BS 1515 326 1854 ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, BY ALBERT BARNES, In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. BS 1854 THE PROPHET ISAIAH. CHAPTER XXXVI. ANALYSIS. This chapter commences the historical portion of Isaiah, which continues to the close of the xxxixth chapter. The main subject is the destruction of Sennacherib and his army. It contains 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 Babylon. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 32, the following record occurs. "Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold they are written in the vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz ;" and it is to this portion of Isaiah to which the author of 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; and as he lived to see them fulfilled, it was proper that he should record the event. The prophecy and its fulfilment can thus be compared together; aud while there is the strongest internal testimony that the prophecy was uttered before 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, is 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 resemblance, so much so as to show that they were mainly by the same 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 Rosenmuller-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 Books 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 somewhat abridged or modified by the author of the Book of Kings and by Isaiah. It is impossible now to determine the truth in regard to this subject; nor is it of much importance. Those who are desirous of seeing the subject discussed more at length may consult Vitringa, Rosen. muller, and Gesenius. The view of Gesenius is chiefly valuable because he has gone into a comparison of the account in Isaiah with that in Kings, The following remarks are all that occur to me as 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, the same expressions occur, and the same style of composition is found. It is possible, indeed, that the Holy 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 writer is allowed to pursue his own method of narration, and to express himself in a style and manner of his own. (2.) There is no evidence that the two accounts were abridged from a more full narrative. Such a thing is possible; nor is there any impropriety in the supposition. But it lacks historical support. That there were histories among the Jews which are now lost; that there were public records which were the fountains whence the authors of the histories which we now have drew their information, no one can doubt who reads the Old Testament, Thus we have accounts of the writings of Gad, and Iddo the seer, and Nathan, and the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and of the Book of Jehu the prophet (2 Chron. ix. 29, xx. 34. 1 Kings xvi. 1), 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 possible, therefore, that these accounts may have been abridged from some such common record, but there is no historical testimony to the fact. (3.) There is no evidence that these chapters in Isaiah were inserted by Ezra, or the other inspired men who collected the sacred writings, and published a recension, or an edition of them after the return from Babylon. That there was such a work performed by Ezra and his contemporaries is the testimony of a 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 here. 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 of the fulfilment of all the other prophecies which had been fulfilled. We should have looked, therefore, for historical statements of the downfall of Damascus. 331372 and Syria; of the destruction of Samaria, of Moab, of Babylon, and of Tyre, as proofs of the fulfilment of the predictions of Isaiah. There can be no reason why the account of the destruction of Sennacherib should have been singled out and inserted in preference to others. And this is especially true in regard to Babylon. The prophecy of Isaiah (ch. xiii. xiv.) had been most striking, and clear; 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 full 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 books, as well as the Books of Chronicles, and some other of the historical books of the Old 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 Iddo the seer, recorded the acts of Solomon (2 Chron. ix. 29); thus the same Iddo the seer and Shemaiah the prophet recorded the acts of Rehoboam (2 Chron. xii. 15); thus the acts of Jehoshaphat were written in the Book of Jehu (2 Chron. xx. 34); and thus Isaiah wrote the acts of king Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 22), and also of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxxii. 32). Many of these historical sketches or fragments have 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, after 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 Grotius 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 Ezra. It is probable therefore, I think, that Isaiah wrote the chapters in Kings respecting the invasion of Sennacherib; that the compiler of the Books of Kings, whoever he might be, adopted the fragment as a part of his history, and that the portion which we have here in Isaiah is the same fragment revised, abridged in some places, and enlarged in others, to adapt it to his purpose in introducing it into his book of prophecy. But it is admitted that this is conjecture. Every consideration, however, must lead us to suppose that this is the work of Isaiah. Comp. the Intro. § 5. The portion of history contained in these chapters differs from the record in the Kings 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 sentences, and members of sentences, are omitted in Isaiah which are found in Kings. These variations will be noticed in the exposition, and it is not necessary more particularly to refer to them here. The xxxvith chapter contains the 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. 1, 2. (ii.) Hezekiah sent an embassy to meet with Rabshakeh, evidently to induce him to depart from the city, ver. 3. (iii.) This embassy Rabshakeh 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 Heze 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. 21, 22. NOW it came to pass in the of Assyria came up against all fourteenth year of king the defenced cities of Judah, and Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king took them. ce Kings 18. 13, &c. 2 Chron. 32. 1, &c. 1. In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. Of his reign, B. C. 709. T 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 nation had suffered so much under Tiglath 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 to lay siege to Jerusalem itself. Hezekiah, however, as soon as the army of Sennacherib 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 might 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 repel 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 Sevechus, 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 passage before us refers. See Prideaux' Connection, vol. i. p. 138-141, Josephus Ant. B. x. ch. i. Gesenius in loco, and Robinson's Calmet. All the defenced cities. 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 sent Rabshakeh. In 2 Kings xviii. 17, it is said that he sent Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh. In regard to Tartan, see 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. ¶ 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. 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 Jerusa by the conduit of the upper pool, | dence is this wherein thou trustin the highway of the fuller's est? field. 3 Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the 'scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, 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. He halted; he encamped there; he intended to make that the point of attack. ¶ 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 sent out Eliakim. T Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house. Respecting Eliakim, and his character, see Notes on ch. xxii. 20-25. Shebna the scribe. This may have ¶ And been some other man than the one mentioned in ch. xxii. 15. He is there said to have been " over the house," and it is stated that he should be degraded from that office and succeeded by Eliakim. It is possible however that Hezekiah retained him as scribe, or as secre tary. See the analysis of ch. xxii. 15-25. ¶ 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 your confidence, on what do you trust? The appellation "great king" was the customary title of the kings of the Persians and Assyrians. 5. I say, sayest thou. In 2 Kings xviii. 20, this is "thou sayest ;" and 5 I say, sayest thou (but they are but vain words,) 5I have counsel and strength for war: now, on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? 6 Lo, thou trustest in the staff 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 But reading. So the Syriac reads it. the sense is not affected whichever reading is adopted. It is designed to show to Hezekiah that his reliance, either on his own resources or on Egypt, was vain. ¶ But they are but vain words. Marg. as in the Hebrew, "a word of lips;" that is, mere words; vain and empty boasting. ¶ On whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? Hezekiah had revolted from the Assyrian power, and 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. ¶ 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. Reeds were doubtless used often for staves as they are now. They are light, and hollow, with long joints. The idea here is, that as a slender reed would break when a man leaned on it, and would pierce his hand, so it would be with Egypt. Their reliance would give way, and their trusting to Egypt would be attended with injury to themselves. Comp. ch. xxx. 5, 7, xxxi, 3. |