7 But if thou say to me, We trust in the LORD our God: is it not he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away," and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?

7. But if thou say to me. If you shall make this plea, that you believe JEHOVAH will protect you in your revolt. The word "thou" here refers to Hezekiah, or, to the ambassadors speaking in his name. In 2 Kings xviii. 22, it is, but if ye say unto me," that is, you ambassadors. The sense is substantially the same. ¶ Is it not he, &c. This is given as a reason why they should not put their confidence in JEHOVAH. The reason is, that he supposed that Hezekiah had removed all the altars of JEHOVAH from all parts of the land, and that they could not calculate on the protection of a God whose worship had been abolished. It is probable that Sennacherib and Rabshakeh had heard of the reformation which had been effected by Hezekiah; of his destroying the groves and altars which had been consecrated in the reign of his father to idolatry, and perhaps of the fact that he had even destroyed the brazen serpent which Moses had made and which had become an object of idolatrous worship (2 Kings xviii. 4), and he may have supposed that all these altars and groves had been devoted to JEHOVAH, and were connected with his worship. He did not seem to understand that all that Hezekiah had done was only to establish the worship of JEHOVAH in the land. High places. The worship of idols was usually performed in groves on high places; or on the tops of hills and mountains. It seems to have been supposed that worship in such places was more acceptable to the Deity. Perhaps it may have been because they thus seemed nearer the residence of the gods; or perhaps, because there is sublimity and solemnity in such places-a stillness and elevation above the world which seem favourable to devotion. See 1 Sam. ix. 12. 1 Chron. xiii. 29. 1 Kings iii. 4. 2

8. Now therefore, give 'pledges, I pray thee, to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.

1 or, hostages.

a 2 Kings 18. 4.

d Ps. 20. 7, 8. Hos. 14. 3.

Kings xii. 2. Chapels, temples, and altars were erected on such places (1 Kings xiii. 22. 2 Kings xvii. 29), and ministers and priests attended there to officiate. 1 Kings xii. 32. 2 Kings xvii. 32. Even the kings of Judah, notwithstanding the express prohibition of Moses (Deut. xii.), were engaged in such acts of worship (2 Kings xii. 4, xiv. 4, xv. 4, 35. 2 Chron. xx. 33. xv. 17); and Solomon himself sacrificed in chapels of this kind. 1 Kings iii. 2. These places Hezekiah had destroyed; that is, he had cut down the consecrated groves, and had destroyed the chapels and temples which had been erected there. The fact that Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, had been distinguished for worshipping in such places had probably led the king of Assyria to suppose that this was the proper worship of the God of the Jews; and now that Hezekiah had destroyed them all, he seems to have inferred that he was guilty of gross irreligion, and could no longer depend on the protection of Jehovah. ¶ And said to Judah and Jerusalem. He had commanded them to worship only in Jerusalem, at the temple. This was in strict accordance with the law of Moses; but this seems to have been understood by Sennacherib as in fact almost or quite banishing the worship of JEHOVAH from the land. Probably this was said to alienate the minds of the people from Hezekiah by showing them that he had taken away their rights and privileges of worshipping God where they chose.

8. Now, therefore, give pledges. Marg. hostages. The Hebrew verb () means properly to mix or mingle; then to exchange commodities by barter or traffic, then to become surety for any one, to exchange with him, to stand in his place; then to pledge, to

9 How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen ?

g Jer. 2. 36.

pledge one's life, or to give security of any kind. Here it is used in a spirit of taunting or derision, and is equivalent to what would be said among us, I will bet you, or I will lay a wager, that if we should give you only two thousand horses, you could not find men enough to ride them, or men that had knowledge of horsemanship enough to guide them.' There was much severity in this taunt. The Jews hoped to defend themselves. Yet here was an immense army coming up to lay siege against them. What hope had they of defence? So weak and feeble were they, that Rabshakeh said they could not furnish even two thousand horsemen to resist all the host of the AssyriThere was also doubtless much truth in this taunt. It was not permitted by the law of Moses for the Jews to keep cavalry, nor for their kings to multiply horses. The reason of this may be seen in the Notes on ch. ii. 7. Though some of the kings, and especially Solomon had disregarded this law of Moses, yet Hezekiah had endeavoured to restore the observance of

ans.

the law, and it is probable that he had no cavalry, and that the art of horsemanship was little known in Jerusalem. As the Assyrians prided themselves on their cavalry, they consequently looked with contempt on a people who were destitute of this means of defence.

9. How then wilt thou turn away

the face. The most unimportant captain in the army of Assyria commands more horsemen than this, and how can you expect to oppose even him, much more how can you be able to resist all the mighty army of the Assyrian?

One captain of the least. The word "captain" here,, construct state from, denotes a prefect or governor of a province less than a satrap, an officer who was under the satrap

and subject to him. It is applied to an officer in the Assyrian empire (2 Kings xviii. 24); in the Chaldean empire (Jer. li. 23); the Persian (Esth. viii. 9, ix. 3); and to the prefects of Judea in the time of Solomon, 1 Kings x. 15. The word is of foreign origin.

the LORD. Am I come up without his 10. And am I now come up without here speaks in the name of his master; permission or command? Rabshakeh and he means to say that he had the express command of JEHOVAH to inflict punishment on the Jews. It is possible that there had been conveyed to Sensaid (see ch. x. 5, 6,) that God would nacherib a rumour of what Isaiah had bring the Assyrians upon the Jewish people to punish them for their sins, and that Rabshakeh now pleads that as his authority, in order to show them that resistance would be vain. Or it may be that he uses the name JEHOVAH here as synonymous with the name of GOD, and means to say that he had been divinely directed to come up in that expedition.

All the ancient warriors

usually consulted the gods and endeavoured by auguries to obtain the divine approbation of their plans of conquest, and Rabshakeh may mean simply to say that his master came now

under the divine sanction and direction. Or (which is more probable) he made use of this as a mere pretence for the heard him, and to whom he said he purpose of influencing the people who was sent (ver. 12), in order to alienate their minds from Hezekiah, and to induce them to surrender. He knew that

it was one of the principles of the Jews, however little they regarded it in practice, to yield to his authority. Wicked men will be glad to plead divine authority for their purposes and plans when they can have the slightest pretence for it.

13 Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with "a loud voice in the Jews' language, and said, Hear

thirteen years before Tyre, and the Greeks employed ten in reducing ancient Troy. The sense here is, therefore, that unless the people could be induced to surrender to Sennacherib, they would be subjected to all the horrors of a siege, when they would be reduced to the most deplorable state of necessity and want. The idea in the whole verse is clearly expressed in the parallel place in 2 Chron. xxxii. 11: "Doth not Hezekiah persuade you to give over yourselves to die by famine and by thirst, saying the LORD our God shall deliver us out of the hand of the king of Assyria ?"-In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe (1,) that the Masorites in the Hebrew text have so pointed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided. It is common in the Hebrew Scriptures, when a word is used in the text that is indelicate, to place another word in the margin, and the vowel points that belong to the word in the margin are applied to the word in the text, and the word in the margin is thus commonly read.

In accordance with this custom among the Jews, it is evident that more delicacy might have been observed by our translators in this, and in some other places of the Scriptures. (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. Many things are esteemed indelicate among us which are not so in polite and refined France; many expressions are so regarded now which were not in the time when the Bible was translated into English. Many things may be to us offensive which were not so to the Syrians, the Babylonians, and the Jews; and many modes of expression which are common now, and consistent with all our notions of refinement, may appear improver in some other period of the world. There are many things in

ye the words of the "great king, the king of Assyria.

If

n Ps. 17. 10-13. p Ps. 2. 6, 7. Dan. 4. 37. Shakspeare, and in most of the old English writers, which cannot now be read without a blush. Yet need I say that those expressions will be heard with unconcern in the theatre by those whose delicacy is most offended by some expression in the Bible? There are things infinitely more offensive to delicacy in Byron, and Moore, and even Burns, than there are in the Scriptures; and yet are these not read without a murmur by those who make the loudest complaints of the slightest departure from delicacy in the Bible? (3.) There is another remark to be made in regard to this. Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian. He did not say it; nor is he responsible for it. If there is indelicacy in it, it is not in recording it, but in saying it; and the responsibility is on Rabshakeh. Isaiah undertook to make a record of an important transaction, what right had he to abridge it, or contract it, or to make it different from what it was? (4.) And again. 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, and insolence, and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Hence, Isaiah as a faithful historian, recorded the coming of the Assyrians; the expressions of their haughtiness, insolence, and pride; their vain-boasting, and their reproaches of JEHOVAH; and for the same reason he has recorded the gross and indelicate language which they used to add to the trials of the Jews. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it, bear the blame.

13. Then Rabshakeh stood. Indicating the posture of a man who intends to speak to them at a distance. And cried with a loud voice. So that those on the wall could hear. The words of the king, &c. Note ver. 4.