pare for entire destruction attended with great cruelties. This or the proposition of vers. 16, 17 were the alternatives to the Assyrian. It certainly never entered into his mind to treat them with sentimental mildness. "A land of bread and vineyards" is a more comprehensive expression than "a land of corn and wine." For "bread" (see xxviii. 28) represents here every sort of vegetable that gives bread, and in vineyards not only vines grow, but also other noble tree (comp. 7 Judg. xv. 5).

Vers. 18-20. Rabshakeh repeats the warning against illusive hopes of help from Jehovah, and would prove that they are illusive by appealing to facts that showed how the heathen gods had been unable to save their lands. The question where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? etc., is not meant as denying the existence of these gods generally, but only to demonstrate their inability and unworthiness to let themselves be seen, i. e., to show themselves in a clear light. They are brought to shame and must hide themselves. On Hamath and Arpad see x. 9. According to the Assyrian monuments (see SCHRADER, p. 152), Sargon, in the second year of his reign, therefore a year after the conquest of Samaria, conquered

king Ilubid of Hamath, and took as the royal share of the spoils 200 chariots and 600 horsemen. From this is inferred that he transported most of the rest of the inhabitants. And in fact we read 2 Kings xvii. 24 that, among others, people from Hamath were transplanted in Samaria. Arpad, that is never named except with Hamath, does not appear in the inscriptions after Sargon (SCHRADER, p. 204). It likely shared therefore the fate of Hamath. Rabshakeh does not mean to enumerate here the conquests of Sennacherib. But he would remind the men of Judah of examples of transplanted nations well-known to them. By which Assyrian king it was done was unimportant. It was enough that Assyrian kings could do this. The words vers. 18, 19, are, besides a fulfilment of the prophecy x. 7-11.

Vers. 21, 22. Hezekiah's prohibition of any reply was wise. A single incautious word might occasion great harm, as was in fact proved by Eliakim's blundering interruption ver. 11. Every reply needed to be maturely considered. Those were serious and significant moments in which only he ought to speak who was qualified, and authorized to represent the entire nation.

1

2. HEZEKIAH'S MESSAGE TO ISAIAH.

CHAPTER XXXVII. 1–7.

AND it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and 2 covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the LORD. And he sent Eliakim, who was over 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 'blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is 4 not strength to bring forth. It may be the LORD thy God will hear the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God, and will reprove the words which the LORD thy God hath heard: wherefore 5 lift up thy prayer for the remnant that is left. So the servants of king Hezekiah 6 came to Isaiah. 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 7 the 'servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumor, and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.

Ver. 3. 3D comp. Ps. xx. 2; 1. 15; Obad. xii. 14; | Kings xix. 3. But comp. Hos. xiii. 13.—-~↳ inf. nom. Nah. i. 7, etc.-The expression

is taken

from Hos. v. 9.—3) from PN contemnere, aspernari (i. 4; v. 24; 1x. 14. contemtus, opprobrium occurs only here. In Neh. ix. 18, 26] is found in the sense of Bλaoonuía, blasphemy. Our present word must be taken in this sense (comp. verse 4).—The expression the "children are come " occurs again only 2

TT'.'

again only Jer. xiii. 21.

with double acc. like verbs שלח אשר שלחו .4 .Ver

of teaching, commanding: comp. lv. 11; Exod. iv. 28, etc.-'n ons, except here and ver. 17, the expression always reads D" (Deut. v. 23; 1 Sam. xvii. 26, 36; Jer. x. 10; xxiii. 36). The constant absence of the article in the expression is noteworthy. Thus it appears

to me to designate God, not as the only living God, but only in general as living God in contrast with the dead idols, whereby is not expressly excluded that there may is the remnant in fact as opposed to that be still other " ' (comp. dóĝas Bλaoonμeiv Jude 8). which ought to be. Comp. xiii. 15; xxii. 3. -The two perfects and ♫ connect with the imperfect you. Many older expositors have explained to be an infinitive, and have taken it as the continuation of . But then one must make the word mean "to contemn," which it does not. It must therefore be construed as perfect. The meaning is direct causative: "exercise reproof," (comp. ii. 4; xi. 4). The prefix before D' has a causal sense: "and he will use reproof (judicial decision) (moved) by the words, etc." Comp. 1.1; lvii. 17.—The perf.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.

|

(comp. xix. 14; xxix. 10, etc.), and he shall hear a report." This is the first stage of the deliverance. It intimates that the Assyrian's next intention now at once to advance on Jerusalem shall not be realized. But that only wards off the immediate danger. Perhaps to reprieve is not to relieve. Thus the Assyrian himself seems to have thought according to vers. 10-13. But there is no danger. He shall not come before Jeru

salem at all (ver. 33), but shall return into his land, and there fall by the sword. Let those believe that, "and I will fell him by the sword," etc., is ascribed to Isaiah by the narrator post eventum, who cannot believe that there may be such a thing as a spirit of God, that can look freely into the future, and, when it seems good to him, can declare the future.

8

3. THE WRITING OF SENNACHERIB TO HEZEKIAH.
CHAPTER XXXVII. 8–13.

So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria "warring against Libnah: 9 for he had heard that he was departed from Lacish. And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when 10 he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying, Thus shall ye speak to Hez ekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. 11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by de12 stroying them utterly; and shalt thou be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Haran, and Re13 zeph, and the children of Eden which were in Telassar? Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arphad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah?

Ver. 10. On 1, comp. on xxxvi. 14.-1 1 xix. are inconsiderable. But such as they are they also see on xxxvi. 7-17 see on xxxvi. 15.

Ver. 11. D (sce xi. 15; xxxiv. 5) is that verbal form which we translate by the ablative of the gerund. Ver. 13. The words are difficult. The Masorets seem to have regarded thein as verbs, secing that

give evidence of an effort at simplification and accommodation to the prevalent usus loquendi. For example Isaiah, (according to sound) instead of 2 Kings (which would correspond to the Assyrian TulAssuri, i. e., hill of Assyria),

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.

1. While the events narrated vers. 1-7 were | Jerusalem for a reply. The silence (xxxvi. 21) taking place, Rabshakeh returned to report to his master, whom he found at Libnah. The news received there of the movement of the king of Ethiopia made it impossible to undertake anything against Jerusalem just then. In the event of a prolonged siege, Sennacherib might find himself in the bad situation of having the Jews in his front, and Tirhakah in his rear. This he must not risk. But to check the triumph of Hezekiah, he sends the message of vers. 10-13, which is virtually a repetition of Rabshakeh's words xxxvi. 18-20, except that while the latter warned the people against Hezekiah Sennacherib warns Hezekiah not to let his God deceive him. 2. So Rabshakeh--saying.-Vers. 8, 9. Rabshakeh it seems did not tarry long before

that followed his words was itself an answer. He returned, therefore, to his master to report that neither in king nor people did he meet with any disposition to make a voluntary submission. Libnali, in the siege of which he found his master engaged, was an ancient Canaanite royal city (Josh. x. 29 sqq.). It belonged (Josh. xv. 42) to the low country of Judah, and was later (Josh. xxi. 13; 1 Chr. vi. 42) a Levitical and free city. It must have been near to Lec'sh (Josh. x. 23 sqq.), and between that place and Makkedah. VAN DE VELDE supposes it is identical with the Tell of 'Ara-cl-Menschijeh, because "this is the only place in the plain between Sumeil (Makkedal) and Um-Lakhis, that can be recognized as an ancient fortified place" (HERZ., R -Encycl.,

or

scriptions as a Mesopotamian city (SCHRADER, p. 45). It is a very ancient city (Gen. xi. 31; xii. 5; xxvii. 43, etc.), and well-known to Greeks and Romans under the name Kappa, Carrae [famous for the great defeat of Crassus.--TR ], (see PLUTARCH, vit. Crassi, 25, 27 sq.). Rezeph, too, is a Mesopotamian city, west of the Euphrates, that frequently appears in the inscriptions as Ra-sa-ap-pa or Ra-sap-pa. Later it appears under the name Resafa. or Rosafa (comp. EWALD, l. c. III. p. 639). Regarding the "B'ne Eden in Telasser," it must be noted that Ezek. xxvii. 23 mentions a people y, that were merchants dealing between Sheba, i. e., Arabia and Tyre, along with 1 and 2 (i. e., Ma

or

Isa. x. 9). Moreover Amos i. 5 mentions a

XIV. p. 753). Ver. 9. The subject of "he 11, and must be distinguished from the heard" beginning ver. 9 is, of course, Senna- Chaboras (Chebar) Ezek. i. 3, etc., that is a cherib. Tirhakah was the third and last king of branch of the Euphrates. Comp. DELITZSCH in the twenty-fifth or Ethiopic dynasty. Sabako, or loc.: EWALD, Gesch. d. V. 1sr. III. p. 638, 658: Sevechos, I. and II., were his predecessors. He The Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes," by ASAHEL resided in Thebes, where, on the left bank of the GRANT. According to 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. Nile, in the palace of Medenet-Habu, sculptures 11, Gozan belongs to the lands into which the still exist, that represent Tirhakah wielding the Israelites were deported. Now we find these war-mace over bearded Asiatics. See WILKIN- (Ezek. i. 3; iii. 15, 23; x. 15, 22) settled on the SON, "Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians," I. p. 393 sqq. According to HEROD., II., 141, there, i. e., Chebar. The subject is not yet cleared appears as his contemporary, probably as subor- up. Haran, occurs often as Harran in the indinate king (comp. EWALD, Gesch,, d. V. Isr. III. p. 678), Sethon, a priest of Hephastos, who ruled over middle and lower Egypt. According to the Assyrian monuments, Sargon conquered Seveh (Sevechos) king of Egypt in the year 720 B. c., at Rephia (comp. on xx.). Again in 715, the canon of regents mentions a payment of tribute by the Pharaoh of Egypt. In the arrow-headed inscriptions of Sennacherib's time, the name of Tirhakah has not been found as yet. But Asurbanipal (Sardanapalus), the grandson of Sennacherib, and successor of his son Esarhaddon, relates, that he directed his first expedition against the rebellious Tar-ku-u of Egypt and Meroe (SCHRADER, p. 202 sq.). As Sennacherib reigned till 681, and Esarhaddon till 668, the statement of MANETHO, that Tirhakah arose 366 years before Alexander's conquest of Egypt, agrees, of course, better with the Assyrian statement, according to which Sennacherib came to the throne in 705, and undertook the expedition against Egypt in 700, than with the chronology hitherto accepted, that places this expedition in 714 B. C. 3. Thus shall ye——and Ivah ?-Vers. 10 13. [The design to destroy, not the people's confidence in Hezekiah, but Hezekiah's confidence in God, makes Sennacherib's blasphemy much more open and direct than that of Rabshakeh. J. A. ALEX.]. The servant could in flattery ascribe conquests to his master (xxxvi. 18-20) which the latter (ver. 11 sqq.), more honestly acknowledges as the deed of his predecessors. ["Others, with more probability, infer that the singular form, employed by Rabshakeh, is itself to be understood collectively, like "king of Babylon" in chap. xiv."-J. A. ALEX.]. Gozan, in the form Guzanu, is often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, and that as a city (SCHRADER, p. 323, 9), and a province (ibid. p. 327, 11, 12; p. 331, 8). But opinions differ as to its location, some taking it for a Mesopotamian locality (GESEN., KNOBEL, on the authority of PTOLEMAEUS V. 18, 4, also SCHRADER, p. 161, because, in an Assyrian list of geographical contents, Guzana is named along with Nisibis, and in our text with Haran and Rezeph. But others, on the authority of Arab geographers, seek for Gozan in the mountainous region northeast of Nineveh. There is a river Chabur there, flowing from the mountain region of Zuzan. This Chabur, a left branch of the Tigris, appears to be the mentioned 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii.

that, as part of the people of Syria, was to emigrate to Kir. Telasser is mentioned only once in the inscriptions, where it is related, that Tiglath-Pileser brought an offering in Tul-Assuri to the god "Marduk (i. e., Merodach) that dwelt at Telassar" (SCHRADER, p 203 sq.). We must thus consider Eden and Telassar as Mesopotamian localities, though views differ much as to their precise locations. The question (ver. 13) "where is the king of Hamath," etc., is a repetition of Xxxvi. 19, excepting that we have here "king" instead of "the gods." It is moreover remarkable that here it reads:. The reason for this form of expression, if it is not a mere variation, is not clear. For analogies see Josh. xii. 18; Num. xxii. 4, and in the Chaldee Ezra. that suggested by Luzzatto, who regards them as ["Another explanation of these words is names of the deities worshipped at Hamath, Arpad and Sepharvaim, and takes in the sense of idol or tutelary deity, which last idea is as old as CLERICUS. This ingenious hypothesis Luzzatto endeavors to sustain by the analogy of Adrammelech, and Anamelech, the gods of Sepharvaim (2 Kings xvii. 31), the second of which names he regarded as essentially identical with Hena. In favor of this exposition, besides the fact already mentioned that the names, as names of places, occur nowhere else, it may be urged that it agrees not only with the context in this place, but also with 2 Kings xviii. 34, in which the explanation of the words as verbs or nouns is inadmissible.”—J. A. ALEX.].

v. 11.

14

4. HEZEKIAH'S INTERCESSION.

CHAPTER XXXVII. 14-20.

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. 15, 16 And Hezekiah prayed unto the LORD, saying, O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubim, thou art the God, even thou alone, 'of all the 17 kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth. Incline thine ear, O LORD, and hear; open thine eyes, O LORD, and see and hear all the words of 18 Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach the living God. Of a truth LORD, the 19 kings of Assyria have laid waste all the 'nations, and their countries, And have 'cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, 20 wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them. 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.

Ver. 14. Do, properly scripta, stands, like the Latin literae, for one writing (comp. 1 Kings xxi. 8; 2 Kings x. 1, where verse 2 interchanges with DDD; 2 Kings xx. 12, comp. Isa. xxxix. 1). The singular suffix following refers to the singular notion O, scriptum. Ver. 15. The contents of this verse forms in 2 Kings xix. the beginning of ver. 15, and instead of

• living divinity.

used of lands, then also of nations (xlix. 17; lx. 12; Jer. 1. 27). [ is used here in the sense of nations, as the singular seems sometimes to denote the inhabitants of the earth or land. This would at the same time account for the masculine suffix in D.-J. A. ALEX. The Author's hypothesis to account for the variation in Isaiah's text is noticed by J. A. ALEX., as urged by GE

, which is the more usual form of speech, it reads SENIUS, as is the case with much beside that the Author

has to present on the same subject. In reference to the present instance J. A. ALEX. says: "Besides its fanciful and arbitrary character as a mere make-shift, and its gratuitous assumption of the grossest stupidity and ignorance as well as inattention in the writer, it is sufficiently refuted by the emphatic combination of the same verb and noun lx. 12,—(which) proves that such a writer could not have been so shocked at the expression as to make nonsense of a sentence merely for the purpose of avoiding it. The reader will do well to observe, moreover, that the same imaginary copyist is supposed, in different emergencies, to have been wholly unacquainted with the idioms of his mother tongue comp. Dr. NAEGELSBACH above at xxxvi. 21 on, and at xxxvii. 9 on ], and yet extremely sensitive to any supposed violation of usage. Such scruples and such ignorance are not often found in combination. A transcriber unable to distinguish sense from nonsense would not be apt to take offence at mere irregularities or eccentricities in the phraseology or diction of his author." The wisdom of this remark will no doubt in most minds outweigh the considerations that the Author offers, in the progress of his commentary on the present section, in proof of our text being second hand.

Assyrians have destroyed their own land, and that "by
depopulation in consequence of constant war" [comp.
xiv. 20.-Tn.]. But DN introduces a concession of the
truth of what the Assyrian says, who boasts only of what
they have done to other nations. It must then be ad--TR.].
mitted that 2 Kings has the more correct reading. There
appears to be an alteration in Isaiah, probably occa-
sioned by the 12 less used of nations than of

Ver. 19. D18) describes, according to the succes

,the concluding result ונתן החריבו sion of verbs

-.11.ver לכל הארצות lands, and possibly also by the and according to the accents these words יהוה אלהים

Ver. 20. 8. In 2 Kings xix. 19 the reading is

, which reminds of ' ver. 11, means properly "to make withered," then generally "to waste, desolate." In its radical meaning and primarily it is

belong together, whether construed as predicate or apposition with the subject . Moreover the author of the Isaiah text seems to have combined them, and