Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 King 18:13 - 18:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Sennacherib invades Judah and threatens Jerusalem.
(Note: We have a parallel and elaborate account of this campaign of Sennacherib and his defeat (2 Kings 18:13-19:37), and also of Hezekiah's sickness and recovery and the arrival of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem (2 Kings 20:1-19), in Isa 36-39, and a brief extract, with certain not unimportant supplements, in 2 Chron 32. These three narratives, as is now generally admitted, are drawn independently of one another from a collection of the prophecies of Isaiah, which was received into the annals of the kingdom (2Ch 32:32), and serve to confirm and complete one another.)
- Sennacherib, סַנְחֵרִיב (Sanchērı̄bh), Σενναχηρίμ (lxx), Σεναχήριβος (Joseph.), Σαναχάριβος (Herodot.), whose name has not yet been deciphered with certainty upon the Assyrian monuments or clearly explained (see J. Brandis uber den histor. Gewinn aus der Entzifferung der assyr. Inschriften, pp. 103ff., and M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, p. 37), was the successor of Salmanasar (Sargina according to the monuments). He is called βασιλεὺς Ἀραβίων τε καὶ Ἀσσυρίων by Herodotus (ii. 141), and reigned, according to Berosus, eighteen years. He took all the fortified cities in Judah (יִפְּשֵׂם, with the masculine suffix instead of the feminine: cf. Ewald, §184, c.). The כֹּל, all, is not to be pressed; for, beside the strongly fortified capital Jerusalem, he had not yet taken the fortified cities of Lachish and Libnah (2Ki 18:17 and 2Ki 19:8) at the time, when, according to 2Ki 18:14., he sent a division of his army against Jerusalem, and summoned Hezekiah to surrender that city. According to Herodotus (l.c.), the real object of his campaign was Egypt, which is also apparent from 2Ki 19:24, and is confirmed by Isa 10:24; for which reason Tirhaka marched against him (2Ki 19:8; cf. M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, pp. 171, 172).
2Ki 18:14-16
On the report of Sennacherib's approach, Hezekiah made provision at once for the safety of Jerusalem. He had the city fortified more strongly, and the fountain of the upper Gihon and the brook near the city stopped up (see at 2Ki 18:17), to cut off the supply of water from the besiegers, as is stated in 2Ch 32:2-8, and confirmed by Isa 22:8-11. In the meantime Sennacherib had pressed forward to Lachish, i.e., Um Lakis, in the plain of Judah, on the south-west of Jerusalem, seven hours to the west of Eleutheropolis on the road to Egypt (see at Jos 10:3); so that Hezekiah, having doubts as to the possibility of a successful resistance, sent ambassadors to negotiate with him, and promised to pay him as much tribute as he might demand if he would withdraw. The confession “I have sinned” is not to be pressed, inasmuch as it was forced from Hezekiah by the pressure of distress. Since Asshur had made Judah tributary by faithless conduct on the part of Tiglath-pileser towards Ahaz, there was nothing really wrong in the shaking off of this yoke by the refusal to pay any further tribute. But Hezekiah certainly did wrong, when, after taking the first step, he was alarmed at the disastrous consequences, and sought to purchase once more the peace which he himself had broken, by a fresh submission and renewal of the payment of tribute. This false step on the part of the pious king, which arose from a temporary weakness of faith, was nevertheless turned into a blessing through the pride of Sennacherib and the covenant-faithfulness of the Lord towards him and his kingdom. Sennacherib demanded the enormous sum of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold (more than two and a half million thalers, or £375,000); and Hezekiah not only gave him all the gold and silver found in the treasures of the temple and palace, but had the gold plates with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple (2Ch 29:3) removed, to send them to the king of Assyria. הָאֹמְנֹות, lit., the supports, i.e., the posts, of the doors.
These negotiations with Sennacherib on the part of Hezekiah are passed over both in the book of Isaiah and also in the Chronicles, because they had no further influence upon the future progress of the war.
2Ki 18:17
For though Sennacherib did indeed take the money, he did not depart, as he had no doubt promised, but, emboldened still further by this submissiveness, sent a detachment of his army against Jerusalem, and summoned Hezekiah to surrender the capital. “He sent Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh.” Rabshakeh only is mentioned in Isaiah, as the chief speaker in the negotiations which follow, although in Isa 37:6 and Isa 37:24 allusion is evidently made to the other two. Tartan had no doubt the chief command, since he is not only mentioned first here, but conducted the siege of Ashdod, according to Isa 20:1. The three names are probably only official names, or titles of the offices held by the persons mentioned. For רַב־סָרִיס means princeps eunuchorum, and רַבְשָׁקֵה chief cup-bearer. תַּרְתָּן is explained by Hitzig on Isa 20:1 as derived from the Persian târ-tan, “high person or vertex of the body,” and in Jer 39:3 as “body-guard;” but this is hardly correct, as the other two titles are Semitic. These generals took up their station with their army “at the conduit of the upper pool, which ran by the road of the fuller's field,” i.e., the conduit which flowed from the upper pool - according to 2Ch 32:30, the basin of the upper Gihon (Birket el Mamilla) - into the lower pool (Birket es Sultân: see at 1Ki 1:33). According to Isa 7:3, this conduit was in existence as early as the time of Ahaz. The “end” of it is probably the locality in which the conduit began at the upper pool or Gihon, or where it first issued from it. This conduit which led from the upper Gihon into the lower, and which is called in 2Ch 32:30 “the outflow of the upper Gihon,” Hezekiah stopped up, and conducted the water downwards, i.e., the underground, towards the west into the city of David; that is to say, he conducted the water of the upper Gihon, which had previously flowed along the western side of the city outside the wall into the lower Gihon and so away down the valley of Ben-hinnom, into the city itself by means of a subterranean channel,
(Note: We may get some idea of the works connected with this aqueduct from the description of the “sealed fountain” of the Solomon's pool at Ain Saleh in Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 857ff., Dritte Wanderung.)
that he might retain this water for the use of the city in the event of a siege of Jerusalem, and keep it from the besiegers.
This water was probably collected in the cistern (הַבְּרֵכָה) which Hezekiah made, i.e., order to be constructed (2Ki 20:20), or the reservoir “between the two walls for the waters of the old pool,” mentioned in Isa 22:11, i.e., most probably the reservoir still existing at some distance to the east of the Joppa gate on the western side of the road which leads to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the so-called “pool of Hezekiah,” which the natives call Birket el Hamman, “Bathing-pool,” because it supplies a bath in the neighbourhood, or B. el Batrak, “Patriarch's pool” (see Robinson, Pal. i. p. 487, and Fresh Researches into the Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 111ff.), since this is still fed by a conduit from the Mamilla pool (see E. G. Schultz, Jerusalem, p. 31, and Tobler, Denkblätter, pp. 44ff.).
(Note: The identity of the ברכה, which Hezekiah constructed as a reservoir for the overflow of the upper Gihon that was conducted into the city (2Ki 20:20), with the present “pool of Hezekiah” is indeed very probable, but not quite certain. For in very recent times, on digging the foundation for the Evangelical church built on the northern slope of Zion, they lighted upon a large well-preserved arched channel, which was partly cut in the rock, and, where this was not the case, built in level layers and coated within with a hard cement about an inch thick and covered with large stones (Robinson, New Inquiries as to the Topography of Jerusalem, p. 113, and Bibl. Res. p. 318), and which might possibly be connected with the channel made by Hezekiah to conduct the water of the upper Gihon into the city, although this channel does not open into the pool of Hezekiah, and the walls, some remains of which are still preserved, may belong to a later age. The arguments adduced by Thenius in support of the assumption that the “lower” or “old pool” mentioned in Isa 22:9 and Isa 22:11 is different from the lower Gihon-pool, and to be sought for in the Tyropoeon, are inconclusive. It by no means follows from the expression, “which lies by the road of the fuller's field,” i.e., by the road which runs past the fuller's field, that there was another upper pool in Jerusalem beside the upper pool (Gihon); but this additional clause simply serves to define more precisely the spot by the conduit mentioned where the Assyrian army took its stand; and it by no means follows from the words of Isa 22:11, “a gathering of waters have ye made between the two walls for the waters of the old pool,” that this gathering of waters was made in the Tyropoeon, and that this “old pool,” as distinguished from the lower pool (Isa 22:9), was an upper pool, which was above the king's pool mentioned in Neh 3:15. For even if החמתים בין occurs in 2Ki 25:4; Jer 39:4; Jer 52:7, in connection with a locality on the south-east side of the city, the Old Testament says nothing about two pools in the Tyropoeon at the south-east corner of Jerusalem, but simply mentions a fountain gate, which probably derived its name from the present fountain of the Virgin, and the king's pool, also called Shelach in Neh 2:14; Neh 3:15, which was no doubt fed from that fountain like the present Siloam, and watered the royal gardens. (Compare Rob. Pal. i. pp. 565ff., and Bibl. Res. p. 189, and Tobler, Die Siloah-quelle u. der Oelberg, pp. 1ff.). The two walls, between which Hezekiah placed the reservoir, may very well be the northern wall of Zion and the one which surrounded the lower city (Acra) on the north-west, according to which the words in Isa 22:11 would admirably suit the “pool of Hezekiah.” Again, Hezekiah did not wait till the departure of Sennacherib before he built this conduit, which is also mentioned in Wis. 48:17, as Knobel supposes (on Isa 22:11), but he made it when he first invaded Judah, before the appearance of the Assyrian troops in front of Jerusalem, when he made the defensive preparations noticed at v. 14, as is evident from 2Ch 32:3-4, compared with 2Ki 18:30, since the stopping up of the fountain outside the city, to withdraw the water from the Assyrians, is expressly mentioned in 2Ki 18:3, 2Ki 18:4 among the measures of defence; and in the concluding notices concerning Hezekiah in 2Ki 20:20, and 2Ch 32:30, there is also a brief allusion to this work, without any precise indication of the time when he had executed it.)
2Ki 18:18
Hezekiah considered it beneath his dignity to negotiate personally with the generals of Sennacherib. He sent three of his leading ministers out to the front of the city: Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, the captain of the castle, who had only received the appointment to this office a short time before in Shebna's place (Isa 22:20-21); Shebna, who was still secretary of state (סֹפֵר: see at 2Sa 8:17); and Joach the son of Asaph, the chancellor (מַזְכִּיר: see at 2Sa 8:16).
Rabshakeh made a speech to these three (2Ki 18:19-25), in which he tried to show that Hezekiah's confidence that he would be able to resist the might of the king of Assyria was perfectly vain, since neither Egypt (2Ki 18:21), nor his God (2Ki 18:22), nor his forces (2Ki 18:23), would be able to defend him.
2Ki 18:19
“The great king:” the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian kings all assumed this title (cf. Eze 26:7; Dan 2:37), because kings of conquered lands were subject to them as vassals (see at Isa 10:8). “What is this confidence that thou cherishest?” i.e., how vain or worthless is this confidence!
2Ki 18:20
“Thou sayest ... it is only a lip-word...: counsel and might for battle;” i.e., if thou speakest of counsel and might for battle, that is only שְׂפָתַיִם דְּבַר, a word that merely comes from the lips, not from the heart, the seat of the understanding, i.e., a foolish and inconsiderate saying (cf. Pro 14:23; Job 11:2). - עָמַרְתָּ is to be preferred to the אָמַרְתִּי of Isaiah as the more original of the two. עַתָּה, now, sc. we will see on whom thou didst rely, when thou didst rebel against me.
2Ki 18:21
On Egypt? “that broken reed, which runs into the hand of any one who would lean upon it (thinking it whole), and pierces it through.” This figure, which is repeated in Eze 29:6-7, is so far suitably chosen, that the Nile, representing Egypt, is rich in reeds. What Rabshakeh says of Egypt here, Isaiah had already earnestly impressed upon his people (Isa 30:3-5), to warn them against trusting in the support of Egypt, from which one party in the nation expected help against Assyria.
2Ki 18:22
Hezekiah (and Judah) had a stronger ground of confidence in Jehovah his God. Even this Rabshakeh tried to shake, availing himself very skilfully, from his heathen point of view, of the reform which Hezekiah had made in the worship, and representing the abolition of the altars on the high places as an infringement upon the reverence that ought to be shown to God. “And if ye say, We trust in Jehovah our God, (I say:) is it not He whose high places and altars Hezekiah has taken away and has said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar (in the temple) in Jerusalem?” Instead of הֹאמְרוּ כִּי, according to which Rabshakeh turned to the deputies, we have in Isa 7:7 תֹאמַר כִּי, according to which the words are addressed to Hezekiah, as in 2Ki 18:20. הֹאמְרוּ is preferred by Thenius, Knobel, and others, because in what follows Hezekiah is addressed in the third person. but the very circumstance that הֹאמְרוּ is apparently more suitable favours the originality of תֹאמַר, according to which the king is still addressed in the person of his ambassadors, and Rabshakeh only speaks directly to the ambassadors when this argument is answered. The attack upon the confidence which the Judaeans placed in their God commences with הוּא הֲלֹוא. The opinion of Thenius, that the second clause of the verse is a continuation of the words supposed to be spoken by the Judaeans who trusted in God, and that the apodosis does not follow till 2Ki 18:23, is quite a mistake. The ambassadors of Hezekiah could not regard the high places and idolatrous altars that had been abolished as altars of Jehovah; and the apodosis could not commence with וְעַתָּה.
2Ki 18:23-24
Still less could Hezekiah rely upon his military resources. נָא הִתְעָרֶב: enter, I pray thee, (into contest) with my lord, and I will give thee 2000 horses, if thou canst set the horsemen upon them. The meaning, of course, is not that Hezekiah could not raise 2000 soldiers in all, but that he could not produce so many men who were able to fight as horsemen. “How then wilt thou turn back a single one of the smallest lieutenants of my lord?” פל אֶת־פְּנֵי הֵשִׁיב, to repulse a person's face, means generally to turn away a person with his petition (1Ki 2:16-17), here to repulse an assailant. אַחַד פַּחַת is one pasha; although אַחַד hguo, which is grammatically subordinate to פַּחַת, is in the construct state, that the genitives which follow may be connected (for this subordination of אֶחָד see Ewald, §286, a.). פֶּחָה (see at 1Ki 10:15), lit., under-vicegerent, i.e., administrator of a province under a satrap, in military states also a subordinate officer. וַתִּבְטַח: and so (with thy military force so small) thou trustest in Egypt וגו לָרֶכֶב, so far as war-chariots and horsemen are concerned.
2Ki 18:25
After Rabshakeh had thus, as he imagined, taken away every ground of confidence from Hezekiah, he added still further, that the Assyrian king himself had also not come without Jehovah, but had been summoned by Him to effect the destruction of Judah. It is possible that some report may have reached his ears of the predictions of the prophets, who had represented the Assyrian invasion as a judgment from the Lord, and these he used for his own purposes. Instead of הַזֶּה הַמָּקֹום עַל, against this place, i.e., Jerusalem, we have הַזֹּאת הָאָרֶץ עַל in Isaiah, - a reading which owes its origin simply to the endeavour to bring the two clauses into exact conformity to one another.
2Ki 18:26-37
It was very conceivable that Rabshakeh's boasting might make an impression upon the people; the ambassadors of Hezekiah therefore interrupted him with the request that he would speak to them in Aramaean, as they understood that language, and not in Jewish, on account of the people who were standing upon the wall. אֲרָמִית was the language spoken in Syria, Babylonia, and probably also in the province of Assyria, and may possibly have been Rabshakeh's mother-tongue, even if the court language of the Assyrian kings was an Aryan dialect. With the close affinity between the Aramaean and the Hebrew, the latter could not be unknown to Rabshakeh, so that he made use of it, just as the Aramaean language was intelligible to the ministers of Hezekiah, whereas the people in Jerusalem understood only יְהוּדִיה, Jewish, i.e., the Hebrew language spoken in the kingdom of Judah. It is evident from the last clause of the verse that the negotiations were carried on in the neighbourhood of the city wall of Jerusalem.
2Ki 18:27
But Rabshakeh rejected this proposal with the scornful remark, that his commission was not to speak to Hezekiah and his ambassadors only, but rather to the people upon the wall. The variation of the preposition עַל and אֶל in אֲדֹנֶיךָ עַל אֲדֹנֶי, to thy lord (Hezekiah), and אֵלֶיךָ, to thee (Eliakim as chief speaker), is avoided in the text of Isaiah. עַל is frequently used for אֶל, in the later usage of the language, in the sense of to or at. In the words “who sit upon the wall to eat their dung and drink their urine,” Rabshakeh points to the horrors which a siege of Jerusalem would entail upon the inhabitants. For חריהם = חַרְאֵיהֶם, excrementa sua, and שֵׁינֵיהֶם, urinas suas, the Masoretes have substituted the euphemisms צֹואָתָם, going forth, and רַגְלֵיהֶם מֵימֵי, water of their feet.
2Ki 18:28-30
וַיַּעֲמֹוד: not, he stood up, raised himself (Ges.), or came forward (Then.), but he stationed himself, assumed an attitude calculated for effect, and spoke to the people with a loud voice in the Jewish language, telling them to listen to the king of Assyria and not to be led astray by Hezekiah, i.e., to be persuaded to defend the city any longer, since neither Hezekiah nor Jehovah could defend them from the might of Sennacherib. אַל־יַשִּׁיא: let not Hezekiah deceive you, sc. by pretending to be able to defend or save Jerusalem. In מִיָּדֹו, “out of his (the Assyrian's) hand,” the speaker ceases to speak in the name of his king. On the construction of the passive תִּנָּתֵן with אֶת־הָעִיר, see Ewald, §277, d., although in the instance before us he proposes to expunge the אֵת after Isa 36:15.
2Ki 18:31-32
“Make peace with me and come out to me (sc., out of your walls, i.e., surrender to me), and ye shall eat every one his vine, ... till I come and bring you into a land like your own land...” בְּרָכָה is used here to signify peace as the concentration of weal and blessing. The imperative וְעִכְלוּ expresses the consequence of what goes before (vid., Ewald, §347, b.). To eat his vine and fig-tree and to drink the water of his well is a figure denoting the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the fruits of his own possession (cf. 1Ki 5:5). Even in the event of their yielding, the Assyrian would transport the Jewish people into another land, according to the standing custom of Asiatic conquerors in ancient times (for proofs see Hengstenberg, De rebus Tyriis, pp. 51, 52). To make the people contented with this thought, the boaster promised that the king of Assyria would carry them into a land which was quite as fruitful and glorious as the land of Canaan. The description of it as a land with corn and new wine, etc., recalls the picture of the land of Canaan in Deu 8:8 and Deu 33:28. יִצְהָר זֵית is the olive-tree which yields good oil, in distinction from the wild olive-tree. וגו וִחְיוּ: and ye shall live and not die, i.e., no harm shall befall you from me (Thenius). This passage is abridged in Isa 36:17.
2Ki 18:33-34
Even Jehovah could not deliver them any more than Hezekiah. As a proof of this, Rabshakeh enumerated a number of cities and lands which the king of Assyria had conquered, without their gods' being able to offer any resistance to his power. “Where are the gods of Hamath, etc., that they might have delivered Samaria out of my hand?” Instead of הִצִּילוּ כִּי we have הץ וְכִי and that they might have, which loosens the connection somewhat more between this clause and the preceding one, and makes it more independent. “Where are they?” is equivalent to they are gone, have perished (cf. 2Ki 19:18); and “that they might have delivered” is equivalent to they have not delivered. The subject to הִצִּילוּ כִּי is הַגֹּויִם אֱלֹהֵי, which includes the God of Samaria. Sennacherib regards himself as being as it were one with his predecessors, as the representative of the might of Assyria, so that he attributes to himself the conquests of cities and lands which his ancestors had made. The cities and lands enumerated in 2Ki 18:34 have been mentioned already in 2Ki 17:24 as conquered territories, from which colonists had been transplanted to Samaria, with the exception of Arpad and Hena. אַרְפָּד, which is also mentioned in 2Ki 19:13; Isa 10:9; Isa 36:19; Isa 37:13, and Jer 49:23, in connection with Hamath, was certainly situated in the neighbourhood of that city, and still exists, so far as the name is concerned, in the large village of rfâd, Arfâd (mentioned by Maraszid, i. 47), in northern Syria in the district of Azâz, which was seven hours to the north of Haleb, according to Abulf. Tab. Syr. ed. Köhler, p. 23, and Niebuhr, Reise, ii. p. 414 (see Roediger, Addenda ad Ges. thes. p. 112). הֵנַע, Hena, which is also combined with 'Ivvah in 2Ki 19:13 and Isa 37:13, is probably the city of 'ânt Ana, on the Euphrates, mentioned by Abulf., and עִוָּה is most likely the same as עַוָּא in 2Ki 17:24. The names וְעִוָּה הֵנַע are omitted from the text of Isaiah in consequence of the abridgment of Rabshakeh's address.
2Ki 18:35
2Ki 18:35 contains the conclusion drawn from the facts already adduced: “which of all the gods of the lands are they who have delivered their land out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?” i.e., as not one of the gods of the lands named have been able to rescue his land from Assyria, Jehovah also will not be able to defend Jerusalem.
2Ki 18:36-37
The people were quite silent at this address (“the people,” הָעָם, to whom Rabshakeh had wished to address himself); for Hezekiah had forbidden them to make any answer, not only to prevent Rabshakeh from saying anything further, but that the ambassadors of Sennacherib might be left in complete uncertainty as to the impression made by their words. The deputies of Hezekiah returned to the king with their clothes rent as a sign of grief at the words of the Assyrian, by which not only Hezekiah, but still more Jehovah, had been blasphemed, and reported what they had heard.