Obrazy na stronie

timid shall gain fresh courage at the prospect of the vengeance and deliverance from their God (ver. 4). The blind shall see; the deaf hear (ver. 5), the lame walk, the dumb speak; springs shall well up in the desert (ver. 6); the mirage shall become reality, the lair of the jackal will become a place of grass and water fitted for an encampment (ver. 7). A highway will appear that shall be a holy way. For as, on the one hand, nothing unclean shall go on it, so, on the other, the simple ones of Israel will not lose their way on it (ver. 8). No ravenous beast shall render it insecure. Only the redeemed of the LoRD shall travel it (ver, 9). They shall return on it to Zion with joy. Then shall everlasting joy go in there, and sorrow and sighing flee away (ver. 10). 2. The wilderness—of our God.—Wers. 1, 2. These verses, as it were, prepare the theatre in general for the return of Israel. This return is to be through the descrt. There is not a word to intimate that the Prophet has a definite desert in view. The march of Israel through the Arabian desert when returning from the Egyptian captivity, is as much the type for all home returns of Israel, as that first captivity is the type for all that follow. For so says Isa. xi. 16: “And there shall be an highway for the remnant of her people, which shall be left from Assyria, like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.” The Nile and Euphrates shall be made passable by dividing their beds into seven small streams (xi. 15), and the desert, (according to Jer. xxxi. 21), by setting up signs and way-marks, and preparing the road. Especially in Isa. xliii. 19 sq.; xlviii. 21 it is promised that those returning home shall enjoy abundance of water in the desert. Thus then our passage sees in the wilderness the chief territory for the march of the home-returning Israelites. The desert shall conform to the blessed people that wander through it. It will change its nature. Hitherto a place of curse, abode of demons (xxxiv. 14), it will become a place of blessing, a paradise. The principle of a higher, spiritual, eternal life, the principle of glorification will become operative in it. This idea of the glorification of nature is peculiar to Isaiah (see iv. 2; vi. 3; xi.

7 sqq.). nosen translated “ rose,” occurs only here and Song of Solomon ii. 1. It is variousl

translated rose, lily, narcissus, crocus. That it denotes some sort of bulbous plant appears from

by: (Numb. xi. 5) which means “onion.” T is often used to form quadraliterals, comp. bon. opin. GESEN., Thes., p. 436. Some suppose that

the meadow-saffron, colchicum autumnale is meant, because the Syriac translates the word chamzaloito (see GESEN., Comm. in loc.). But it seems impossible that such a poisonous weed could be meant here and Song of Sol. ii. 1. If a bulbous plant is meant, it may (distinguished from Tov, the lilium candidum, the Zeiptov of the Greeks), be the lilium bulbiferum, the fire lily (comp. PLIN. Hist. nat. , XXI. 5, 11, est et rubens lilium, quod Graeci Kpivov vocant). In fact the LXX., translate it here by Kpivov. But it might even be the narcissus, “the miraculous flower, at the sight of which gods and men wonder, that raises itself out of the earth with a hundred heads, whose fra

grance rejoices heaven, sea and earth’’ (VIRTOR HEHN, '...}. u. Hausthiere, Berlin, 1870, }. 164). ARNoLD (HERz., R.-Encycl., XI. p. 25) holds this view. [The translation “rose” is true to the poetry if not to the botany-BARNES, J. A. ALEXANDER). But however this may be, the meaning is, that the entire steppe, covered with the bloom of this flower, shall appear like one single individual flower of the sort. Lebanon. (see list) Sharon (ibid.) and Carmel appear united, xxxiii. 9, as types of the most glorious vegetation. n?] must be referred to the gloriously adorned

meadows. For just because they are honored with beholding the glory of God, they must themselves appear in adornment to suit. 3. Strengthen the desert.—Vers. 3–6. The Prophet ver. 3 addresses his own word of encouragement to the returning ones, and then ver. 4 prescribes to them the words with which they are to reassure any that are dismayed (see on xxxii. 4 where the word is used for hurry in judging), to whom the undertaking may seem too bold and daring. The words “be strong, fear not” are evidently borrowed from Deut. xxxi. 6 (comp. 2 Chr. xxxii. 7). How can Israel fear since the Lord their God hastens to them to visit vengeance on the enemy and to redeem His people! What is said vers. 5, 6 of opening eyes, ears and tongues, and of the free use of members before crippled, we will need to understand as much in a spiritual as in a corporeal sense. For the “hasty of heart,” ver. 4, proves that also spirit and spiritual defects on the part of the returning Israelites are still to be removed. And TPE is the specific technical term for opening the eyes generally (only once of the ears xlii. 20) and for opening the spiritual eyes in particular (xxxvii. 17; xlii. 7). [“As IIENDERSON justly says, there is no proof whatever that Christ refers John the Baptist to this prophecy (Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 22): IIe employs none of the formulas which He uniformly uses when directing attention to the Old Testament (e.g., in Matt. ix. 16; xi. 10; xii. 17; xiii. 14), but simply appeals to II is miracles in Fo of His Messiahship: the language is similar, ut the subjects disser. To the question, whether this prediction is in no sense applicable to our Saviour's miracles, we may reply with CA Lvis, that though they are not directly mentioned, they were really an emblem and example of the great change which is here described. So, too, the spiritual cures effected by the gospel, although not specifically signified by these words, are included in the glorious revolution which they do describe.—J. A. ALEXANDER). The clause ver. 6 b. gives a reason, not specially for the healing of the dumb, lame, etc., but in general for the exhortation to be of good cheer that is given to those returning, and, to rejoice that is given to the desert itself from ver, 1 onwards. Abundance of water shall be given in the desert. This explains why the desert is to flourish and rejoice, and those that journey through it should be of good cheer. FP-2 “to break out” (comp. at xlviii. 21) stands' in the well-known metonymic sense as elsewhere (see list). But this verse forms at the same time the transition to what follows, viz.: the more particular description of the road, by which the redeemed shall return.

4. And the parched——flee away.—Vers. 7–10. [anto it is now agreed denotes the illusive appearance often witnessed both at sea and land, called in English looming, in Italian fata morgana, and in French mirage. In the deserts of Arabia and Africa, the appearance presented is precisely that of an extended sheet of water, tending not only to mislead the traveller, but to aggravate his thirst by disappointment. “More deceitful than mirage” (or serab) is an Arabian proverb. The word (which occurs again in the Old Testament only xlix. 10) adds a beautiful stroke to the description, not only by its local propriety, but by its strict agreement with the context. Comp. J. A. ALEX., and BARNEs, in doc. HERz., R.-Encycl. XXI., p. 607. CURTIUs, VII. 5, 3 and 4.—TR.].

This torture shall not be experienced by the returning Israelites. Instead of the mocking atmospheric illusion there shall be an actual lake, and the dry region shall become a region of bubbling (Joop) springs. Where before was only the lair of jackals, there Israel will bivouac as in a place where now is a green spot hedged in for cane and reed. The Prophet has in mind his own description xxxiv. 13 b.

On Tsin and hosn see Tort. and Gram. By the construction defended there we see that the Prophet explains why a former lair of jackals has now become fit for a resting place. It has become a fence enclosure for reed and cane. Once dry, it is now moist; so much so that plants requiring great moisture grow there. Wherever the moisture extends these plants grow. Their station, therefore, being sharply defined, may be called really a septum, a hedge. But this is a natural fence, not artificial; &pending on organic life, not on stone walls. It is well remarked by GEsENIUs (Thes. p. 512) that the meanings of hon and n}I) hang together. For the nomadic on extends exactly as far as there is nos". So also the Greek 160roc (by which the LXX. generally translate Yossi) is at once fodder, grass and fence, court (comp. hortus and chors, cors, cohors). We ma then in the text take Yossi as having the additional notion of the natural hedge, the district of vegetation. Fup “cane" see xix. 6. sil, pro

rly the papyrus reed (see on xviii. 2) stands f. for rushes generally (Job viii. 11). Ver. 8. The LoftD's care extends further : IIe will make in the desert an embanked highway, a causeway;

[ocr errors]

(= nobo see list) is d7. Acy. The expression “a highway and a way,” is plainly a hendiadys. This way shall be holy. T. LoRD built it and destined it to lead to His house. It is a pilgrim way. Hence nothing unclean, neither unclean person nor thing, may come up on it; it belongs only to them, i. e., the Israelites, which notion here, as well as in Tsan (see Text. and Gram.), must be regarded as ideally present. Another advantage of this via sacra is that even the sim

le-minded (“Thumbe”), cannot go astray on it. For whoever goes on it is a sanctified one,

[blocks in formation]

an impossible construction for men

even fools will not go astray. All that can make unclean or occasion danger will remain at a distange from the holy way. (Comp. comm. on xliii. 20); Instead of that, redeemed, and only they shall journey on it. , Hence the way will be a, or rather the way of salvation. Ver. TO, which is identical with li. 11, defines the goal of the travellers and the success of their journey. The ransomed of the Lord will return home.

The idea Pło in all its modifications plays a great part in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Comp. on vii. 3; x. 20–22; Jer. iii. 1; xxxi. 22. Joy and peace as the promised blessings (Deut. xxviii. 2, 15) the redeemed shall receive, but sorrow and sighing shall flee. . [On their heads may be an expres: sion denoting that joy is manifest in the face and aspect. GESENIUS, BARNEs.]


1. On xxxiv. 1–4. Because Rev. vi. 12–17 has express reference to this passage, some would conclude that the Prophet here has in view only that special event of the world's judgment (the opening of the sixth seal). But that is not justified. For other passages of the New Testament that do not specially relate to the opening of the sixth seal are based on this passage (Matth. xxiv. 29; 2 Pet. iii. 7 sqq.; Rev. xiv. 11; xix. 11 sqq.). It appears from this that the o's passage is, as it were, a magazine from which New Testament prophecy has drawn its material for more than one event of fulfilment. 2. On xxxiv. 16. The word of God can bear the closest scrutiny. Indeed it desires and demands it. If men would only examine the Scriptures diligently and with an unclouded mind and love of truth, “whether these things are so,” as did the Bereans (Acts xvii. 11; Jno. v. 39) | 3. On xxxv. 3. “The Christian church is the true Lazaretto in which may be found a crowd of weary, sick, lame and wretched people. Therefore, Christ is the Physician Himself (Matth. ix. 12) who binds up and heals those suffering from neglect (Ezek. xxxiv. 16; Isa. lxi. 1). And His word cures all (Wisd. xvi. 12). His servants, too, are commissioned officially to admonish the rude, to comfort the timid, to bear the weak, and be patient with all (1 Thess. v. 14). Therefore, whoever feels weak, let him betake himself to this Bethania; there he will find counsel for his soul.” CRAM ER. 4. [On xxxv. 8, 9. “They who enter the path that leads to life, find there no cause of alarm. Their fears subside; their apprehensions of punishment on account of their sins die away, and they walk that path with security and confidence. There is nothing in that way to alarm them; and though there are many foes—fitly represented by lions and wild beasts—lying about the way, yet no one is permitted to “go up thereon.' This is a most beautiful image of the safety of the people of God, and of their freedom from all enemies that could annoy them.” “The path here referred to is appropriately designed only for the redeemed of the LoftD. It is not for the profane, the polluted, the hypocrite. It is not for those who live for this world, or for those who love pleasure more than they love God. The church should not be entered except by those who have

evidence that they are redeemed. None should make a profession of religion who have no evidence that they belong to “the redeemed,” and who are not disposed to walk in the way of holiness. But for all such it is a highway on which they are to travel. It is made by leveling hills *elevating valleys; across the sandy desert and

through the wilderness of this world, infested with the cnemies of God and His people. It is made straight and plain, so that none need err; it is defended from enemies, so that all may be safe; because “He,' their Leader and Redeemer, shall go with them and guard that way.” BARNEs in loc.]




These four chapters run parallel with 2 Kings xviii. 13–Kx. 19. It is not hard to see why they are here. Chaps. xxxvi. and xxxvii. represent to us the contemporaneous fulfilment of the prophecies relating to Assyria. Chaps. Xxxviii. and xxxix. show how “from afar” (Pinno) was be

gun the spinning of the first threads of that web of Babylonish complications that were at last so fatal. There is good internal ground for putting side by side these two retrospective and prospective histories, which DELITzsch aptly compares to the head of Janus. It is, moreover, natural that the retrospective should come before the prospective piece. But researches among the Assyrian monuments have established beyond doubt that the overthrow of Sennacherib did not occur in the fourteenth, but in the twenty-eighth year of Hokiah, therefore not in 714 B.C., but in 700

According to the annals and according to the Canon of Ptolemy, Sargon ascended also the throne of Babylon in 709 B.C. (see on xxxviii. 1). For the latter calls the year 709 the first of 'Apkéavoc, i.e., Sargon, Therefore Sennacherib cannot possibly have reigned as early as 714. The lists of regencies (comp. SchFADER, p. 331,

268 sqq.) say distinctly that Sennacherib, after the murder of his father on the 12th Al (July)

of the year 705, ascended the throne. LENonMANT, as learned as he is positive in his opinions (Les prem.civilis, II. p. 237) says: “In fact the at

tack of Sennacherib on the kingdom of Judah is fixed in a precise way at the third campaign of that king and at the year 700 B.C. by the text.

of the annals of his reign inscribed on a cylinder of baked ear h possessed by the British Museum. It is said, in fact, that it precedes by one year the installation of Asurnadinzum as viceroy in Babylon, an event which, in the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy, is inscribed in 699. , Consequently the expedition against Judah took place in the twenty-eighth and not in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah.” It appears not clearly made out whether Sennacherib's expedition against Judah occurred in 701 or in 700. LENoHMANT says 700, but Sch RADER (l.c.) is still in doubt. The difference is unessential. It appears to be occasioned by different computations of the beginnings of the years. I will follow that of LENORMANT.

Now while it appears that chaps. xxxvi. and xxxvii. relate the events of 700 B.C., or of the twenty-eighth year of Hezekiah's reign, it is equally certain chaps. xxxviii. and xxxix. relate the events of 714, or of the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. For according to xxxviii. 5 (see comm. in loc.) the LoRD prolongs Hezekiah's life fifteen years. We know also from 2 Kings xxi. 1 (2 Chr. xxxiii. 1) that Manasseh was twelve years old when he succeeded his father Hezekiah. From this results that he could only have been born after the seventeenth year of Hezekiah’s reign. In the fourteenth then he was not yet born. And this explains both the grief of Hezekiah (xxxviii. 3) and his great joy (xxxviii. 19). But the following considerations show that Hezekiah's sickness and recovery and the embass from Babylon did not occur before Sennacherib's overthrow: 1). The treasury chambers, still full, in contrast with 2 Kings xviii. 14 sqq. (see xxxix. 2 and comm.). Had this been the spoil of an enemy, Hezekiah would have displayed it as such, and the Prophet (see comm. at xxxix. 6) would not have called it “that which thy fathers have laid up in store.” 2) The deliverance from Assyria is spoken of as in the future (xxxviii. 6). 3) We do not find in Hezekiah's psalm (xxxix. 10 sqq.) the slightest reference to the miraculous deliverance spoken of in xxxvi. and xxxvii. which would be inexplicable if that glorious event were a thing of the past.

Accordingly it appears that chaps. xxxvi.xxxix. are not chronologically arranged, but according to their contents, as already explained. [On the misunderstandings to which this has led and the possible change of the captions, see Introduction, %% 3, 4.] The important question arises: which of these records is the original one—this in Isa. xxxvi-xxxix., or the parallel one in 2 Kings xviii. 13—xx. 19? It seems to me that no impartial reader can remain in doubt on this subject. The text of the Book of Kings is the older.

This appears probable from the fact that it is more comprehensive and stands in an historical book. For as certainly as prophecy needs history, so certainly it needs only such facts as verify its fulfilment. And the presumption is that this in Isaiah being the shorter, has been abbreviated for the ends of a prophetic book. Moreover it is better to think, if any alterations must be admitted, that they are of the nature of abbreviations, rather than arbitrary additions, which is the alternative, if the shorter text be regarded as the older. These probabilities become certainties when we view the difference in these passages in concreto. The differences on the part of 1saiah form two chief classes, abbreviations and corrections. Additions, i.e., where the text in Isaiah gives something more than the Book of Kings, there are none, except the psalm of thanksgiving, xxxviii. 9–20. But this exception proves the rule. For it proves that the author of each book had in view his own object. Such a psalm suits better in a prophetic book to which song and prayer are kindred elements, than to historic annals. Moreover this psalm is so far important that it proves that, beside the two writings before us, there must have existed a third, that probably served as the source of both. The abbreviations in Isaiah's text are of two sorts. They are partly the omission of historical data that seemed unsuited to the aim of the prophetic book. To this sort belong xxxvi. 1, 2; xxxvii. 36; xxxviii. 4–7 (where the whole text is much contracted). And partly also they are omissions of rhetorical and grammatical redundancies. Such are xxxvi. 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17; xxxvii. 4 (comp. ver. 17 and xxxix. 2), 11, 21, 25; xxxix. 2. I will refer for the particulars to the following commentary. But here I will call special attention to a few passages. Can any one deny that the accumulation of predicates in 2 Kings xviii. 17 b isn') by bovin' isn's own Toy") are contracted into one word in Isa. xxxvi. 2, wherein, besides, "Toy" must become Topy" because Isaiah leaves out two of the three ambassadors? Or can it be denied that the picturesque, circumstantial "px" "5" of Kings has been contracted to the simple ops"), Isa. xxxvi. 13? Or must the editor of 2 Kings xviii. 29 have added the surprising YTD 2 Did not rather the editor of the Isaiah text leave that word out because it was superfluous for him and seemed harsh 2 But still more common are the differences that are due to corrections. They are the following: xxxvi. 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 19, 21; xxxvii. 2, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37; xxxviii. 2, 3; xxxix. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. I will notice here the following: xxxvi. 5 we have no instead of hops. The latter— though at first sight strange—is undoubtedly correct (see comm.). Can Dipon have come from Yossi (2 Kings xviii. 25 and Isa. xxxvi. 10), or

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

of the difference between annalistic and prophetic writing of history, and according to which he ascribes our chapters to a prophetic source. I also quite agree with him, that an account composed by Isaiah must essentially be that source. For he justly appeals to the fact that, according to 2 Chr. xxvi. 22, Isaiah wrote a history of king Uzziah, and elsewhere weaves historical accounts into his prophecies (vii., viii., xx.), and in them speaks of himself partly in the third person, as he does, in xxxvi.-xxxix. I moreover willingly admit that the mention of the locality xxxvi. 2, on account of almost literal agreement, connects with vii. 3, in fact presupposes it. And finally I have no objection to the statement that the author of 2 Kings had Isaiah’s book before him, and that 2 Kings xvi. 5 compared with Isa. vii. 1, may be adduced as proof. I even add to this that the two passages now reviewed are proof of this. For the author of 2 Kings could have accepted for his book the arrangement according to the contents and contrary to the chronology, only on the ground of the book of prophecy that lay before him. But I must controvert the view that 2 Kings xviii. 13–xxx. 19 is drawn from Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix. as its source. For reasons alread given I think the text of 2 Kings the more original and better. Isaiah may have written down an account of the remarkable events of which our chapters treat, a matter that is at least highly probable. From this source was first drawn what we have in xxxvi.-xxxix. These chapters are so suitable and even necessary where they are, that we may refer the idea of them to the Prophet himself, and even admit that he directed his account to be adopted into his book of prophecy, not unaltered but with a suitable transposition of events an abbreviation of the text. Both were done, but the latter not quite in the sense of the Prophet. The result was as described in the Introduction, %% 3, 4 (at the end). But we must not suppose the false dates of xxxvi. 1; xxxviii. 1; xxxix. 1 were put by this first editor. The author of the Book of Kings, too, who wrote in the exile (probably 562–536 B.C.) must have known the right relations of these chapters and the proper dates. For he had at the same time before him that historical account of the Prophet as his source, and reproduced it more perfectly and unaltered than his predecessors that had used it for the prophetic book. Possibly, while following the order of Isaiah, he may have retained the original dates of their common source. But in time, and for reasons easily conjectured, his text would experience the same alterations as to dates as did the parallel passages in Isaiah, and perhaps by the same hand. And if, in respect to chronological arrangement of the account, the Book of Kings differed from the prophetic book and agreed with their common original source, then it is probable that a later hand, perhaps the same that changed the dates in Isaiah, brought the Book of Kings in this respect into accord with the prophetic book. Thus it is found, that the transposition of events in the prophetic book for material reasons has become the origin of that discrepancy between the Assyrian and Bible chronology of this historical epoch. We have seen in respect to the taking of Samaria that these two sources completely agree. Also for Manasseh's time the agreement is satisfactory. Only for Hezekiah's time there existed this fatal difference of fourteen years in reference to the all-important event of Sennacherib's overthrow. This difference is seeming. It dissolves when we consider the misunderstandings occasioned by the transposition of the chapters. So it can have been. I do not say that it must have been so. For in these ancient matters we will hardly be able ever to make out the exact course things have taken. Only that chap. xxxvi. —xxxix. are not derived from Isaiah in their present form, but have proceeded by alteration and abbreviation from the original account of Isaiah seems to me certain.” DELITzsch, in proof of the authenticity of the present text of Isaiah, appeals to 2 Chron. xxxii. 32: “in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, (and) in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.” He finds in this that “an historical account of Hezekiah out of the collection of Isaiah's prophecies with the superscription in passed over into the “book of the kings of Judah

* [The reader versed in studies belonging to the goneral subject of Introduction will be reminded by the foregoing of the Urevangelium, the original Gospel, the fascination of German critics of the New Testament. Its foundation is conjecture, and nothing better than robability at best. Though one accumulate a mounin of such conjectural probabilities, they will no more Bustain a fact or make a fact than a cloud will sustain a pebble or condense into a pebble. The same may be said of the Author's original Isaiah history. On the general subject treated of in the foregoing, J. A. A1 ExANDER, in his introduction to chapter xxxvi., says: “The simple, common-sense view of the matter is, that since the traditional position of these chapters among the writings of Isaiah corresponds exactly to the known fact of his having written a part of the history of Judah, the presumption in favor of his having written both the passages in question cannot be shaken by the mere F.". or even intrinsic probability of other hypoheses, for which there is not the least external evidence." And again on xxxviii. 1 he says: “Why may we not suppose that the overthrow of Sennacherib odcurred in the interval between Hezekiah's sickness and the embassy from Merodach-baladan 2 It is altogether natural that the Prophet, after carrying the history of Sonnacherib to its conclusion, should go back to complete that of Hezekiah also.”—TB.]

[blocks in formation]

It has been objected to the claim of originality for the text in 2 Kings, that 2 Kings xxiv. 18– xxv. 30, although the original text, is still more corrupt than the parallel text, Jer, lii. This is in general true (see my comm. on Jer, lii.). But there one sees that the text of 2 Kings, being the older and more disintegrated, is, on account of adverse experiences, less preserved. But the text of Isa. xxxvi.-xxxix., on the contrary, has not become worse in process of time and by unfavorable circumstances, but it is from its origin worse through the faulty epitomizing and unfortunate emendations of its author.

The division of the chapters is very simple. Embassies play a great part in them. Chapters xxxvi. and xxxvii. contain the conclusion of the relations between Israel and Assyria. This first part has six subdivisions. 1) The embassy of Sennacherib to Hezekiah, chap. xxxvi. 2) The embassy of Hezekiah to Isaiah, xxxvii. 1–7. 3) The writing of Sennacherib to Hezekiah, xxxvii. 8–13. , 4) Hezekiah's prayer, xxxvii. 14–20. 5) Isaiah's message to Hezekiah, xxxvii. 21–35. 6) The deliverance, xxxvii.36–38. The second part that paves the way for the relations to Babylon has three subdivisions: 1) Hezekiah's sickness and recovery, chap. xxxviii. (a. sickness, vers. 1– 3; b. recovery, vers. 4-8; psalm of thanksgiving, vers, 9–20 [22]). 2) The Babylonian embassy, xxxix. 1–8.

CHAP. XXXVI. 1–22.

1 , . Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them. 2 And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish unto Jerusalem unto king

Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper

[ocr errors]

3 the highway of the fuller's field. Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, which was over the house, and Shebna the "scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the


4 - And Rabshakeh said unto them, Sayye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the great 5 king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this wherein thou "trustest? I say, sayest thou, (but they are but vain words) "I have counsel and strength for war: now

« PoprzedniaDalej »