Obrazy na stronie

have hope in the faithfulness of God that rules over them and promises a better future. . [“The true explanation of the words is given by CALv1N, viz., that the language, is that of extreme agitation and distress, in which the prospect of the future is absorbed in contemplation of the resent, and also that, so far as he does think of uturity, it is upon the supposition of God's wrath. arding death, in this case, as a proof of the divine displeasure, he cannot but look upon it as the termination of his solemn praises.” —J. A. ALEX.]. With jubilant emotions, Hezekiah feels that he again belongs to the living, hence the repetition of on who lives, who lives, he praises, etc., and the joyous Dion opi) as I this day, in which appears how much the contrast between the mournful yesterday, and the blessed to-day moves the heart of the poet. The words father to the children, etc., have a peculiar significance in Hezekiah's mouth. His successor Manasseh, according to 2 Kings xxi. 1, ascended the throne at twelve years of age. Consequently he cannot have been born at this time. Indeed, since it was customary for the eldest son to succeed, it is very probable that at that time Hezekiah had no

[ocr errors]

son at all, which seems to be confirmed by *ss.

5. The LORD –house of the LORD.— Ver. 20. Concluding verse, containing once again the chief thought, and a summons to continual praise of Jehovah. “Jehovah is present to save me,” see Tert, and Gram. So will we touch my stringed instruments, ibid. The song accompanying the stringed instrument is not excluded, though the latter alone is mentioned. The plural has been urged as favoring the meaning “song.” But could not the musical, King Hezekiah understand various sorts of playing on stringed instruments? Or, if not this, may not the plural be that of the general notion? Some suppose, that by the plural 132, “we will touch,” Hezekiah sets himself as the chorusleader of his family. But one must not forget the Levitical musicians that he himself had instituted for the service of God's house (2 Chr. xxix. 30). Corresponding to the TTR ver, 15, Hezekiah thinks here not of private divine service, but of the worship of Jehovah in the

temple. The preposition by is surprising Perhaps one may compare Hos. xi. 11. Perhaps,

too, the preposition has reference to the elevated way which, according to 2 Kings xvi. 18, led the

king into the temple, and afforded him an ele

’11), xxxix. 7. Considered from this point of wated place from which he saw the greater part

view our words appear prophetic.

Yet, when of the house beneath him. Moreover it is to be

one reflects what sort of a scn Manasseh was, it remarked, that tarrying in the house of the

would almost seem to have been better had Hezekiah done nothing to avert the sentence of death ver, 1.

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent

letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was 2 recovered. And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his 'precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his **armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not.


Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What

said these men 7 and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said,

4 They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon.

What have they seen in thine house?

Then said he, And Hezekiah answered, All that is in

5 mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not 6 shewed them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LoRD of hosts:

Behold, the days come, that all that is

in thine house, and that which thy fathers

have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be 7 left, saith the LORD. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be "eunuchs in the palace of the king

of Babylon. 8 thou hast spoken. my days.

He said moreover,

Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which

For there shall be peace and truth in

1 Or, spicery, ? Or, jewels.

* chamberlain.

* Heb. vessels or, instruments.

t o ! EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. On ver. 1. The text of 2 Kings xx. 12 sqq., reads the case of chap. xxxvii. 32, compared with 2 Kings

[ocr errors]

sprung from the attraction of sound of the three following words, which begin with D. What has been said shows that Merodach-Baladan does not meal. “Merodacus Baladani filius,” as our text and 2 Kings seem to understand it. [This imputed misunderstanding seems quite gratuitous in the Author.—Th.]. We have here, also, an evidence of a later writer who was indifferently acquainted with the subject.—On D. "BO comp. on xxxvii. 14.—Our text differs from 2 Kings xx. 12, in reading ypt") and pin'). Both seem to me traceable

to correction. The editor of the text in Isaiah might take offence at the double "D, and thus have replaced

the first by ). But he also stumbled at its only being

said 2 Kings: “he had heard that Hezekiah was sick.” For it seemed to him that the wonderful recovery of Hezekiah, and the proof it gave of his being a ruler under the protection of a mighty god, had as much to do with the Babylonian's sending an embassy. On ver. 2. Here, too, the two texts differ. The ypto) of 2 Kings xx. 13, is the more difficult reading, compared with which now") appears an emendation: being the easier and more natural reading. On wer. 3. At the end of the verse our text has “’N after Yxs, which is wanting in 2 Kings xx. 14. On ver. 5. Our text has n\xinx at the end, which is wanting 2 Kings xx. 16. It may be here the same as in


1. As the text needs no special comment, it may be well for the better understanding of the circumstances involved, to present briefly the chief points of Babylonian history relating to them, according to the data of the Assyrian monuments as far as the latter have been deciphered. Our chapter speaks of two Baladans, viz.: Merodach-Baladan, who sent the embassy and Baladan his father. Yet there appears in this a misunderstanding. According to the Assyrian monuments (comp. LENORMANT, les premieres civilizations, Paris, 1874, Tom. II., in the essay “un patriote babylonien,” p. 210) our Meroi.p.s.l., was a son of Jakin. Comp. also the ostentatious inscription of Tiglath-Pileser mentioned above at xxi. 1, which states that he received the homage of “Merodach-Baladan, son of Jakin, king of the sea, in the city of Sapiga.” We remarked above at xxi. 1, that by tihamtu spinn, “sea, sea-land”) is to be understood south Chaldea, the watery region at the mouth

of the united rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Merodach-Baladan, when he did homage to TiglathPileser, was king of Bit-Jakin (such was the name of the residence and of the small territory of his father), and so remained till the year 721. In the year 721, when Sargon ascended the throne, this energetic man, who was an enthusiast for the independence of Babylon, succeeded in mounting the throne of all Chaldea in Baby

[ocr errors]

K'ri has this reading, whereas Kothibh reads TD". Certainly the latter is the more difficult, and inp" ap

pears as an emendation. The sing. may be taken either as the predicate of an indefinite subject (one) or, more correctly, as seems to me, as predicate of a definite subject, which, however, is present only in idea, viz.: the king of Babylon.

[ocr errors]

where. EwA11 ($ 324 b), takes it in the sense of “yea. if only." But that is neither grammatically justified, nor does it give a clear meaning. According to my view of the context (see Ereg, and Crit. below) Ron nonne. I, therefore, take DN not as a particle expressive of desire, as many do, but it has its conditional meaning, - “if, in so far as.” The "E in the text of Isaiah has essentially the same meaning, as DELITzsch also has admitted. For it says, that between the sentiments that Hezekiah had betrayed in reference to the ambassadors and his affirmation “good is the word,” etc., there was no contradiction, because, in fact, while he lived peace and fidelity would certainly be undis– turbed. At least, our text can be so understood. Whether its author really meant this, is another question. For it were possible, too, that he substituted for

the obscure DN Ron the general, indefinite "in perhaps only in its pleonastic sense, that introduces the oratio recta.


lon. The canon of Ptolemy names Mardocempad, under this year as king of Babylon, a name that is universally regarded as identical with Merodach-Baladan. Sargon states, that in the first complete year of his reign (i.e., in the year 721), after having in the year 722 completed the conquest of Samaria, he marched against Violii. But his undertaking was not successful. For Merodach-Baladan maintained himself, and reigned, according to the Canon, yet twelve years as acknowledged king of Babylon. Not till the year 710 did Sargon again take the field against him. The struggle extended into the year 709, ending in the dethronement of Merodach-Baladan (see the interesting description of this so in LENorMANT, l. c. p. 243 sqq.). In this i. Sargon himself mounted the throne of Babylon. The Canon, from the year 709 onwards, names'Apsáavoc, i. e. Sarrukin or Sargon, as king of Babylon. But the courage of Merodach-Baladan was not yet broken. He fled back into his own hereditary land Bit-Jakin, a narrow strip of land on the Persian gulf, extending from Schat-el-qrab to Elam. Sargon marched against him again and stormed first the strongly fortified position where Merodach-Baladan awaited him, then the city Dur-Jakin, his opponent's last refuge on the mainland. Merodach-Baladan escaped with great difficulty. But still he did not submit. Sargon was compelled, in the beginning of the year 705, to send his son Sennacherib against the obstinate rebel. But not long after, Sennacherib received in camp the intelligence of the murder of his father by a certain Belkaspai, probably a patriotic Chaldean and adherent of Merodach-Baladan's. Then there followed a period of two or three years, filled up with the strifes of various pretenders to the crown, and hence designated by the Canon as kapo: ağıgüevros. Thus it appears by the account of PolyHISTOR in EUSEBIUs (chron. armen. ed. MAI, p. 19), that after Sargon's death, his son and a brother of Sennacherib ascended the Babylonian throne. But after a short term this one was obliged to give place to a certain Hagisa, who, after not thirty, days' reign, was killed by Merodach-Baladan. That this was our Merodach-Baladan can scarcely be doubted. The implacable enemy of the Assyrians boldly raised his head anew. Sennacherib marched against him and conquered him at Kis, a city that Nebuchadnezzar afterwards incorporated in the city territory of Babylon by means of his great wall. Sennacherib gave the throne of Babylon to a certain Belibus or Elibus, the son of a “wise man,” whom, says the king, “they had brought up in the company of the small boys in my palace.” Hence this Belibus was not an independent pretender, as would seem according to Poly HISTOR, but a subordinate king recognized by Sennacherib after the expulsion of Merodach-Baladan. According to the Canon of regents (SCHRADER, p. 319), this expedition against Merodach-Baladan fell in the year 704 B.C. In the year 700 Sennacherib accomplished his unfortunate expedition against Judah and Egypt, according to the entirely credible testimony of the Assyrian monuments. The news of his defeat appears to have been the signal for a new insurrection to the Chaldean patriots. For in the following year (699), according to the Taylor-cylinder (SCHRADER, p. 224), we find Sennacherib on the march against the rebellious, Babylonians. MerodachBaladan had allied himself with a young prince Suzub, son of Gatul, of the race of Kalban, and Belibus found it best to enter into negotiations with these opponents. For this, according to BERosus, he was deposed and carried prisoner to Assyria. Sennacherib first attacked Suzub, whose troops were defeated; he himself escaped. Then Sennacherib turned against Merodach-Baladan, who, gave way before the threatening danger. He fled by ship to the city Nagit-Raggi, situated on an island in the Persian gulf. The territory of Bit-Jakin was desolated. Sennacherib made his son Esar-Haddon king of Akkad and Sumir, i.e., Babylon (699): . After that were eleven years of quiet. During this period, Merodach-Baladan, whom the king of Elam, Kudhir-Nakhunta, had made lord of a strip of the coast, had moved the discontented elements of Babylon and Chaldea to emigrate in mass into his land. This led Sennacherib to build a fleet in Nineveh (they were called “Syrian ships” because Phoenician seamen manned them), with which he attacked the island and the coast possessed by Merodach-Baladan, and entirely devastated them (see the remarks on xliii. 14). At this point Merodach-Baladan disappears from history. It is related that the in. fluential Babylonians then forsook him. On the other hand, they moved the king of Elam to send

that Suzub to Babylon. Suzub, indeed, ascended the throne of Babylon. Their purpose was to cut Sennacherib from his own land. But the latter returned in time and defeated his opponents in two battles. He took Suzub prisoner, but spared his life. This happened in the year 687. But in the following year Suzub escaped from prison, was again proclaimed king in Babylon, and, in alliance with Umman-Menan, king of Elam, the successor of Kudhir-Nakhunta, and with Nabusumiskim, the eldest son of Merodach-Baladan, he opposed a considerable army to Sennacherib at Kalul on the Tigris. Sennacherib conquered again, and still again in another battle, by which he utterly destroyed the power of his opponents. He then ...; utterly to destroy Babylon: and this resolve was actually executed (685). Yet only four years after, the city was rebuilt. Sennacherib died 681, and his son and successor determined to put an end to the everlasting strife with the Babylonians by an opposite policy. He raised Babylon to equal rank with Nineveh, and made it his residence. The eldest son of Merodach-Baladan, Nabusumiskun, was taken prisoner at the battle of Kalul and beheaded by Sennacherib. His brother next of age to him, Nabozirnapsatiasir, reigned after him in the land Bit Jakin. A third brother, Nahib-Marduk, submitted to the Assyrians on the condition that he be put in possession of the land Bit-Jakin. Esar-Haddon, in the year 676, actually invaded the land and conquered it. Probably Nabozirnapsatiasir then lost his life (LENorMANT, l.c., p. 303). Nahir-Marduk's son, Nabobelsum, returned to the sentiments of his grandfather. He took part in the insurrection made by Samulsumukin, the second son of Esar-Haddon and viceroy of Babylon, against his elder brother Asurbanipal, great king of Assyria (651). Asurbanipal conquered. Samulsumukin burned himself in his palace in Babylon (648). After many negotiations, and finally after an expedition that devastated the whole land of Elam, the king of Elam, Ummanaldas, was obliged to promise that he would surrender Nabobelsum. The latter rocured his death at the hands of a master of the orse. Asurbanipal, when the head of the corpse was sent to him, had it preserved in salt. A small bas-relief, found in the palace of Kujundschik, displays Asurbanipal banqueting in a garden with his wives, and the head of Nabobelsum hanging before him on a tree. Only thirty-five years later Nineveh was destroyed by Nebuchadmezzar and Cyaxares (605) According to our chapter, the embassy of Merodach-Baladan to Hezekiah fell in the time when the former reigned undisputed king of Babylon. As shown above, this was a period of twelve years, reaching from 721-709. It must not be supposed that Merodach-Baladan would not have sought the friendship of Hezekiah had he not heard of his victory over Sennacherib. An inscription of Sargon's (LENoRMANT, l.c., 231) says of Merodach-Baladan: “For twelve years had he sent embassies contrary to the will of the gods of Babylon, the city of Bel, the judge of the gods.” These twelve years are manifestly the twelve years of Merodach-Baladan's undisputed reign. During this period the latter had sought allies for the event of war breaking out again. Is it to be wondered if, under these circumstances, he should send such an embassy to Hezekiah 2 According to 2 Chron. xxxii. 31, the messenger came from Babylon to Hezekiah “to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land.” The context shows that Hezekiah's miraculous recovery and the miracle of the sun-dial are meant. It is, therefore, probable that the report of this miracle penetrated to distant lands. If it came to astrological Babylon, what wonder if the king of this city had his attention drawn to the king of Judea, especially as it was known of this people that more than once they had been an opponent or an ally of the Assyrians that was not to be despised. 2. At that time—shewed them not.— Vers. 1, 2. The author would say that Hezekiah gave ear to the words of those ambassadors (see Tert. and Gram.). Probably there is in this an intimation that they already made propositions of a political nature not displeasing to Hezekiah. And as he was pleased to hear what they said, so he wished them to see the things that gave him joy. There appears to me, therefore, in this an: tithesis of hearing and showing, to be a hint of Hezekiah's sin. Inj) is an obscure word both as to derivation and meaning. In Gen. xxxvii. 25; xliii. 11 nso either means spices in general, or, which is more likely, a particular sort of spice (storax—or tragacanth gum. Comp. LEY RER in HERzog's Real-Eycyclop. XIV. p. 664). Many expositors are disposed to recognize in our Tinaj (K'ri, 2 Kings xx. 13, ind)) the same word, and to understand by 'l non a spice magazine; on which LEYRER, l.c., remarks that this would imply a great monopoly carried on by the kings of Judah in this particular. Others generalize the meaning and regard “spicery house” as a denominatio o potiori for “provision house” in general. Others, finally, derive no), not from 823 (“to beat, pound,” hence nxi), “that which is pounded in a mortar”), but from a root n°2, not used in Hebrew, but which is kindred to Do, “to gather, preserve,” and in Arabic means (Pi. kajjata) “to cram, stuff full.” Of this nj) would be a Niphal form (xxx. 12), and mean “provision, treasure.” Thus HITzig, KNobel, FUERST (Lex. under D45 and no.3), DELItzsch (comp. EwALD, Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. p. 690, Anm. 1). The items that follow, in which, beside gold, silver and spiceries (D"pion, the most general expression for aromatic substances, comp. LEYRER, l.c., p. 661) are particularly named, of course correspond best with a word of such general significance as “provision.” Still the subject is not satisfactorily cleared up. On “the precious ointment,” MoveRs (who translates noj no “styrax house”) makes the following remark: “Here Jewish expositors, no doubt on the best grounds, understand the balsam oil got from the royal gardens, comp. 2 Chron. xxxii. 27. Olive oil, that was obtained in all Judea, was not stored in the treasuries along with gold, silver and aromatics, but in special store-houses, 2 Chron.

[ocr errors][merged small]

was of prime importance to those ambassadors.

In this case Don is identical with the nyon no of xxii. 8. It appears that Hezekiah in this display observed a climar descendens, beginning with the precious articles of luxury and ending with the things of practical need. mixin (probably the store-houses like e.g. Joel i. 17; 2 Chron. xi., etc.) to contain stores in case of siege. It is to be noted that had this embassy come after the overthrow of Sennacherib, Hezekiah would verily have had nothing to show “in his dominion” outside of Jerusalem. For the whole land outside of the capital had been in the power of the enemy, who would have left little worth seeing. “His store-house, the spiceries, the fine oil,” do not intimate specially war-booty. Moreover it would then need to read: Hezekiah showed them the spoil !. had taken from the Assyrians. Conlp. On wer. 0.

3. Then came Isaiah — my days.—Vers. 3–8. Apart from the internal probability of it, one may conclude from No" that Isaiah came to the king with the inquiry of ver. 3 while the ambassadors were still in Jerusalem. For this Imperfect can only have the meaning that the coming was in a certain sense still an incompleted transaction, although the king had then shown them every thing (ver. 4). The Prophet regarded them as advenas, arrivals, and that is a quality they have as long as they are in Jerusalem (comp. xxxvii. 34 with 2 Kings xix. 33; Josh. ix. 8 with Gen. xlii. 7). But it also seems very probable to me that the Prophet addressed his inquiries to the king in the presence of the ambassadors, and that “these men” is to be understood óstkrtko. This suits entirely the free and exalted position that the prophets assumed as the immediate messengers and instruments of Jehovah, even toward the kings themselves. Comp. on vii. 14. If thereby those ambassadors enjoyed the opportunity of observing for once a genuine prophet of the true God in the exercise of his office, and if thereby the true God Himself drew near to them, it was one of those revelations of His being such as the Lord at times vouchsafed to the heathen, e.g., Moses before Pharaoh, Balaam before Balak, Elisha before Naaman, Daniel before the kings of Babylon. To the question what said these men? Hezekiah gives no answer, and Isaiah presses it no further. Their very presence there and the reception they found were adequate proof that Hezekiah allowed himself to treat with them, that once again, as he had done by the Egyptian alliance (xxvii.-xxxii.), he had extended to the world-power at least the little finger. That, in his answer, he lays stress on the far country, betrays an attempt to excuse himself. One cannot show men the door who come from a distance to show one honor and friendship. And Hezekiah ought not to do that. Neither ought he to indulge in vain boasting nor to seek false supports. O, had he only known how ill-timed both were in the case of Babylon . He would surely, without violating the duties of hospitality, have yet avoided with anxious care every approach to more intimate relations. That he adds the name Babylon so briefly to the preceding “they are come from a far country unto me” seems to betray a certain embarrassment, a presentiment of having committed a fault. [See remarks of TR. ...] We stand here on a boundary of immeasurable importance. Assyria is done away, but Babylon rises aloft. Ahaz had formally introduced Assyria by seeking its help. Here Babylon offers itself. With cat-like friendliness it creeps up. Hezekiah ought to have maintained an attitude of polite refusal. His vanity betrayed him into boasting and coquetting. Still by just this he yielded himself to the world-power. The Theocracy was later, under Zedekiah, ground to pieces between Egypt and Babylon. ...}} by leaning solely and wholly on the Lord could it maintain itself between the southern and the northern world-power, between the Nile kingdom on the one hand, and the Euphrates-Tigris kingdom on the other. Hezekiah had unfortunately indulged in intimacies both with Egypt and with Babylon. The necessary consequence was that the Theocracy succumbed to the mightier of these. Hence it is announced to him that the precious things, of which he had made a boastful display, must go to Babylon, yea, that the posterity that was to issue from him who as yet was childless, would once do chamberlain service in the palace of the kings of Babylon. With this the Prophet points to a new and fatal future. Here, between the first and second parts of Isaiah, we stand on the bridge between Nineveh and Babylon. For what Nineveh was for the first part of Isaiah, Babylon is for the second. Let it be particularly noted that Isaiah says: that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day (ver. 6). Had Hezekiah's treasures been emptied by the event narrated 2 Kings xviii. 14 sqq., the Prophet could not have spoken so. For then what the fathers had gathered came into the hands of Sennacherib; and whether, after the defeat of the latter, all was found again, one must doubt very much. Sennacherib, who knew that he would not be pursued, could take all the spoils with him. Therefore the expression: “what thy fathers have laid up shall be carried captive to Babylon” favors the view that Hezekiah showed the ambassadors the gatherings of his fathers, that therefore this embassy did not come after the defeat of Sennacherib. [If the foregoing has any force, it would equally prove that the Babylonish captivity must have preceded the invasion of Sennacherib, “for then, after the latter event, what the fathers had gathered came into o hands of Sennacherib,” etc., as just above. —TB. That D’YP is not simply the “eunuch” appears from Gen. xxxvii. 36; xxxix. 1. The word often stands for court officer, chamberlain generally (1 Ki. xxii. 9; 2 Ki. viii. 6; ix. 32; xxv. 19, etc.). It is clear that TJ2 must not be understood of di

rect generation, and that is agreeable to usage. Hezekiah's son Manasseh went, indeed, as pri. *oner to Babylon (2 Chron. xxxiii. 11), but he did not act as chamberlain. Yet the prophecy was fulfilled by what is related Dan. i. 3. Hezekiah humbly submits himself to the declaration of the Lord. The expression Good is the word, etc. involves in general the sense of approval and acquiescence (comp. 1 Kings xviii. 24), especially that of submission under a severe judgment, but one that is recognized as just

(comp. 1 Kings ii. 38, 42). For the meaning of 3 (Bs son, 2 Kings xx. 19), see Text, and Gram.

I fall back on the conjecture given above, that the ambassadors were present at this interview. If one then considers that the prophecy of vers. 6, 7 presupposes war between Babylon and Judah, and that this poorly corresponds with the assurances of friendship just interchanged between Hezekiah and the ambassadors, he can see that the word of the Prophet would embarrass these parties. It would the king, because it must seem strange that he, at the moment when an honorable embassy had brought him offers of peace and friendship, should call the announcement of the termination of the friendship (though it should turn to his disadvantage) a “good word.” It might appear as if he, Hezekiah, were a weathercock, an unreliable man, who in turning about knew how to transform himself from a friend into an enemy. To ward off this evil appearance from himself, Hezekiah speaks these words, which are primarily addressed to the ambassadors. He would say: is it not self-evident that I call the prophetic word good only on the assumption that peace and truth shall continue while I live? By this construction, disappears also the objection that has been made to Hezekiah, as if he betrayed by this expression a sentiment like that depraved motto: “apres moi le deluge.” It may be seen from 1 Kings xxi. 27 sqq. that the LoRD lets Himself be moved by a penitent mind to postpone punishment beyond the lifetime of the man whom it primarily threatens.— nps, blow occurs again Jer. xxxiii. 6; comp. xiv. 13; Esther ix. 30. It means here, manifestly, peace and faithfulness, in the sense of political peaceableness and fidelity to alliances.*

* [In his conjectural interpretation of Hezekiah's conduct and its relation to Isaiah's prophecy the Author has only built on a foundation dating back to the earliest traditionary exposition. And the building, one must admit, agrees with the foundation. He has only built further than others, but in the same style. Yet, when so much is built, and of such a sort, one is con. strained to look at the foundation to see if such a strueture is justified. The Author admits that he resorts to conjecture; his confidence is in the natural reasonableness of it... But his work may be challenged down to the very foundation as, not only without warrant in Scripture, but actually against Söripture. See BA Eur, on 2 Kings xx. p. 21. And if this appear to be so, then the judgment of expositors against Hezekiah, though it be the judgment of ages, must be reversed.

The only Scripture that can seem to give positive support to the (so commonly accepted) injurious view of #o. conduct in the case before us is 2 Chr. xxxii. 25, 31. Ver. 31 clearly relates to the transactions of our text. But ver, 25 as clearly does not, and must not be brought in to shed light on them. It is in the context separated from them by the statement of ver. 26, viz.: that Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah.” What follows this verse is but descriptive proof of the last statement in it, and included in this proof is ver. 31. See the comm. of DR. Q. ZoecKLER in the LANGE, B. W. in loc. p 27. The rendering of the Eng. Ver. “Howbeit" for 5) ver, 31 is

forced, and that by the pressure of the 'very opinion here combated. It means “And so * or “in this manner.” "...P. introduces the additional statement of the trial Hezekiah underwent, and refers to the popo just described as having providentially led

it. Ver. 31 does not imply reproach of Hezekiah or anything contrary to what may be included under the statement of ver. 20. Yinty, God “ left him,” does not. For it remains to be determined to what he left him. The context must supply this, and we must not under

« PoprzedniaDalej »