After the rise of the second Assyrian Empire and the changed conditions it introduced into the politics of Western Asia, three parties formed themselves in Judah, each of which directed in succession the affairs of the kingdom. The pressure of the Syro-Ephraimitic war created the Assyrian party, and led to its predominance throughout the reign of Ahaz. The overthrow of Samaria, which brought Judah and Assyria into immediate contact, as well as the growing fear of the power of Nineveh, caused this party to fall with the death of the king. Hezekiah and his advisers now threw themselves into the hands of the Egyptian party, whose leader we may see in Shebna. Its influence was marked by revolt from Assyria, by alliance with Egypt, and by attempts to create a league against the Assyrians among the neighbouring states. The cities of the Philistines, forming as they did a link between Egypt and Judah, assumed increased importance; the old suzerainty which the Jewish kings claimed over them was asserted more forcibly than before, and their princes were made and unmade in accordance with the dictates of Jewish policy. The defeat of Tirhakah at Eltekeh shattered the power of the Egyptian party; Shebna was succeeded as vizier by Eliakim, and the views and teachings of Isaiah were at last allowed to prevail. For the rest of Hezekiah's life Isaiah was his political as well as his religious counsellor; the lesson taught by the terrible invasion of Sennacherib was never forgotten. And though with the death of Hezekiah evil days came again upon Judah-days which, we may gather, Isaiah was privileged never to see-the effect of the prophet's policy continued to be felt. The house of David and the national existence of the people over whom it ruled were preserved until a new king arose in Assyria and inaugurated new principles of government. The Temple and the kingdom were saved till the time was ripe for the chosen people to pass through the fiery ordeal of the Babylonian Exile.
1. Isaiah now appears before us in an entirely new character, that, namely, of a political adviser. In order to appreciate the importance of this fact we have only to look at the contrast which in this respect he presents to Amos and Hosea in the North. These prophets held the same fundamental convictions as Isaiah; they looked forward to a blessed future for Israel after the work of judgment was completed; yet their writings contain no hint of political direction for the leaders of the State. They take up a negative attitude towards the problems of statesmanship; and it must have seemed that the breach between Jehovah and His people was so absolute that no guidance or counsel could be obtained through the medium of the prophetic word. Now it is one of Isaiah's chief distinctions that he revived this political function of prophecy, which had been in abeyance since the time of Elisha. Without descending from the high spiritual level to which prophecy had been raised by the work of Amos and Hosea, he was able from that standpoint to formulate a definite religious policy by which the nation might be safely guided through the dangers that lay immediately before it.
Mr. Bernard Shaw once complained to me that though the two subjects in which people are most of all interested are religion and politics, the stage is disabled from treating them, and therefore has to rely upon subjects of secondary interest to hold the public support. He is quite right as to the supreme place which these two subjects occupy in the general mind. Shallow critics are found to say that the Church should interest itself in religion and not in politics. The distinction is, of course, quite impossible. You may as well try to divorce religion from morals as from politics. Unless the well-being of the commonwealth is a matter of no concern to the Churches, they are bound to follow the trend of political movements with a most watchful eye; and from time to time intervene clearly and decisively. Let any one consider the great outstanding problems of our time, international arbitration, the reduction of armaments, disestablishment, education, temperance and licensing reform, housing, poor law reform, divorce; and those two questions which are greater than any other: the congested city and the deserted village. Who will say that the Church ought to be prepared to say nothing at all about these matters? Who will say that religion can even continue to exist among us if she do not bring her inspiration to bear upon such problems as these? I can understand the attitude of a consistent Plymouth Brother who says that Churches are false to their principles if they intervene to destroy the slave system, or to establish democratic government, or any other great end which has been sacrificially ensued by such Churches as my own. But what I cannot understand is the attitude of those who boast of the achievements of religion in the sphere of politics in bygone days, but who would have us believe now that there is something sinister in this association. They are as hopeless as the other good people who like to hear their minister expatiate on the evils of the Roman Empire, or the French Revolution, or even on the sins against freedom of modern Russia and Turkey, but who will not permit him to say a single word against their own social and national sins, because that would be talking politics. No Church that laid down such conditions for its ministry would deserve to have men of free and independent spirit in its ranks.1 [Note: C. Silvester Horne, Pulpit, Platform, and Parliament, 71.]
2. Isaiah realized in anticipation the noble ideal of a single-hearted statesman sketched four centuries afterwards by the Athenian patriot Demosthenes: “to discern events in their beginnings, to be beforehand in the detection of movements and tendencies, and to forewarn his countrymen accordingly; to fight against the political vices, from which no State is free, of procrastination, supineness, ignorance, and party-jealousy; to impress upon all the paramount importance of unity and friendly feeling, and the duty of providing promptly for their country's needs.” This was his ideal: and how strenuously he sought to be true to it his whole career attests. Regarded practically, the views which he advocated were clear, consistent, and sound. The circumstances of the age threatened to entangle Judah with foreign powers, and Isaiah lays down the principles by which her action should be guided. In the panic caused by the Syro-Ephraimitic invasion, Isaiah alone (so far as appears) retained the power of sober reflection, estimated the danger at its just proportions, and saw that no stress of circumstances could justify the abandonment of principle, or neutralize the consequences in case it should be resorted to. Isaiah, then, discountenanced the application to Assyria; when, however, it was made, and the Assyrian protectorate had become a fait accompli, he acquiesced; and all his efforts were directed towards averting a rupture. From the first he saw the hollowness of Egyptian promises; and it was doubtless owing chiefly to his exertions and influence that the alliance with Egypt was deferred for so many years. The soundness of his judgment was shown by the event. Again and again, when it came to a contest of strength, Egypt was defeated by Assyria; neither to Samaria, nor to the Philistines, nor to Judah, did she render any effectual aid; and Jerusalem was rescued from destruction only by an occurrence which could not have been calculated upon, and which was the termination of a crisis that (so far as we can judge) would itself not have arisen had Isaiah's counsels been listened to.
3. There is not the least reason to believe that the prophet ever entertained a hope that, by following the course he recommended, Judah might be spared the crowning disaster of an Assyrian invasion. That great act of judgment was irrevocably decreed by Jehovah, and could not be finally averted by any line of policy however prudent or even religious it might be. Isaiah's purpose was simply to secure that when the judgment came its salutary effects might be experienced by as large a section of the nation as possible; and with this ultimate object in view he counselled a patient acceptance of the irksome political situation in which Judah was placed, and above all an attitude of neutrality in the repeated struggles which were made by the surrounding nations against Assyria.
This of course was on the surface a very different line of action from that which he urged on Ahaz in the year 735; but each was founded on the one fundamental principle by which Isaiah's statesmanship was governed. Then, he sought to prevent Ahaz from entering into an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, involving a dishonourable subjection to the Assyrian Empire. Now, under Hezekiah, he sets his face against all schemes for violating that compact by an alliance with Egypt or any other country opposed to Assyria. But the religious motive in each case was his antipathy to the spirit of unbelief which he discovered in all attempts to effect political salvation by human wisdom and the help of heathen states.
To trust God for protection is to wait under discouragements and disappointments for a desired issue of the affairs we commit to Him. “He that believeth will not make haste.” This the Lord pleads for. Men will have their desires precisely accomplished this year, this month, this week, or they will wait no longer. These, says God, are proud men; their hearts are lifted up in them; they trust not to me for protection. Men love to trust God (as they profess) for what they have in their hands, in possession, or what lies in an easy view; place their desires afar off, carry their accomplishment behind the clouds out of their sight, interpose difficulties and perplexities-their hearts are instantly sick. They cannot wait for God; they do not trust Him, nor ever did. Would you have the presence of God with you? Learn to wait quietly for the salvation you expect from Him. Then, indeed, is He glorified, when He is trusted as in a storm.1 [Note: John Owen.]
