Isaiah 37:21-35

5. ISAIAH’S MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH CONCERNING THE DANGER THREATENED BY SENNACHERIB

Isaiah 37:21-35

21then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, 21Whereas thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria: 22this is the word which the Lord hath spoken 22concerning him;

The Virgin, the daughter of Zion hath despised thee,

And laughed thee to scorn;

The daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head 23at thee.

23     Whom hast thou reproached and 24blasphemed?

And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice,

And lifted up thine eyes on high?

Even against the Holy One of Israel.

24     25By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said,

By the multitude of my chariots am I come upTo the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon;And I will cut down 26the tall cedars thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof;

And I will enter into the height of his 27border, and 28the forest 29of his Carmel.

25     I have digged and drunk water;

And with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers 30of the 31besieged places.

26     32Hast thou not 33heard long ago, how I have done it;

And of ancient times, that I have formed it?

Now have I brought it to pass,That thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities into ruinous heaps,

27     34Therefore their inhabitants were 35of small power,

They were dismayed and confounded:They were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb,

As the grass on the housetops,

And 36as corn blasted before it be grown up,

28     iBut I know thy 37abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in,

And 38thy rage against me.

29     Because kthy rage against me, and thy 39tumult, is come up into mine ears,

Therefore will I put my hook in thy nose,And my bridle in thy lips,And I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.

30     And this shall be a sign unto thee,

Ye shall eat this year such as groweth of itself;

And the second year that which springeth of the same:And in the third year sow ye, and reap,And plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof.

31     And 40the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah

Shall again 41take root downward,

And bear fruit upward:

32     For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant,

And 42they that escape out of Mount Zion:

The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.

33     Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria,

He shall not come into this city,Nor shoot an arrow 43there,

Nor come before it with 44shields,

Nor cast a bank against it.

34     By the way that he came, by the same shall he return,

And shall not come into this city, saith the Lord.

35     For I will defend this city to save it

For mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Isaiah 37:21. שׁלח is here, not merely “to send” generally, but to send a message, as appears from לאמר: comp. Genesis 38:25; 2 Samuel 14:32; 1 Kings 9:5; 2 Kings 5:8, etc.—The clause אשׁר התפללת וגו׳ can be construed grammatically as the premise to the apodosis זה הדבר וגו׳ Isaiah 37:22, or as a relative explanatory clause to יהוה אלהי י׳ Isaiah 37:21. The latter is possible because in Hebrew, by a prepositive אשׁרְ even the casus obliqui of the pronouns of the first and second persons can receive a relative meaning. Comp. Isaiah 41:8-9; Isaiah 64:10; Genesis 45:4. But the latter explanation seems to me unsuitable because a clause like “I to whom thou hast prayed,” does not sound well in the mouth of God. For does not that assume that Hezekiah might have prayed to some other? But the harshness of the first explanation, according to which in the premise Jehovah Himself speaks, while in the conclusion He is spoken of, is an objection to it. Hence the reading of 2 Kings 19:22, at the end, שׁמעתי, which the Isaiah text omits as needless, is the more correct; especially as there appears to be an intentional echo of God’s promise to Solomon 1 Kings 9:3.

Isaiah 37:22. The accents designate the verb בָּזָה as Milra. According to that, it would be either part. fem. from בּוּז, or 3 pers. masc. Kal from בָּזָה. The latter would be grammatically possible, so far as בזה can be regarded as prepositive predicate. But, although בוז and בזה mean the same, still the latter is more frequently joined with the accusative and the former with the dative. For בזה occurs with ל only 2 Samuel 6:16 (1 Chronicles 15:29), whereas בוז mostly appears joined with לְ (Proverbs 6:30; Proverbs 11:12; Proverbs 13:13; Proverbs 14:21; Proverbs 23:9; Proverbs 30:17; Zechariah 4:10; Song of Solomon 8:1; Song of Solomon 8:7). Besides these בוז occurs only Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 23:22. As the Masoretic pointing is not binding, I would rather regard our בזה as 3 pers. fem. Kal. from בוז, corresponding to לעגה.—Also לעג is mostly joined with לְ; Psalms 2:4; Psalms 59:9; Psalms 80:7; Proverbs 17:5; Proverbs 30:17; Jeremiah 20:7, etc.—הניע ראשׁ a gesture of derision as in Psalms 22:8; Psalms 109:25; Job 16:4; Lamentations 2:15.

Isaiah 37:23. חרף and גדף comp. Isaiah 37:4; Isaiah 37:6.—קדוֹשׁ י׳ is a specifically Isaianic expression.

Isaiah 37:24. This verse contains a number of variations on 2 Kings 19:23, that, from the stand-point of our author, represent emendations.—On קומה see Isaiah 10:33.—In יער כרמלו of an adjective notion is made a substantive. For כדמל has here its appellative meaning: “fruitful field or garden.”

Isaiah 37:25. יאדי מצור comp. on Isaiah 19:1; Isaiah 19:6.

Isaiah 37:26. למדחוק is, like מימי קדם (simplified from למימי 2 Kings 19:25), to be referred to what follows. Properly the prep, מן before רחוק would suffice; but the Hebrew favors the cumulation of prepositions (comp. 2 Samuel 7:19; Job 36:9; 2 Chronicles 26:15. etc.). By the prefixed לְ is expressed the thought that the divine doing relates to a period beginning far back.—On ימי קדם comp. Isaiah 23:7; Isaiah 51:9.—By עתה הבאתיה (comp. Isaiah 46:11) the Prophet affirms that precisely what the Assyrian pretended he had done by his own power, was only the accomplishment of Jehovah’s thought. Hence ותהי must also be construed as 2 pers. masc. and referred to the Assyrian. היח with לְ following is used in the sense of “to serve for something” as in Isaiah 5:5; Isaiah 44:15.—השׁאות is Hiph. from שׁאה strepere, tumultuari. But the word means also the noise, the cracking of something falling in, and hence not only Kal (Isaiah 6:11) and the corresponding Niph. (ibid.) and Hiph. (our text and 2 Kings) have the meaning “to fall in ruins, to be laid waste,” but also the substantive שָׁאוֹן means interitus, pernicies Psalms 40:3; Jeremiah 44:11).—The words גלים נצים, according to Heb. usage, express the result of the destruction in the form of apposition with the thing to be destroyed; comp. Isaiah 6:11; Isaiah 24:12. נִצִּים is part. Niph. from נצה, and occurs in the sense of “waste” only here and Jeremiah 4:7.

Isaiah 37:27. The expression קצרי־יד “short-handed,” i. e., weak, original in Numbers 11:23, occurs again only Isaiah 50:2; Isaiah 59:1, the adjective קָצֵר only here.—חתו ובשׁו as in Isaiah 20:5.—Everywhere else the expression “grass of the field” reads עֵשֶׂב הַשָׂדֶה as in Genesis 2:5; Genesis 3:18, etc.—ירק דשא only here; comp. Psalms 37:2.—In 2 Kings 19:26 the fourth comparison is שְׁדֵפָה “blasting,” or “blasted field,” instead of שְׁדִמָה “a field.” It is no doubt a stronger figure, and as a climax, more in place. It is far more likely that it is the primitive reading and that our text is secondary.

Isaiah 37:29. On יען first depends the infin., which then as in Isaiah 30:12, continues in the verb fin.—Instead of שַֽׁאֲנַנְֽךָ 2 Kings 19:27 has שַֽׁאֲנָֽנְֽךָ. [In some editions it is precisely the reverse.—Tr.]. Are both Infin. as Olshausen (§ 187, a and § 251, b, p. 552) maintains; or is only the former, as Ewald seems to assume (§ 157, b, comp. §120, a) [also Green, see § 122, 1 and 187, 1, d—Tr.]? To me the latter seems more probable, for I do not see why, when שַֽׁאֲנַן is infin., it would be pointed שַֽׁאֲנָנּךָ whereas this is quite easily explained if שַֽׁאֲנָנְךָ be derived from the adjective שַֽׁאֲנָן “quiet.”

Isaiah 37:30. אָכוֹל in the inf. absol. presents the verbal notion without determining the time or manner. The Prophet thereby affirms simply what actually is, what occurs according to nature.—שָׁחִים is ἅπ. λεγ. 2 Kings 19:29 has סָחִישׂ. The latter word is devoid of any etymological basis, as there is no root סָחַשׁ either in Hebrew or the kindred dialects. Moreover there is no agreement about the root of the form שׁחים. There is no root שָׁחַם in Hebrew. Of various explanations, that may deserve the preference which connects שׁהים with the Arabic schahis, which means “scattered, standing thin,” unless perhaps the fundamental meaning is “to divide itself, to cut loose from,” so that שׁחים would mean “that which separates itself from the root, grows out of it.” שׁחים would then be the sprouts of the root (Aquila and Theod. translate αὐτοφυῆ).—The imperative in זרעו וגו׳ involves so for an exhortation that the Prophet would say to the Israelites to lay aside all anxiety about the enemy for the third year, and carry on agriculture confidently.—Instead of ואכול K’ri has וְאִכְלוּ which is also the reading of 2 Kings 19:29, and seems to be the more original. For ואכול may be suspected of being imitated from the same word beginning the verse, and moreover it would involve a certain emphasis which, accurately considered, would be out of place here. It would = “and—in short—eat your fruit;” thus it would recapitulate and say in brief. It can, however, naturally refer only to כרמים (comp. Isaiah 65:21; Jeremiah 29:5; Jeremiah 29:28; Amos 9:14).

Isaiah 37:32. The word צבאות is wanting in K’thibh of 2 Kings 19:31. The books of Kings have this word of the divine name only three times, viz., 1 Kings 18:15; 1 Kings 19:10; 1 Kings 19:14; 2 Kings 3:14 in the history of the prophets Elijah and Elisha. In Isaiah, on the other hand, it is of frequent occurrence; see Isaiah 9:6 (7) the parallel passage and on Isaiah 1:9.

Isaiah 37:33. שָׁם here stands for שָׁמָּה as in 1 Samuel 2:14; 1 Kings 18:10; Jeremiah 19:14.—קִדֵּם is never used in the transitive sense = “to make come before, cause to meet,” so as to construe the word with a double accusative of the place and the nearer object. But as after other verbs the instrument can be designated by the accusative (comp. Isaiah 1:20), as well as the use of בְּ, so also קִדְּם can be used with בְּ (comp. Deuteronomy 23:5; Isaiah 21:14; Psalms 95:2) and with the simple accus. instrum. as in Psalms 21:4. We have here a double accusative of the place and of the instrument.

Isaiah 37:34. יבא intimates that the Assyrian must be thought of as not in the land, but on the way to Jerusalem.

Isaiah 37:35. On גנותי see on Isaiah 31:5; Isaiah 38:6.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. To Hezekiah’s prayer (Isaiah 37:16-20) the Lord gives an answer through Isaiah, which announces the triumph of Jerusalem (Isaiah 37:22), convicts the Assyrian of blasphemy against God, in that he spoke haughtily against the Holy One of Israel, and ascribed to himself the glory of conquests in which he was only the instrument (Isaiah 37:23-27). But the Lord knows him thoroughly, and will make him know himself by unmistakable treatment (Isaiah 37:28-29). To Judah a sign is given, that it is to be free forever from the Assyrian (Isaiah 37:30-32). For the immediate future it is announced that the Assyrian shall not even come near Jerusalem, but shall return home by the way he came; and God is declared to be the protector of Jerusalem (Isaiah 37:33-35).

2. Then Isaiah—at thee

Isaiah 37:21-22. See Text. and Gram. Jerusalem shall see the Assyrian retreating with aims unaccomplished. Then it will look after him (אחרִיך) with derision. [“Hitzig supposes that the shaking of the head, with the Hebrews as with us, was a gesture of negation, and that the expression of scorn consisted in a tacit denial that Sennacherib had been able to effect his purpose. Thus understood, the action is equivalent to saying in words, no, no! i. e., he could not do it. A similar explanation is given by Hentgstenberg, on Psalms 22:8.”—J. A. Alex. For another view see Baehr, on 2 Kings 19:21.—Tr.].

3. Whom hast thou reproached—besieged places.

Isaiah 37:23-25. The question extends to “thine eyes;” and thus “against the Holy,” etc., is the answer to all the preceding questions (Vitringa, Gesen., Delitz.). Others construe “against the Holy,” etc., with the foregoing words “and lifted up,” etc., as the answer; so that the question ends with “voice.” But against the latter it may be urged that the question and answer do not correspond; the question is not answered, and the answer given refers to something about which nothing is asked. According to our construction it is asked: “Whom hast thou blasphemed, and against whom hast thou insolently raised voice and eyes (comp. Psalms 18:28; Psalms 101:5; Proverbs 6:17; Proverbs 21:4)?” The answer is: “against the Holy,” etc.; wherein, according to familiar usage, the form of the answer corresponds to the final member of question. This appears more evident in 2 Kings 19:22, as על־קדושׁ י׳ connects more exactly with על־מי ה׳ [“Ewald carries the interrogation through the verse, and renders ו at the beginning of the last clause, that or so that, while Hitzig makes the whole of that clause an exclamation. This construction is more natural—the answer begins with the next verse where he is expressly charged with blasphemy against Jehovah.”—J. A. Alex.].

Isaiah 37:24-25 express more exactly how he has blasphemed. It was done by his servants. (The “hand of” figurative expression for “organ, service, means” generally Isaiah 20:2; Jeremiah 37:2; Jeremiah 50:1; Haggai 1:1; Haggai 1:3; Haggai 2:1). The emphatic thought is that servants of men have blasphemed the Lord of the world.

This blasphemy consisted mainly (Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 36:15; Isaiah 36:18) in representing trust in Jehovah as folly, and in the inference that, because they had conquered heathen nations, it was logically necessary that the people of God might be conquered, and thus in placing Jehovah on a level with idols. Moreover what they did, they supposed they had done by their own might, and that what was to be done yet could be done in the same way. Isaiah expresses this thought in Isaiah 37:24-25, with close adherence to the circumstances, so as to divide as it were the task of the Assyrian into two parts. The first part was the conquest of the Syrian, Phœnician and Palestinian districts. All these lands lie about Lebanon. One traveling from Nineveh by Carchemish to Phœnicia must in any case go past Lebanon, which, by its lofty, snow-covered summits, gives distant notice of the locality of these lands. Lebanon therefore may serve as an emblem. Moreover in the Scriptures it is not uncommon to represent Zion under the image of Lebanon (comp. Jeremiah 22:6-7; Jeremiah 22:23; Ezekiel 17:3), partly because in general Lebanon is the image of what is lofty and admirable (comp. Isaiah 2:13; Isaiah 10:33 sq.; Isaiah 35:2; Isaiah 60:13; Hosea 14:6 sqq.; Zechariah 11:1 sq.), partly and especially because the king’s palace in Zion had grown on Lebanon, i. e., was built of cedars of Lebanon, (comp. 1 Kings 7:2 “house of the forest of Lebanon,” or “house of the forest,” Isaiah 22:8). It is inconceivable that Sennacherib or one of his predecessors ever scaled Lebanon with horse and chariot, and destroyed the cedars. The Prophet rather makes him boast that he had conquered the lands of Lebanon. And Hamath, Arphad, Syria, Phœnicia, the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, the greater part of Judah and Philistia, were actually in his possession. With reference to this, one might well represent him as saying: I have ascended up the heights of the mountains, up the sides (properly the shanks, comp. on Isaiah 14:13) of Lebanon. The chief work seemed done, the chief summits were surmounted. It only remained to penetrate into the inmost part, and there destroy the ornament of Lebanon, its glorious standing timber of cedar and cypress. By עליהי the Prophet manifestly refers to what has been accomplished, i. e., the occupation of the Lebanon districts. But ואכדת and ואבוא refer to what remains to be done. Only Jerusalem remained for Sennacherib to conquer (comp. on Isaiah 36:1). Thus the best, the real ornament, the central point of the Palestinian Lebanon lands was not yet his. Jerusalem with its temple and its king’s palace, the two Lebanon houses (because with both cedars of Lebanon had so much to do, comp, 1 Kings 6:9 sqq.; Isaiah 7:2 sqq.) might well be compared to the crown of Lebanon with its ornament of cedars. Such is the understanding of Thenius and Baehr, with whom I agree. The expression “tall-growth of its cedars, choice of its cypress,” quite agrees with the Latin mode of expression, by which can be said e.g.cibum partim unguium tenacitate arripiunt, partim aduncitate rostrorum” (Cic.Deor. Nat. II. 47, 122). Comp. Friedr. Naegelsbach’sLatein. Stilistik, § 74; Isaiah 1:16; Isaiah 22:7; Isaiah 25:12; Isaiah 30:30. The Prophet does not ascribe to the Assyrian the intention of destroying the height of the cedars, while he would leave them their other qualities, but that he would utterly cut down the high cedars as they are.—On ברושׁ, the cypress, comp. on Isaiah 14:8. “The height of his end or border” is also no more than his highest summit. The notion height is not already expressed in “the uttermost,” as Baehr supposes. For a mountain has an uttermost in every direction. One may therefore speak of an uttermost in the direction upward, and of a height of the uttermost.—The forest of his garden-land is then the forest that, as it were, forms the garden of Lebanon, that adorns Lebanon like a pleasure park. The most luxuriant, glorious standing forest of Lebanon is meant.

In Isaiah 37:25 the Prophet speaks of the second task presented to Sennacherib, which was to conquer Egypt. That concerned a certain campaign, not in a mountainous region, but in a level land, partly waste and without water, partly abounding in water. While Sennacherib stood on the south of Palestine the great army had no superabundance of water. When, e. g., we read of Moses’ request to Edom (Numbers 20:17 sqq.) it cannot seem strange that the Prophet imputed to Sennacherib the boastful assertion that so far he has provided his mighty host with water in a strange land, that he has dug wells, because the existing ones were insufficient, and had drunk away their water from the inhabitants. For such is the meaning of מים זרים2Ki 19:24, which our author has omitted for the sake of simplicity. Had the Assyrian traversed the desert et-Tih, digging wells would, of course, have been a still greater necessity. But on the border of it, whither Sennacherib penetrated, it may have been needful. He boasts, moreover, that where there is much water, and the water is a bulwark for the inhabitants, as the Nile with its canals is to Egypt, he will easily destroy this bulwark. For by the sole of his tramp shall the streams of Egypt be dried up. Thus his warriors will dry up the streams of Egypt like a puddle, merely by the tramp of their feet. The expression “sole of the tramp” is found only here. It is metonymy. Still in respect to the act of stepping, “step” and “foot” are often interchanged. Comp. Psalms 140:5 with Psalms 116:8; Psalms 17:5 with Psalms 38:17, etc. [“The drying up of the rivers with the soles of the feet is understood by Vitringa as an allusion to the Egyptian mode of drawing water with a tread-wheel (Deuteronomy 11:10).”—J. A. Alex.].

4. Hast thou not heard—thou camest?

Isaiah 37:26-29. The Assyrian imagined that he pushed, and he was pushed. He regarded all he did as the product of his own free fancy, and of his power to do. The Prophet however says to him that he had only been an instrument in the hands of God. With “hast thou not heard,” the Prophet, so to speak, appeals to the better understanding of the Assyrian. Has it not somehow, if not from without, still from within, come to thy hearing (comp. Psalms 62:12) that it is not as thou thinkest? Does not thy conscience, the voice of God within thee say that it was not thou that hast planned and carried out all this, but that I, the Almighty God, long ago (Isaiah 22:11; Isaiah 25:1) laid it out and have accomplished it? Therefore the Assyrian was to be a thorough destroyer of things. But when God destroys the things, He intends always a corresponding effect on the persons. The latter is the thought of Isaiah 37:27. Their inhabitants (i. e., of the cities named Isaiah 37:26), as short-handed, (i. e., weak), are dismayed and confounded. Then with strong figures this effect is more nearly characterized. The sorely visited inhabitants are compared to the “grass of the field,” “the green herb,” “the grass on the house tops” (in shallow soil, weak rooted; the expression again only Psalms 129:6), “the grain field before the standing fruit” (i. e., all blade and no stalk), and thus soft and tender like grass.—But not only is the foregoing true of the Assyrian as the instrument of God’s purpose, but all his doing and not doing has been directed by the Lord without his knowing it: what he proposed at home, his march forth, his coming into the Holy Land, and his hostile raging against the people of God, all was under the notice of the Lord, and must run the course determined by Him. “Sitting, going forth, coming home,” are expressions for the total activity of a man (comp. Deuteronomy 28:6; Psalms 121:8; Psalms 139:2). רגז stands for every vehement emotion whether of fear, of anger, or of joy (comp. Isaiah 5:25; Isaiah 13:13; Isaiah 14:9; Isaiah 14:16; Isaiah 23:11; Isaiah 28:21, etc.). The Hithp. occurs only here and Isaiah 37:29. Because the Assyrian with this התדגז had sinned against the Lord and rebelled, and would not hear of his being dependent on the Lord, but only the report of his proud security came to the Lord, he must feel his dependence in the most incisive way. He must return home by the way he came, as it were, led by a ring through the nose like a wild beast (comp. Ezekiel 19:4; Ezekiel 19:9; Ezekiel 29:4; Ezekiel 38:4), or by a bridle between the lips, like a tame beast. On the ruins of Chorsabad are figures of prisoners whom the “royal victor holds to a rope by means of a ring fastened in their lips.” Comp. Thenius on 2 Kings 19:28.

5. And this shall—do this.

Isaiah 37:30-32. The Prophet turns to Hezekiah. In Isaiah 37:22; Isaiah 37:29 he had in a general way held out the prospect of the pitiful retreat of the Assyrian out of the Holy Land. Now he names a sign to the king that shall be a pledge of the promise given and place it in the right light. It may be asked: how can this sign, that requires two years for its accomplishment, be a pledge for an event that is to take place at once; according to 2 Kings 19:35, even that very night? I believe that two things are to be considered here. First: Israel receives the promise, not merely of a momentary, but of a definite deliverance from the power of Assyria. This appears, evident from our prophecy itself. The scorn with which Zion greets the retreat of the Assyrian (Isaiah 37:22) would be ill-timed if he could return to take vengeance. According to Isaiah 37:29 he is so thoroughly led off that he is certain to have no wish to come back. According to Isaiah 37:33; Isaiah 37:35 he is not to come before Jerusalem. It is not said, however, that this shall not happen only this time and in the present danger. The Assyrian shall never come any more. Assyria is done away. The Theocracy has nothing more to fear from it. We have shown above that this thought occurs in chaps. 28–33, especially in 33. It cannot surprise one that a promise so all-important, that Assyria shall nevermore hurt the Theocracy, is guaranteed by a sign requiring years for its realization. A promise to be fulfilled after some hours properly requires no pledge.

In the second place: it is to be noticed that there is no exact statement in our prophecy as to the way in which Assyria is to be expelled from Judah. It is neither said that it shall be so suddenly, nor in this fashion. Hence the question might arise after the event, whether this sudden expulsion is to be explained by accidental or natural causes, or as the operation of divine omnipotence. Did the Lord give a sign and the sign come about, it would prove that that first mighty blow carried out against Assyria was also intended by the Lord. But it may be asked: how can a series of events serve for a sign, which in fact take a very natural course, which could not happen otherwise? It might be urged that it took mighty little prophetic insight to know that no regular seeding and harvest could be possible before the third year. That is true. Yet only He for whom there is properly no future could know beforehand that in the third year there would certainly be a seeding and harvest. For it was quite possible that the Assyrian invasion would last for years still. What the Prophet predicts here is the favorable aspect of the future that was in general possible. Better could not happen. I construe Isaiah 37:30 essentially as Drechsler does, and think that the subject has been needlessly made hard. According to the Assyrian monuments, the expedition of Sennacherib against Syria, Palestine and Egypt occupied only the one year, 700 B. C. For in the year 699 we find him on another theatre of war, employed against Suzub of Babylon. Comp. the canon of Regents in Schrader, p. 319, and our remarks on Isaiah 39:1. If, then, this campaign lasted no longer than a year, still it certainly demanded the whole of the time of a year suitable for warfare. Therefore Sennacherib certainly was in Palestine in Spring before the harvest, and when it was ripe seized on it, for his immense army. He conquered in fact the whole land, and shut up Hezekiah in Jerusalem “like a bird in its cage.” But he must have remained in Canaan till late in the year. For when one considers that in this year he made the conquest of Phœnicia, several Philistine cities (Beth-Dagon, Joppa, B’ne-Barak, Azur), forty-six fortified cities of Judah, besides countless castles and smaller places, and then also fought a considerable battle with the Ethiopic army, there is presented a labor for whose accomplishment three-quarters of a year does not appear too much time. But with that the invasion lasted so long that the season for preparing a harvest had passed by; especially when it is considered that the inhabitants needed first to assemble again, put their houses to rights, and provide beasts of labor, as their stock must certainly have fallen a prey to the enemy. Comp. Isaiah 32:10; Isaiah 32:12-13 and Isaiah 33:8-9, which may be taken as a suitable description of the condition brought about by this invasion. For the year after the invasion, therefore, there was no product of the land to be expected in general, but such as would spring up of itself. Not before the third year could there be regular cultivation and a corresponding harvest. And, as already said, that was much, in fact, the best that could happen as things then were. For that end it would be necessary that the Assyrian by the end of the second year should no more be in the land, and have no more power to hinder field-labor. According to this explanation, we have no need of assuming a Sabbatic year, nor a year of jubilee, nor a return of the Assyrian out of Egypt to Palestine, nor an invasion lasting three years, nor that agriculture in Palestine at that time was carried on in the same ceremonious way that, according to Wetstein (in Delitzsch, p. 389 sq.), is the case now-a-days. Naturally, during the invasion, in the first year, there was no fruit of harvest to eat, since the Assyrian had carried it off, but only ספיח (Leviticus 25:5; Leviticus 25:11; Job 14:19). The word comes from ספח, which undoubtedly means effundere, profundere, infundere (Habakkuk 2:15; Job 30:7; Isaiah 5:7), in Niph. and Hithp.: “to pour” (of rivers), “to mouth, debouch,” i. e., se adjungere, adjungi (Isaiah 14:1; 1 Samuel 26:19). ספיח, therefore, is effusio, “the outpour, what is poured out, spilt.” Thus all field produce is meant that comes from spilling at seeding or harvest, or that comes from such spilt fruit. In the present case it would be first the former, like crumbs from the rich man’s table, and then the latter, of which the Israelites would get the benefit. On שׁחים see Text. and Gram. See in Gesen. and Knobel proof that in warm countries grain propagates itself partly by spilt seeds and partly by shoots from the root. [The stooling of winter wheat is familiar to agriculturists.—Tr.]

But the Prophet has not only deliverance from ruin to announce to Judah, but also new growth. The escaped (פליטה, comp. Isaiah 4:2; Isaiah 10:20; Isaiah 15:9) of the house of Judah (בית י׳ again only Isaiah 22:21), the remnant (comp. Isaiah 11:11; Isaiah 11:16), shall add on root downwards (Isaiah 27:6). It shall, however, also bear fruit upwards, thus be a firm-rooted and fruitful tree. It is true that Judah somewhat more than an hundred years later was uprooted. Still it was not, like Israel, quite and forever wrested away from its indigenous soil, but only transplanted for a while, to be replanted again, in order to go and meet a new and final judgment, with which, however, was also combined a transition into a new and higher stage of existence. And precisely for this higher stage of existence the remnant, according to our passage and former statements of the Prophet (Isaiah 4:3; Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 10:20 sqq.), formed the point of connection. By Isaiah 37:32 a the Prophet explains how this revivescence of Judah shall be brought about. All Judah fell into the hand of the enemy, and by him was hostilely treated and desolated. Only the capital remained unhurt. Therefore in it had been preserved an untouched nucleus, formed partly of the inhabitants of Jerusalem themselves, partly of such men of Judah as had taken refuge in the capital. Hence the Prophet can say: “out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and the escaped from mount Zion.” For of course the repeopling and restoration of the land must proceed from Jerusalem, as from the intact core and heart of the land. On the last clause of Isaiah 37:32 see on Isaiah 9:6. The words here are evidently intended in a consolatory sense, and to intimate that what the Lord has promised, He will perform with zeal.

6. Therefore thus saith—David’s sake‍.

Isaiah 37:33-35. In these verses, what was given in the foregoing in a general way is now definitely formulated and applied to the present situation. The Prophet affirms most positively that Jerusalem shall not be besieged by the Assyrian. It is commonly assumed that the Assyrian of course enclosed Jerusalem, and that he met the fearful overthrow narrated Isaiah 37:36 before its walls. But when Sennacherib received intelligence of the approach of the Ethiopian army, he was at Libnah. From there he retired a little further north to Altakai (Eltekeh), where occurred the battle. Evidently he avoided encountering the Ethiopian near, and especially obliquely south of Jerusalem, so as not to tempt the Jews to aid the enemy, and to avoid having to sustain their attack on his rear. But it is thought that the “great army’ (Isaiah 36:2) with which Rabshakeh appeared before Jerusalem remained there while he returned to the king (Isaiah 37:8). The text, however, says nothing of this, and moreover, it is internally not probable. For with the prospect of encountering so great a host as the army of Egypt and Ethiopia doubtless was, Sennacherib would not have weakened himself by sending away a great part of his own army. He might have sent a small corps of observation: but the 185,000 men of which Isaiah 37:36 speaks certainly did not lie before Jerusalem. There is therefore a climax in Isaiah 37:33. First it says, Sennacherib shall not come into the city. Then, he shall not shoot an arrow into it. In sieges among the ancients, the shield played a great part as a protection against spears, stones, etc., that were hurled down from the walls, as also against melted pitch (comp. Herz.Real-Encycl. IV. p. 392 sqq.). סללה, “the besiegers’ wall” (2 Samuel 20:15; Jeremiah 6:6; Ezekiel 4:2, etc.). Isaiah 37:35 is causal as to its contents. The first clause names, as the reason of the Assyrian’s expulsion, Jehovah’s purpose to protect Jerusalem. But the reason for this protection is the promise given to David (2 Samuel 7:12 sqq.; comp. 1 Kings 15:4) whereby the honor of the Lord itself was at stake (comp. Isaiah 43:25; Isaiah 48:11) and thus the preservation of Jerusalem was necessary. It is true that Jerusalem was destroyed, after all, at a later period, and the kingdom of David demolished; but this occurred under circumstances that did not exclude a restoration. Had Judah been destroyed at that time by Sennacherib, it would have had the same fate as the kingdom of Israel.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 36:4 sqq. “Haec proprie est Satanae lingua et sunt non Rabsacis sed ipsissimi Diaboli verba, quibus non muros urbis, sed medullam Ezechiae, hoc est, tenerrimam ejus fidem oppugnat.”—Luther. “In this address the chief-butler, Satan performs in the way he uses when he would bring about our apostacy. 1) He urges that we are divested of all human support, Isaiah 36:5; Isaiah 2:0) We are deprived of divine support, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 3:0) God is angry with us because we have greatly provoked Him by our sins, Isaiah 36:7; Isaiah 4:0) He decks out the splendor, and power of the wicked, Isaiah 36:8-9; Isaiah 5:0) He appeals to God’s word, and knows how to turn and twist it to his uses. Such poisonous arrows were used by Satan against Christ in the desert, and may be compared with this light (Matthew 4:2 sqq.). One needs to arm himself against Satan’s attack by God’s word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.”—Cramer.

The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiah’s confidence, in two of which he was right and in two wrong. He was right in representing that Hezekiah could rely neither on Egypt, nor on his own power. In this respect he was a messenger of God and announcer of divine truth. For everywhere the word of God preaches the same (Isaiah 30:1-3; Isaiah 31:1-3; Jeremiah 17:5; Psalms 118:8-9; Psalms 146:3, etc.). But it is a merited chastisement if rude and hostile preachers must preach to us what we were unwilling to believe at the mild and friendly voice of God. But in two particulars the Assyrian was wrong, and therein lay Hezekiah’s strength. For just on this account the Lord is for him and against the Assyrian. These two things are, that the Assyrian asserts that Hezekiah cannot put his trust in the Lord, but rather he, the Assyrian is counseled by the Lord against Hezekiah. That, however, was a lie, and because of this lie, the corresponding truth makes all the deeper impression on Hezekiah, and reminds him how assuredly he may build on the Lord and importune Him. And when the enemy dares to say, that he is commissioned by the Lord to destroy the Holy Land, just that must bring to lively remembrance in the Israelite, that the Lord, who cannot lie, calls the land of Israel His land (Joel 4:2; Jeremiah 2:7; Jeremiah 16:18, etc.), and the people of Israel His people (Exodus 3:7; Exodus 3:10; Exodus 5:1, etc.).

2. On Isaiah 36:12. [“In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe: 1) The Masorets in the Hebrew text have so printed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided. 2) The customs, habits and modes of expression of people in different nations and times, differ. What appears indelicate at one time or in one country, may not only be tolerated, but common in another. 3) Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian. 4) It was of importance to give the true character of the attack which was made on Jerusalem. The coming of Sennacherib was attended with pride, insolence and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it bear the blame.”—Barnes in loc.].

3. On Isaiah 36:18 sqq. “Observandum hic, quod apud gentes olim viguerit πολύθεια adeo, ut quaevis etiam urbs peculiarem habuerit Deum tutelarem. Cujus ethnicismi exemplum vivum et spirans adhuc habemus apud pontificios, quibus non inscite objici potest illud Jeremiae: Quot civitates tibi, tot etiam Dei (Jeremiah 2:28).”—Foerster.

4. On Isaiah 36:21. Answer not a fool according to his folly (Proverbs 26:4), much less the blasphemer, lest the flame of his wickedness be blown into the greater rage (Sir 8:3). Did not Christ the Lord answer His enemies, not always with words, but also with silence (Matthew 26:62; Matthew 27:14, etc.)? One must not cast pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). After Foerster and Cramer.

5. On Isaiah 36:21. “Est aureus textus, qui docet nos, ne cum Satana disputemus. Quando enim videt, quod sumus ejus spectatores et auditores, tum captat occasionem majoris fortitudinis et gravius premit. Petrus dicit, eum circuire et quaerere, quem devoret. Nullum facit insidiarum finem. Tutissimum autem est non respondere, sed contemnere eum.”—Luther.

6. [On Isaiah 37:1-7. “Rabshakeh intended to frighten Hezekiah from the Lord, but it proves that he frightens him to the Lord. The wind, instead of forcing the traveler’s coat from him, makes him wrap it the closer about him. The more Rabshakeh reproaches God, the more Hezekiah studies to honor Him.” On Isaiah 37:3. “When we are most at a plunge we should be most earnest in prayer. When pains are most strong, let prayers be most lively. Prayer is the midwife of mercy, that helps to bring it forth.”—M. Henry, in loc.]

7. On Isaiah 37:2 sqq. Hezekiah here gives a good example. He shows all princes, rulers and peoples what one ought to do when there is a great and common distress, and tribulation. One ought with sackcloth, i. e., with penitent humility, to bring prayers, and intercessions to the Lord that He would look on and help.

8. On Isaiah 37:6 sq. “God takes to Himself all the evil done to His people. For as when one does a great kindness to the saints, God appropriates it to Himself, so, too, when one torments the saints, it is an injury done to God, and He treats sin no other way than as if done to Himself. He that torments them torments Him (Isaiah 64:9). Therefore the saints pray: ‘Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily’ (Psalms 74:22).”—Cramer.

9. On Isaiah 37:7. “God raises up against His enemies other enemies, and thus prepares rest for His own people. Example: the Philistines against Saul who pursued David, 1 Samuel 23:27.”—Cramer.

10. On Isaiah 37:14. Vitringa here cites the following from Bonfin Rerum Hungar. Dec. III. Lib. VI. p. 464, ad annum Isaiah 1444: “Amorathes, cum suos laborare cerneret et ab Vladislao rege non sine magna caede fugari, depromtum e sinu codicem initi sanctissime foederis explicat intentis in coelum oculis. Haec sunt, inquit ingeminans, Jesu Christe, foedera, quae Christiani tui mecum percussere. Per numen tuum sanctum jurarunt, datamque sub nomine tuo fidem violarunt, perfide suum Deum abnegarunt. Nunc Christe, si Deus es (ut ajunt et nos hallucinamur), tuas measque hic injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere et his, qui sanctum tuum nomen nondum agnovere, violatae fidei poenas ostende. Vix haec dixerat .… cum proelium, quod anceps ac dubium diu fuerat, inclinare coepit, etc.”

[The desire of Hezekiah was not primarily his own personal safety, or the safety of his kingdom. It was that Jehovah might vindicate His great and holy name from reproach, and that the world might know that He was the only true God. We have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when we come before God. This motive of prayer is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 43:13; Isaiah 43:25; Deuteronomy 32:39; Psalms 83:18; Psalms 46:10; Nehemiah 9:6; Daniel 9:18-19. Perhaps there could have been furnished no more striking proof that Jehovah was the true God, than would be by the defeat of Sennacherib. The time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror of His name, and the report of His power throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army.”—Barnes, on Isaiah 37:2].

11. On Isaiah 37:15. “Fides Ezechiae verba confirmata magis ac magis crescit. Ante non ausus est orare, jam orat et confutat blasphemias omnes Assyrii. Adeo magna vis verbi est, ut longe alius per verbum, quod Jesajas ei nunciari jussit, factus sit.”—Luther.

12. On Isaiah 37:17. [“It is bad to talk proudly and profanely, but it is worse to write so, for this argues more deliberation and design, and what is written spreads further and lasts longer, and does the more mischief. Atheism and irreligion, written, will certainly be reckoned for another day.”—M. Henry].

13. On Isaiah 37:21 sqq. [“Those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah’s prayer in God’s name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: ‘Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard.’ Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly to that of chap. 10), and bid him pick out an answer from thence. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God’s side.”—M. Henry.].

14. On Isaiah 37:31 sqq. “This is a promise of great extent. For it applies not only to those that then remained, and were spared the impending destruction and captivity by the Assyrians, but to all subsequent times, when they should enjoy a deliverance; as after the Babylonish captivity, and after the persecutions of Antiochus. Yea, it applies even to New Testament times from the first to the last, since therein, in the order of conversion to Christ, the Jews will take root and bring forth fruit, and thus in the Jews (as also in the converted Gentiles) will appear in a spiritual and corporal sense, what God at that time did to their fields in the three following years.”—Starke.

15. On Isaiah 38:1. “Isaiah, although of a noble race and condition, does not for that regard it disgraceful, but rather an honor, to be a pastor and visitor of the sick, I would say, a prophet, teacher and comforter of the sick. God save the mark! How has the world become so different in our day, especially in our evangelical church Let a family be a little noble, and it is regarded as a reproach and injury to have a clergyman among its relations and friends, not to speak of a son studying theology and becoming a servant of the church. I speak not of all; I know that some have a better mind; yet such is the common course. Jeroboam’s maxim must rather obtain, who made priests of the lowest of the people (1 Kings 12:31). For thus the parsons may be firmly held in rein (sub ferula) and in political submission. It is not at all good where the clergy have a say, says an old state-rule of our Politicorum.” Feuerlein, pastor in Nuremberg, in his Novissimorum primum, 1694, p. 553. The same quotes Spener: “Is it not so, that among the Roman Catholics the greatest lords are not ashamed to stand in the spiritual office, and that many of them even discharge the spiritual functions? Among the Reformed, too, persons born of the noblest families are not ashamed of the office of preacher. But, it seems, we Lutherans are the only ones that hold the service of the gospel so low, that, where from a noble or otherwise prominent family an ingenium has an inclination to theological study, almost every one seeks to hinder him, or, indeed, afterwards is ashamed of his friendship, as if it were something much too base for such people, by which more harm comes to our church than one might suppose. That is to be ashamed of the gospel.”

16. On Isaiah 38:1. [“We see here the boldness and fidelity of a man of God. Isaiah was not afraid to go in freely and tell even a monarch that he must die. The subsequent part of the narrative would lead us to suppose that, until this announcement, Hezekiah did not regard himself as in immediate danger. It is evident here, that the physician of Hezekiah had not informed him of it—perhaps from the apprehension that his disease would be aggravated by the agitation of his mind on the subject. The duty was, therefore, left, as it is often, to the minister of religion—a duty which even many ministers are slow to perform, and which many physicians are reluctant to have performed.

No danger is to be apprehended commonly from announcing to those who are sick their true condition. Physicians and friends often err in this. There is no species of cruelty greater than to suffer a friend to lie on a dying bed under a delusion. There is no sin more aggravated than that of designedly deceiving a dying man, and flattering him with the hope of recovery, when there is a moral certainty that he will not and cannot recover. And there is evidently no danger to be apprehended from communicating to the sick their true condition. It should be done tenderly and with affection; but it should be done faithfully. I have had many opportunities of witnessing the effect of apprising the sick of their situation, and of the moral certainty that they must die. And I cannot now recall an instance in which the announcement has had any unhappy effect on the disease. Often, on the contrary, the effect is to calm the mind, and to lead the dying to look up to God, and peacefully to repose on Him. And the effect of that is always salutary.” Barnes in loc.]

17. On Isaiah 38:2. It is an old opinion, found even in the Chald., that by the wall is meant the wall of the temple as a holy direction in which to pray, as the Mahometans pray in the direction of Mecca. But הקיר cannot mean that. Rather that is correct which is said by Forerius: “Nolunt pii homines testes habere suarum lacrymarum, ut eas liberius fundant, neque sensu distrahi, cum orare Deum ex animo volunt.”

18. On Isaiah 38:8 :—

Non Deus est numen Parcarum carcere clausum.Quale putabatur Stoicus esse Deus.

Ille potest Solis cursus inhibere volantes,

At veluti scopulos flumina stare facit.”

—Melanchthon.

19. On Isaiah 38:12. “Beautiful parables that picture to us the transitoriness of this temporal life. For the parable of the shepherd’s tent means how restless a thing it is with us, that we have here no abiding place, but are driven from one locality to another, until at last we find a resting-spot in the church-yard. The other parable of the weaver’s thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks.” Cramer. “When the weaver’s work is progressing best, the thread breaks before he is aware. Thus when a man is in his best work, and supposes he now at last begins really to live, God breaks the thread of his life and lets him die. The rational heathen knew something of this when they, so to speak, invented the three goddesses of life (the three Parcas minime parcas) and included them in this little verse:

Clotho colum gestat, Lachesis trahit,

Atropos occat

But what does the weaver when the thread breaks? Does he stop his work at once? O no! He knows how to make a clever weaver’s knot, so that one cannot observe the break. Remember thereby that when thy life is broken off, yet the Lord Jesus, as a master artisan, can bring it together again at the last day. He will make such an artful, subtle weaver’s-knot as shall make us wonder through all eternity. It will do us no harm to have died.” Ibid.—Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.

[“As suddenly as the tent of a shepherd is taken down, folded up, and transferred to another place. There is doubtless the idea here that he would continue to exist, but in another place, as the shepherd would pitch his tent in another place. He was to be cut off from the earth, but he expected to dwell among the dead. The whole passage conveys the idea that he expected to dwell in another state.” Barnes in loc.].

20. On Isaiah 38:17. [“Note 1) When God pardons sin, He casts it behind His back as not designing to look upon it with an eye of justice and jealousy. He remembers it no more, to visit for it. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. When we cast our sins behind our back, and take no care to repent of them, God sets them before His face, and is ready to reckon for them; but when we set them before our face in true repentance, as David did when his sin was ever before him, God casts them behind His back. 2) When God pardons sin, He pardons all, casts them all behind His back, though they have been as scarlet and crimson. 3) The pardoning of sin is the delivering the soul from the pit of corruption. 4) It is pleasant indeed to think of our recoveries from sickness when we see them flowing from the remission of sin; then the cause is removed, and then it is in love to the soul.” M. Henry in loc.]

21. On Isaiah 38:18. [Cannot hope for thy truth. “They are shut out from all the means by which Thy truth is brought to mind, and the offers of salvation are presented. Their probation is at an end; their privileges are closed; their destiny is sealed up. The idea is, it is a privilege to live because this is a world where the offers of salvation are made, and where those who are conscious of guilt may hope in the mercy of God.” Barnes in loc.] God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). Such is the New Testament sense of these Old Testament words. For though Hezekiah has primarily in mind the preferableness of life in the earthly body to the life in Hades, yet this whole manner of representation passes away with Hades itself. But Hezekiah’s words still remain true so far as they apply to heaven and hell. For of course in hell, the place of the damned, one does not praise God. But those that live praise Him. These, however, are in heaven. Since then God wills rather that men praise Him than not praise Him, so He is not willing that men should perish, but that all should turn to repentance and live.

22. On Isaiah 39:2. “Primo (Deus) per obsidionem et bellum, deinde per gravem morbum Ezechiam servaverat, ne in praesumtionem laberetur. Nondum tamen vinci potuit antiquus serpens, sed redit et levat caput suum. Adeo non possumus consistere, nisi Deos nos affligat. Vides igitur hic, quis sit afflictionum usus, ut mortificent scilicet carnem, quae non potest res ferre secundas.” Luther.

23. On Isaiah 39:7. “God also punishes the misdeeds of the parents on the children (Exodus 20:5) because the children not only follow the misdeeds of their parents, but they also increase and heap them up, as is seen in the posterity of Hezekiah, viz.: Manasseh and Amon.”—Cramer.

HOMILETICAL HINTS

[The reader is referred to the ample hints covering the same matter to be found in the volume on 2 Kings 18-20. It is expedient to take advantage of that for the sake of keeping the present volume within reasonable bounds. Therefore but a minimum is here given of what the Author offers, much of which indeed is but the repetition in another form of matter already given.—Tr.]

1. On Isaiah 37:36. “1) The scorn and mockery of the visible world. 2) The scorn and mockery of the unseen world.” Sermon of Domprediger Zahn in Halle, 1870.

2. On the entire 38. chapter, beside the 22 sermons in FEUERLEIN’S Novissimorum primum, there is a great number of homiletical elaborations of an early date; Walther Magirus, Idea mortis et vitae in two parts, the second of which contains 20 penitential and consolatory sermons on Isaiah 38:0. Danzig, 1640 and 1642. Daniel Schaller (Stendal) 4 sermons on the sick Hezekiah, on Isaiah 38:0. Magdeburg, 1611. Peter Siegmund Pape in “Gott geheilighte Wochenpredigten,” Berlin, 1701, 4 sermons. Jacob Tichlerus (Elburg) Hiskiae Aufrichtigkeit bewiesen in Gesundheit, Krankheit und Genesung, 18 sermons on Isaiah 38:0. (Dutch), Campen, 1636. These are only the principal ones.

3. On Isaiah 38:1. “I will set my house in order. This, indeed, will not be hard for me to do. My debt account is crossed out; my best possession I take along with me; my children I commit to the great Father of orphans, to whom heaven and earth belongs, and my soul to the Lord, who has sued for it longer than a human age, and bought it with His blood. Thus I am eased and ready for the journey.” Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, p. 620.

4. On Isaiah 38:1. “Now thou shouldest know that our word ‘order his house’ has a very broad meaning. It comprehends reconciliation to God by faith, the final confession of sin, the last Lord’s Supper, the humble committing of the soul to the grace of the Lord, and to death and the grave in the hope of the resurrection. In one word: There is an ordering of the house above. In reliance on the precious merit of my Saviour, I order my house above in which I wish to dwell. Moreover taking leave of loved ones, and the blessing of them belongs to ordering the house. And finally order must be taken concerning the guardianship of children, the abiding of the widow, and the friend on whom she must especially lean in her loneliness, also concerning earthly bequests.” Ahlfeld, Das Leben im Lichte des Wortes Gottes, Halle, 1867, p. 522.

5. On Isaiah 38:2-8. This account has much that seems strange to us Christians, but much, too, that quite corresponds to our Christian consciousness. Let us contemplate the difference between an Old Testament, and a New Testament suppliant, by noticing the differences and the resemblances. I. The resemblances. 1) Distress and grief there are in the Old, as in the New Testament (Isaiah 38:3). 2) Ready and willing to help beyond our prayers or comprehension (Isaiah 38:5-6) is the Lord in the Old as in the New Testament. II. The differences. 1) The Old Testament suppliant appealed to his having done nothing bad (Isaiah 38:3). The New Testament suppliant says: “God be merciful to me a sinner,” and “Give me through grace for Christ’s sake what it pleases Thee to give me.” 2) The Old Testament suppliant demands a sign (Isaiah 38:7-8; comp. Isaiah 38:22); the New Testament suppliant requires no sign but that of the crucified Son of man, for He knows that to those who bear this sign is given the promise of the hearing of all their prayers (John 16:23). 3) In Hezekiah’s case, the prayer of the Old Testament suppliant is indeed heard (Isaiah 38:5), yet in general it has not the certainty of being heard, whereas the New Testament suppliant has this certainty.

Footnotes:

[21]regarding that that thou hast prayed to me respecting Sennacherib.

[22]against.

[23]after.

[24]reviled.

[25]Heb. By the hand of thy servants.

[26]Heb. the tallness of the cedars thereof, and the choice of the fir trees thereof.

[27]summit.

[28]his most luxuriant forest.

[29]Or, and his fruitful field.

[30]of Egypt.

[31]Or, fenced and closed.

[32]Or, Hast thou not heard how I have made it long ago, and formed if of ancient times? should I now bring it to be laid waste, and defenced cities to be ruinous heaps?

[33]heard I from far back I have done it, from ancient days I have formed, etc.

[34]And.

[35]Heb. short of hand.

[36]a field before the stalk.

[37]Or, sitting.

[38]thy raging.

[39](haughty) security.

[40]Heb. the escaping of the house of Judah that remaineth.

[41]add.

[42]Heb. the escaping.

[43]into it.

[44]Heb. shield.