico 526,) introduces Alaric as boasting of his conquests in the same extravagant manner, and in language remarkably similar to this:

Cum cesserit omrsis Obsequiis nutura meis. Subsidere nostris Sub pedibua montes; arescere vidimus umneB— Fregi Alpes, galeisque Padum victricibus hausi.

So Juvenal (Sat. x. 176), speaking o the dominion of Xerxes, says:

Defeeisse amr.es, epotaque tlumina Medo

The boast of drying up streams with the sole of the foot is intended to convey the idea that he had not only supplied water for his own empire by digging wells, but that he had cut off the supplies of water from the others against whom he had made war. The idea perhaps is, that if such an army aa his was, should pass through the streams of a country that they should invade; and should only take away the water that would adhere to the sole or the hollow of the foot on their march, it would dry up all the streams. It ia strong hyperbolical language, and is designed to indicate the number of tha forces which were under his commanc

26 Hast thou not heard 8long ago how I have done it; and of ancient times that I have formed it 1 now have I ^brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to

8 or, how I have made it long ago, and formal it of ancient times? should I now bring i: to be laid waste, and defenccd cities to be ruinous hacp3?

IT Of the besieged places. Marg. " fenced, or closed." The word rendered rivers, "^ISt, may denote canals, or artificial streams, such as were common in Egypt. In ch. xix. 6 it is rendered " brooks," and is applied to the artificial canals of Egypt. See Note on that place. The word here rendered " besieged places," "fiSTa mCitzor, may mean distress, straitness, Deut. xxviii. 53; siege, Ezek. iv. 2. 7; mound, bulwark, intrenchment, Deut. xx. 20; or it may be a proper name for Egypt, being one of the forms of the name °?"!^E Mitzraim, or Egypt. The same phrase occurs in ch. xix. 6, where it means Egypt (see Note on that place), and such should be regarded as its meaning here. It alludes to the conquests which Sennacherib is represented as boasting that he had made in Egypt, that he had easily removed obstructions, and destroyed their means of defence. Though he had been repulsed before Pelusium by Tirhakah king of Ethiopia (see Note ch. xxxvi. 1), yet it is not improbable that he had taken many towns there, and had subdued no small part of the country to himself. In his vain boasting, he would strive to forget his repulse, and would dwell on the ease of conquest, and the facility with which he had removed all obstructions from his way. The whole language of the verse, therefore, is that of a proud and haughty Oriental prince, desirous of proclaiming his conquests, and forgetting his mortifying defeats.

26. Hast thou not heard. This is j evidently the language of God addressed to Sennacherib. It is designed to state to him that he was under his control; that this was the reason (ver. 27) why j lay waste defenoed cites into ruinous heaps.

27 Therefore their inhabitants were 'of small power, they were dismayed and confounded: they were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb; as the grass

the inhabitants of the nations had been unable to resist him; that he was entirely in hia hands (ver. 28); and that he would control him as he pleased (ver. 29). IT Long agohow I have done it. You boast that all this is by your own counsel and power. Yet I have done it; i. e. I have purposed, planned, arranged it long ago. Comp. ch. xxii. 11. tf That thou shouldest be to lay wast;. I have raised you up for this purpose, and you have been entirely under my control. See Note ch. x. 5.

27. Therefore. Not because you have so great power; but because I have rendered them incapable of resisting you. IF Were of small power. Heb. • short of hand;' they were feeble, imbecile, unable to resist you. tf They were dismayed. Heb. " they were broken and ashamed.' Their spirits sank; they were ashamed of their feeble powers of resistance; and they submitted to the ignominy of a surrender. 1F They were as the grass of the field. The same idea is expressed by Sennacherib himself in ch. x. 15, though under a different image. See Note on that verse. The idea here is, as the grass of the field offers no resistance to the march of an army, so it was with the strongly fortified towns in the way of Sennacherib. IT As the grass on the house-tops. In eastern countries the roofs of houses are always fiat. They are made of a mixture of sand, gravel, or earth; and on the houses of the rich there is a firmly constructed flooring made of coals, chalk, gypsum, and ashes made hard by being beaten, or rolled. On these roofs spears of wheat, baney, or grass sometimes spring up, but they are soon withered by the heat of the sun. Ps. exxix. 6-8. The idea here, thereon the house-tops, and as corn blasted before it be grown up.

28 But I know thy 2abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me.

29 Because thy rage against me, and thy tumult, 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

fore, is that of the greatest feebleness. His enemies were not simply like the grass in the field, but they were like the thin, slender, and delicate blade that sprung up in the little earth on the roof of a house, where there was no room for the roots to strike down, and where it soon withered beneath the burning sun. IF As corn blasted before it is grown up. Before it acquires any strength. The idea in all these phrases is substantially the same — that they were incapable of offering even the feeblest resistance.

28. But I know. The language of God. ' I am well acquainted with all that pertains to you. You neither go out to war, nor return, nor abide in your capital without my providential direction.' See Notes ch. x. 5, 6, 7. IT Thy abode. Marg. Sitting. Among the Hebrews, sitting down, rising up, and going out, were phrases to describe the whole of a man's life and actions. Comp. Deut. vi. 7, xxviii. 6. Ps. exxi. 8. 1 Kings iii. 7. God here says that he knew the place where he dwelt, and he was able to return him again to it, ver. 29. IT And thy rage against me. See

29. Because thy rage and thy tumult. Or rather, thy pride, thy insolence, thy vain boasting. V Therefore will I put my hook in thy nose. This is a mo«t striking expression denoting the complete control which God had over the haughty monarch, and his ability to direct him as he pleased. The language is taken from the custom of putting a ring or hook in the nose of a wild animal for the purpose of governing and

Ihee back by the way by which thou earnest.

30 And this shall he a si£cn 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.

guiding it. The most violent animals may be thus completely governed, and this is often done with those animals that are fierce and untameable. The Arabs often pursue this course in regard to the camel, and thus have it under entire control. A similar image is used in respect to the king of Egypt, Ezek. xxix. 4. The idea is, that God would control and govern the wild and ambitious spirit of the Assyrian, and that with infinite ease he could conduct him again to his own land. IT And ivy bridle. Note ch. xxx. 28. IT And I will turn thee back. See ver. 37.

SO. And this shall be a sign unto thee. It is evident that the discourse here is turned from Sennacherib to Hezekiah. Such transitions, without distinctly indicating them, are common in Isaiah. God had in the previous verses, in the form of a direct personal address, foretold the defeat of Sennacherib, and the confusion of his plan3. He here turns and gives to Hezekiah the assurance that Jerusalem would be delivered. — On the meaning of the word sign, see Note on ch. vii. 14. Commentators have been much perplexed in the exposition of the passage before ua to know how that which was to occur one, two, or three years after the event, could be a sign of the fulfilment of the prophecy. Many have supposed that the year in which this was spoken was a Sabbatic year, in which the lands were not cultivated, but were suffered to lie still (Lev. xxxv. 2-7); and that the year following was the year of Jubileef in which also the lands were if remain uncultivated. They suppose that th« idea is, that the Jews might be assured that they would not experience the evils of famine whieh they had anticipated from the Assyrians, because the divine promise gave them assurance of sjpply in the Sabbatic year, and in the year of Jubilee, and that although their fields nad been laid waste by the Assyrian, yet their wants would be supplied, until on the third year they would be permitted in quietness to cultivate their land, and that this would be to them a sign, or a token of the divine interposition. But to this there arc two obvious objections. (1.) There is not the slightest evidence that the year in which Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem was a Sabbatic year, or that the following year was the Jubilee. No mention is made of this in the history, nor is it possible to prove it from any part of the sacred narrative. (2.) It is still difficult to see, even if it were so, how that which was to occur two or three years after the event, could be a sign to Hezekiah then of the truth of what Isaiah had predicted. RosenmUller suggests that the two years in which they are mentioned as sustained by the spontaneous production of the earth were the two years in which Judea had been already ravaged by Sennacherib, and that the third year was the one in which the prophet was now speaking, and that the prediction means that in that very year they would be permitted to sow and reap. — In the explanation of the passage it is to be observed that the word sign is used in a variety of significations. It may be usrd as an indication of any thing unseen, Gen. i. 14; or as a military ensign, Num. ii. 2; or as a sign of something future, an omen, Isa. viii. 18; or as a token, argument, proof, Gen. xvii. 2. Ex. xxxi. 13. It may be used as a sign or token of the truth of a prophecy; that is, when some minor •.went furnishes a proof that the whole ■vrophecy would be fulfilled. Ex. iii. 12. I Sam. ii. 34, x. 7, 9. Or it may be used as a wonder, a prodigy, a miracle. Deut. iv. 34. vi. 22. In the case before us, it seems to mean that, in the events predicted here, Hezekiah would have a %oken or argument 'liat the land was vcl. u.-~2 completely freed from the invasion of Sennacherib. Though a considerable part of his army would be destroyed; though the monarch himself would be compelled to flee, yet Hezekiah would not from that fact alone have the assurance that he would not rally his forces, and return to invade the land. There would be every inducement arising from disappointment and the rage of defeat for him to do it. To compose the mind of Hezekiah in regard to this, this assurance was given, that the land would be quiet, and that the fact that it would remain quiet during the remain' der of that year, and to the third year, would be a sign, or demonstration that the Assyrian army was entirely with' drawn, and that all danger of an invasion was at an end. The sign, therefore, does not refer so much to the pastt as to the security and future prosperity which would be consequent thereon. It would be an evidence to them that the nation would oe safe, and would be favoured with a high degree of prosperity. See vs. 31, 32. It is possible that this invasion took place when it was too late to sow for that year, and that the land was so ravaged that > could not that year be cultivated. The harvests and the vineyards had been destroyed; and they would be dependent on that which the earth had spontaneously produced in those parts which had been untitled. As it was now too late to sow the land, they would be dependent in the following year on the same scanty supply. In the third year, however, they might cultivate their fields securely, and the former fertility would be restored. T Such as groweth of itself. The Hebrew word here, fi^BG > denotes grain produced from the kernels of the former year, without new sead# and without cultivation. This, it is evident, would be a scanty supply; but we are to remember that the land had been ravaged by the army of the Assyrian. 1T That which springeth of the same. The word here used, OTV.!? in the parallel passage in 2 Kings xix. 29, ©"TO, denotes that which grows of itself the third year after sowing.

31 And 4the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward.

32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and 5they that escape out of mount Zion:

4:\e. escaping of the house of Judah tliat remaincih.

This production of the third year would be oi' course more scanty and less valcable than in the preceding year, and there can be no doubt that the Jews would be subjected to a considerable extent to the evils of want. Still, as the land would be quiet; ns the people would be perm "ed to live in peace; it would be a sign o them that the Assyrian was finally and entirely withdrawn, and that they might return in the third year to the cultivation of their land with the assurance that this much-dreaded invasion was not again to be feared. IT And in the third year. Then you may resume your agricultural operations with the assurance that you shall be undisturbed. Your two years of quiet shall have been a full demonstration to you that the Assyrian sliall not return, and you may resume your employments writh the assurance that all the evils of the invasion, and all apprehension of danger, are at an end.

31. And the remnant that is escaped. See the margin. Those that are left of the Jews. The ten tribes had becu carried away; and it is not improbable that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah had been reduced by want, and by the siege of Lachish, Libnah, &c. It is not to be supposed that Sennacherib could have invaded the land, and spread desolation for so long a time, without diminishing the number of the people. The promise in the passage is, that those who were left should flourish and increase. The land should be at rest; and under the administration of their wise and pious king their number would De augmented, and their happiness promoted. H Shall again take root iownward. Like a, tree that had been the zeal of the Loio of hosts s.iall do this.

33 Therefore thus saith tho Lord concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with 7shields, nor cast a bank against it.

prevented by any cause from growing or bearing fruit. A tree, to bear well, must, be in a soil where it can strike its roots deep. The sense is, that all obstructions to their growth and prosperity would be removed.

32. Shall go forth a remnant. The word remnant means that which is left; and docs not of necessity imply that it should be a small portion. No doubt a part of the Jews were destroyed in the invasion of Sennacherib, but the assurance is here given that a portion of them would remain in safety, and that they would constitute that from which the future prosperity of the state would arise. IT And they that escape. Marg. The escaping, i. e. the remnant. 1 The zeal. See Note on ch. ix. 7.

33. He shall not come into this city. Sennacherib encamped probably on the northeast side of the city, and his army was destroyed there. See Notes on ch. x. 28, seq. IF Nor shoot an arrow there. That is, nor shoot an arrow within the walls of the city. 1T Nor come before it with shields. See Note ch. xxi. 5. The meaning here is, that the army should not be permitted to come before the city defended with shields, and prepared with the means of attack and defence. IT Nor cast a bank against it. A mound; a pile $f earth thrown up in the manner of a fort to defend the assailants, or to give them an advantage in attacking the walls. Sieges were conducted by throwing up banks or fortifications, behind which the army of attack could be secure to carry on their operations. Towers filled with armed men were also constructed, covered with hides and other impenetrable materials, which could be made to approach the walls, and from

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.

which those who were within could safely conduct the attack.

35. For I will defend this city. Notwithstanding all that Hezekiah had done to put it in a posture of defence (2 Chron. xxxii. 1, seq.) still it was Jehovah alone who could preserve it. IT For mine own sake. God had been reproached and blasphemed by Sennacherib. As his name and power had been thus blasphemed, he says that he.vould vindicate himself, and for the honour of his own insulted majesty would save the city. IT And for my servant David's sake. On account of the promise which he had made to him that there should not fail a man to sit on his throne, and that the city and nation should not be destroyed until the Messiah should appear. See Ps. cxxxii. 10-18.

36. Then the angel of the Lord went forth. This verse contains the record of one of the most remarkable events which have occurred in history. Many attempts have been made to explain the occurrence which is here recorded, and to trace the agencies, or means which God employed. It may be observed that the use of the word "angel" here does not determine the manner in which it was done. So far as the word is concerned, it might have been accomplished either by the power of an invisible messenger of God — a spiritual being commissioned for this purpose; or it might have been by some second causes under the direction of an angel — as the pestilence, or a storm and tempest; or it might have been by some agents sent by God whatever they were » -ths storm, the pestilence, or the

36 Then pthe ungel of tlie Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred and four-score and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

simoom to which the name angel might have been applied. The word angel

Who maketh the winds (nin^H) his angeU

The flaming fire his ministers.

The general sense of the word is that of ambassador, messenger, one sent to bear a message, to execute a commission, or to perform any work or service. It is known that the Jews were in the habit of tracing all events to the agency of invisible beings sent forth by God to accomplish his purposes in this world. There is nothing in this opinion that ia contrary to reason; for there is no more improbability in the existence of a good angel than there is in the existence of a good man, or in the existence of an evil spirit than the?e is in the existence of a bad man. And there is no more improbability in the supposition that God employs invisible and heavenly messen gers to accomplish his purposes thar there is that he employs man. Whatever, therefore, were the means used in the destruction of the Assyrian army, there is no improbability in the opinion that they were under the direction of a celestial agent sent forth to accompisfc the purpose. The chief suppositions which have been made of the means of that destruction are the following: (1.) It has been supposed that it was by the direct agency of an angel, without any second causes. But this supposition has /lot been generally adopted. It is contrary to the usual modes in which God directs the affairs of the world. His purposes are usually accomplished by some second causes, and in accordance with the usual course of events. Calvin supposes that it was accomplished by the direct agency of one or more angels sent forth for the purpose. (2.) Some have supposed that it was accomplished by Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, who is supposed to have pursued Sennacherib, and to have overthrown his army in a single night near Jerusalem. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this, that there is not the slightest historical evidence to support it; and had this been the mode, it would have been so record- "d,and the fact would have been stated. (3.) It has been attributed by some, among whom is Prideaux, (Connexions, vol. i. p. 143,) and J. E. Faber, (Notes on Harmer's Observations, Part. i. p. 65,) to the hot pestilential w"nd which often prevails in the East, and which is often represented as suddenly destroying travellers, and indeed whole caravans. This wind, called sam, simum, samiel, or simoom, has been usually supposed to be poisonous, and almost instantly destructive to life. It has been described by Mr. Bruce, by Sir R. K. Porter, by Niebuhr, and by others. Prof. Robinson has examined at length t<he supposition that the Assyrian army was destroyed by this wind, and has stated the results of the investigations of recent travellers. The conclusion to which he comes is, that the former accounts of the effects of this wind have been greatlv exaggerated, and that the destruction of the army of the Assyrians cannot be attributed to any such cause. See the article " Winds," in his Edition of Calmct's Dictionary. Burcknardt says of this wind, whose effects have been regarded as so poisonous and destructive, "I am perfectly conhnced that ail the stories which travellers, or the inhabitants of the towns of Egypt and Syria, relate of the semoum of the desert are greatly exaggerated^ and I never could hear of a s:\glb having proved mortal to either man or beast" Similar testimony has been given by other modern travellers; though it is to be remarked that the testimony is rather of a negative character, and does not entirely destroy the possibility of the supposition that this so often described pestilential wind may in some instances prove fatal. It is not, however, referred to in the Scripture account of the destruction of Sennacherib; and whatever may be true of it in the deserts of Arabia or Nubia, there is no evidence whatever that such poisonous effects are ever experienced in Palestine. (4.) It has been attributed to a storm of hail, accompanied with thunder and lightning. This is the opinion of Vitringa, and seems to accord with the descriptions which are given in the prophecy of the destruction of the army in chs. xxix. 6, xxx. 30. To this opinion, as the most probable, I have been disposed to incline; for although these passages may be regarded as figurative, yet the more natural interpretation is to regard them as descriptive of the event. We know that such a tempest might be easily produced by God, and that violent tornadoes are not unfrequent in the East. One of the plagues of Egypt consisted in such a tremendous storm of hail accompanied with thunder, when " the fire ran along the ground," so that " there was hail and fire mingled with the hail," and so that " the hail smote throughout all the land of Egypt all that was in the field, both man and heast." Ex. ix. 22-25. This description, in its terror, its suddenness, and its ruinous effects, accords more nearly with the account of the destruction of Sennacherib than any other which has been made. See Notes on ch. xxx. 30, for a remarkable description of the effect of a storm of hail. (6.) It has been supposed by many that it was accomplished by the pestilence. 'Kris is the accoun* which Josephus gives (Ant. B. x. ch. 1 § 5); and is the supposition which has