2 Kings · Chapter 18

Verse 1. Now-in the third year of Hoshea] See the note on 2 Kings 16:1, where this chronology is considered.

Verses 1, 2. In the third year of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign — Namely, in the third of those nine years, mentioned 2 Kings 17:1; of which see the note there, and below, verse 10. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign — To this it is objected, that Ahaz his father lived only thirty-six years, and therefore, according to this account, begat Hezekiah when he was but eleven years old, which seems incredible. Various explications of this difficulty have been given; but the most probable are, either, 1st, That some error in regard to the numerals has crept into the text, and that Hezekiah was not so old when he began to reign: or, 2d, That the sixteen years which Ahaz reigned are to be computed, not from the first beginning of his reign, when he reigned with his father, (as it is probable he did,) which was at the twentieth year of his age, but from the beginning of his reigning alone, in which case Ahaz would be as many years of age more than thirty-six when he died, as he had reigned with his father, before he came into the sole possession of the kingdom.

BEGINNING OF HEZEKIAH’S REIGN, 1-8.

1. In the third year — Near the close of the third year, so that the greater part of Hezekiah’s first year would fall in the fourth year of Hoshea, and the greater part of Hezekiah’s fourth year would fall in the seventh of Hoshea. See verses 9, 10.

V. 2. To reign-It is not certain that Ahaz lived only thirty six years, for those sixteen years which he reigned, may be computed, not from the first beginning of his reign, when he reigned with his father; which was at the twentieth year of his age, but from the beginning of his reigning alone.

Verses 1, 2. In the third year of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign — Namely, in the third of those nine years, mentioned 2 Kings 17:1; of which see the note there, and below, verse 10. Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign — To this it is objected, that Ahaz his father lived only thirty-six years, and therefore, according to this account, begat Hezekiah when he was but eleven years old, which seems incredible. Various explications of this difficulty have been given; but the most probable are, either, 1st, That some error in regard to the numerals has crept into the text, and that Hezekiah was not so old when he began to reign: or, 2d, That the sixteen years which Ahaz reigned are to be computed, not from the first beginning of his reign, when he reigned with his father, (as it is probable he did,) which was at the twentieth year of his age, but from the beginning of his reigning alone, in which case Ahaz would be as many years of age more than thirty-six when he died, as he had reigned with his father, before he came into the sole possession of the kingdom.

2. Twenty and five years old — Since Ahaz was only thirty-six years old at his death, (2 Kings 16:2, note,) he must have begotten this son Hezekiah when about eleven years old. To show that this was not impossible, Keil instances the following: “In the East they marry girls of nine or ten years of age to boys of twelve or thirteen. VOLNEY, Reisen, xi, p. 360.) Among the Indians husbands of ten years of age and wives of eight are mentioned. THEVENOT, Reisen, cxi, pp. 100, 165. In Abyssinia boys of twelve and even ten years old marry. RUPPELL, Abessynien, xi, p. 59. Among the Jews in Tiberias, mothers of eleven years of age and fathers of thirteen are not uncommon, (BURCKH., Syria, p. 570;) and Lynch saw a wife there, who to all appearance was a mere child about ten years of age, who had been married two years already.” Others, however, suppose a corruption in the text of chap. 16:2, and with the Syriac and Arabic versions at 2 Chronicles 28:1, make Ahaz forty years old at his death. His mother’s name — “The names of the mothers of all the later kings of Judah are mentioned in Holy Scripture; intimating the importance of a mother’s influence, especially in evil days.” — Wordsworth.

Verse 3. He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord] In 2 Chronicles 29:1-36 of the second book of Chronicles, we have an account of what this pious king did to restore the worship of God. He caused the priests and Levites to cleanse the holy house, which had been shut up by his father Ahaz, and had been polluted with filth of various kinds; and this cleansing required no less than sixteen days to accomplish it. As the passover, according to the law, must be celebrated the fourteenth of the first month, and the Levites could not get the temple cleansed before the sixteenth day, he published the passover for the fourteenth of the second month, and sent through all Judah and Israel to collect all the men that feared God, that the passover might be celebrated in a proper manner. The concourse was great, and the feast was celebrated with great magnificence. When the people returned to their respective cities and villages, they began to throw down the idol altars, statues, images, and groves, and even to abolish the high places; the consequence was that a spirit of piety began to revive in the land, and a general reformation took place.

BEGINNING OF HEZEKIAH’S REIGN, 1-8.

1. In the third year — Near the close of the third year, so that the greater part of Hezekiah’s first year would fall in the fourth year of Hoshea, and the greater part of Hezekiah’s fourth year would fall in the seventh of Hoshea. See verses 9, 10.

V. 4. Serpent-The most of them, or such as the people most frequented: for all were not taken away, 2 Kings 23:13,14, tho’ his own father had set them up. We must never dishonour God, in honour to our earthly parents. Brazen serpent-Which had been hitherto kept as a memorial of God’s mercy; but being now commonly abused to superstition, was destroyed. To it-Not doubtless as to a god, but only as to an instrument of God’s mercy, by and through which, their adoration was directed to God, and given to that only for God’s sake. Nehushtan-He said, this serpent, howsoever formerly honoured, and used by God as a sign of his grace, yet now it is nothing but a piece of brass which can do you neither good nor hurt.

Verse 4. Brake in pieces the brazen serpent.] The history of this may be seen in Numbers 21:8, 9; see the notes there.

We find that this brazen serpent had become an object of idolatry, and no doubt was supposed to possess, as a telesm or amulet, extraordinary virtues, and that incense was burnt before it which should have been burnt before the true God.

And he called it Nehushtan.] נהשתן. Not one of the versions has attempted to translate this word. Jarchi says, “He called it Nechustan, through contempt, which is as much as to say, a brazen serpent.” Some have supposed that the word is compounded of vjn nachash, to divine, and תנ tan, a serpent, so it signifies the divining serpent; and the Targum states that it was the people, not Hezekiah, that gave it this name. vjn nachash signifies to view, eye attentively, observe, to search, inquire accurately, &c.; and hence is used to express divination, augury. As a noun it signifies brass or copper, filth, verdigris, and some sea animal, Amos 9:3; see also Job 26:13, and Isaiah 26:1. It is also frequently used for a serpent; and most probably for an animal of the genus Simia, in Genesis 3:1, where see the notes. This has been contested by some, ridiculed by a few, and believed by many. The objectors, because it signifies a serpent sometimes, suppose it must have the same signification always! And one to express his contempt and show his sense, has said, “Did Moses hang up an ape on a pole?” I answer, No, no more than he hanged up you, who ask the contemptible question. But this is of a piece with the conduct of the people of Milan, who show you to this day the brazen serpent which Moses hung up in the wilderness, and which Hezekiah broke in pieces two thousand five hundred years ago! Of serpents there is a great variety. Allowing that vjn nachash signifies a serpent, I may ask in my turn, What kind of a serpent was it that tempted Eve? Of what species was that which Moses hung up on the pole, and which Hezekiah broke to pieces? Who of the wise men can answer these questions? Till this is done I assert, that the word, Genesis 3:1, &c., does not signify a serpent of any kind; and that with a creature of the genus Simia the whole account best agrees.

Verse 4. He removed the high places — Which none of his predecessors had had the courage to attempt. But, it is likely, the dreadful judgments of God, executed upon the ten tribes, and the carrying them away captive for their superstition and idolatry, had been the means of mightily awakening both him and all the people, for the present, (while these calamities were fresh before their eyes,) to observe the law of God very strictly. “It was a great demonstration,” says Dr. Dodd, “of Hezekiah’s sincere piety and zeal toward God, that he began so soon to reform the corruption of religion, and did not stay till he had established himself in his throne. He might think, however,” and certainly very justly, “that the surest way to establish himself, was to establish the true worship of God; though he could not but foresee that he ran a great hazard in attempting the abolition of idolatry, which had been confirmed by so many years prescription,” 2 Chronicles 29:3-11. And brake in pieces the brazen serpent, which Moses had made — Though this serpent was made by Moses at God’s command, and was of singular use to the Israelites, and a special type of Christ; yet, the primary use of it having long since ceased, and being now abused to the purposes of superstition and idolatry, it was deservedly broken to pieces. And from this example we may infer, that all things which are made the occasions of superstition and idolatry, ought to be taken away. For unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it — This cannot be intended to signify, that all along, from the days of Moses, this brazen serpent was used as an object of religious worship. For certainly neither David, nor Solomon in the former part of his reign, would have suffered any such thing; nor can we suppose but that Asa and Jehoshaphat, when they rooted out idolatry, would also have extirpated this, if they had perceived any species of it in their days. The commencement of this superstition, therefore, must have been of later date, and probably since the time that Ahab’s family, being allied to the royal family in Judah by marriage, introduced all kinds of idolatry. As this brazen serpent had been kept from the days of Moses, merely in memory of a miracle wrought by Jehovah, just as the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod that budded also were, it is likely that their burning incense or perfumes before it was at first designed in honour of the true God; but then, in the process of their superstition, they probably either worshipped the God of Israel, or, what is worse, some heathen god, under that image; imitating therein the practice of some of the neighbouring nations, as the Babylonians, Phenicians: Egyptians, who all worshipped one or more of their gods under the form of a serpent. Upon this account Hezekiah wisely chose rather to lose this memorial of God’s wonderful mercy to the Israelites, than to suffer it any longer to be abused to idolatry, and therefore destroyed it. It deserves to be remarked here, that notwithstanding it is so expressly recorded that Hezekiah brake it in pieces, yet the Roman Catholics pretend to show it entire in the church of St. Ambrose in Milan. And he called it Nehushtan — Or rather, Nechushtan, as it is in the Hebrew, that is, brass; as if he had said, How much soever this serpent might be formerly regarded and used by God, as a sign of his mercy and power, yet now it is nothing but a piece of mere brass, which can do you neither good nor hurt, and therefore is no fit object of your worship.

Verse 4. Nehushtan; that is, their brass, or mere brass, or parvum æs, corrupted brass, by way of contempt. In the Chronicum of Alexander, cited by Eusebius out of Anestasio Niceno, we are told that the people resorted to this serpent to be healed of their diseases, instead of having recourse to herbs, and seeking a cure from God.

4. High places — See on 1 Kings 3:2. Images… groves — See note on 1 Kings 14:15, 23. Brake in pieces the brazen serpent — Compare Numbers 21:9. This ancient relic would naturally acquire, in the lapse of time, a mysterious sanctity, and would easily become an object of idolatry to a people so habituated to high places and images and groves as both Israel and Judah had now become; and Hezekiah was convinced that the only sure way to stop this form of idolatry was to break the brazen thing in pieces. It would seem great sacrilege to destroy a relic so ancient and so sacred, but it was idolatry to preserve it. Winer and Bahr think that this was not the identical brazen serpent that Moses had made, but one like it, which the sensuous people in a time of idolatry had made in remembrance of what Moses had done and commanded. But this exposition contradicts the text, and cannot therefore be sustained in the absence of any other notice of the brazen serpent since the time of Moses. Unto those days — That is, the days of Hezekiah. How long previously the children of Israel had been accustomed to burn incense to it does not appear, but probably from the beginning of idolatrous practices in the kingdom; certainly not from the days of Moses. He called it Nehushtan — Nehushtan means brazen, and hence many interpreters understand that when the king destroyed this idol he called it, by way of contempt, Nehushtan, “the brazen thing.” Others take the words he called indefinitely, in the sense of it was called, or they called it, indicating that Nehushtan was the title by which the brazen serpent was popularly called. So Bahr explains that the name originated in the glowing red or fiery colour of the brass, and is equivalent to the “Glowing-red One,” the “Consuming One,” the “Burning One.”

V. 5. Trusted-Without calling in foreign succours to establish or help him; which his father Ahaz did; and before him Asa. Before him-Of the kings of Judah only; for David and Solomon were kings of all Israel. The like is said of Josiah, 2 Kings 23:25. Each of them, excelled the other in several respects. Hezekiah in this, that he fell upon this work in the beginning of his reign, which Josiah did not, and with no less resolution, undertaking to do that which none of his predecessors durst do, even to remove the high places, wherein Josiah did only follow his example.

Verse 5. He trusted in the Lord] See the character of this good king: 1. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel; 2. He clave to the Lord; 3. He was steady in his religion; he departed not from following the Lord; 4. He kept God’s commandments. And what were the consequences? 1. The Lord was with him; 2. He prospered whithersoever he went.

Verses 5, 6. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel — In abolishing idolatry, there was danger, as has been intimated, of disobliging his subjects, and provoking them to rebel; but he trusted in the Lord to bear him out, and defend him in what he did. When he came to the crown, he found his kingdom encompassed with enemies; but he did not apply to foreign and heathenish powers for aid or succour, as his father Ahaz had done, but trusted in the God of Israel to be the keeper of Israel, and to establish him in his kingdom. So that after him was none like him, &c. — If it be objected that the same is said of Josiah, (2 Kings 23:25,) it may be observed, that each of them excelled the other in several qualities or actions; Hezekiah in this, that he set upon the work of reformation with great expedition, even in the first year of his reign, (2 Chronicles 29:3,) which Josiah did not, and with no less resolution undertook to do that which none of his predecessors durst do, even to remove the high places; wherein Josiah only followed his example, 2 Kings 22:1-3. Nor any that were before him — That is, who had been kings only of Judah: for David and Solomon were kings of all Israel. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him — In the general course of his life, and especially in the matters of God’s worship. Several of his predecessors that began well, did not persevere; but he, like Caleb, followed the Lord fully, and not only abolished all idolatrous usages, but observed God’s commandments, and in every thing made conscience of doing his duty.

5. None like him — According to Keil, “this verdict refers to Hezekiah’s confidence in God, (jcb,) in which he had no equal; whereas in the case of Josiah, his conscientious adherence to the Mosaic law is extolled in the same words; so that there is no ground for saying that there is a contradiction between our verse and 2 Kings 23:25.” But Josiah’s “confidence in God” was also great, for he “turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might,” (2 Kings 23:25,) and Hezekiah also adhered to the Mosaic law, (verse 6,) so that Keil’s distinction has hardly a sufficient basis in the two passages. Better, therefore, to understand the form of expression in both passages after the manner of Oriental hyperbole, as in a measure proverbial of any one who was very conspicuous for certain qualities, and not to be explained with literal precision.

Verses 5, 6. He trusted in the Lord God of Israel — In abolishing idolatry, there was danger, as has been intimated, of disobliging his subjects, and provoking them to rebel; but he trusted in the Lord to bear him out, and defend him in what he did. When he came to the crown, he found his kingdom encompassed with enemies; but he did not apply to foreign and heathenish powers for aid or succour, as his father Ahaz had done, but trusted in the God of Israel to be the keeper of Israel, and to establish him in his kingdom. So that after him was none like him, &c. — If it be objected that the same is said of Josiah, (2 Kings 23:25,) it may be observed, that each of them excelled the other in several qualities or actions; Hezekiah in this, that he set upon the work of reformation with great expedition, even in the first year of his reign, (2 Chronicles 29:3,) which Josiah did not, and with no less resolution undertook to do that which none of his predecessors durst do, even to remove the high places; wherein Josiah only followed his example, 2 Kings 22:1-3. Nor any that were before him — That is, who had been kings only of Judah: for David and Solomon were kings of all Israel. For he clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him — In the general course of his life, and especially in the matters of God’s worship. Several of his predecessors that began well, did not persevere; but he, like Caleb, followed the Lord fully, and not only abolished all idolatrous usages, but observed God’s commandments, and in every thing made conscience of doing his duty.

BEGINNING OF HEZEKIAH’S REIGN, 1-8.

1. In the third year — Near the close of the third year, so that the greater part of Hezekiah’s first year would fall in the fourth year of Hoshea, and the greater part of Hezekiah’s fourth year would fall in the seventh of Hoshea. See verses 9, 10.

V. 7. Rebelled-He shook off that yoke of subjection, to which his father had wickedly submitted, and reassumed that full and independent sovereignty which God had settled in the house of David. And Hezekiah’s case differs much from that of Zedekiah, who is blamed for rebellion against the king of Babylon, both because he had engaged himself by a solemn oath and covenant, which we do not read of Ahaz; and because he broke the covenant which he himself had made; and because God had actually given the dominion of his own land and people to the king of Babylon, and commanded both Zedekiah and his people to submit to him. And whereas Hezekiah is here said to rebel; that word implies, only a defection from that subjection which had been performed to another; which sometimes may be justly done, and therefore that word doth not necessarily prove this to be a sin. And that it was not a sin in him, seems certain, because God owned and assisted him therein; and did not at all reprove him for it, in that message which he sent to him by Isaiah, nor afterwards, though he did particularly reprove him, for his vain-glory, and ostentation, 2 Chronicles 32:25,26.

Verse 7. The Lord was with him, and he prospered, &c. — He adhered to God and his service, and therefore God was with him; and, having the special presence of God with him, he had wonderful success in all his enterprises, in his wars, his buildings, and especially his reformation; which good work was carried on with less difficulty than he could have expected. Thus we have in him an instructive and encouraging example, teaching us that they who do God’s work with an eye to his glory, and with confidence in his strength, may expect to prosper in it: for great is the truth, and will prevail. And he rebelled against the king of Assyria — That is, he threw off that yoke of subjection to him to which his father had basely submitted, and re-assumed that full and independent sovereignty which God had settled in the house of David. This, though here called rebelling against him, was really no more than asserting the just rights of his crown. For his case differed much from that of Zedekiah, who is blamed for rebellion against the king of Babylon. Zedekiah had engaged himself by a solemn oath and covenant, which we do not read that Ahaz had done, much less had Hezekiah. Zedekiah had broke the covenant which himself had made; and God had actually given the dominion of the land and people to the king of Babylon, and commanded both Zedekiah and his subjects to submit to him. But God had not given any such dominion to the king of Assyria, nor had he commanded either Hezekiah or his people to be subject to him. And as to the word rebel here used, it means no more than to depart from that subjection which had been performed to another, which sometimes may be justly done, and certainly might in this case. Indeed, that Hezekiah did not sin in revolting from the king of Assyria seems evident, because God owned and assisted him in it, and did not at all reprove him for it in that message which he sent to him by Isaiah, nor afterward, though he did particularly reprove him for his vain-glory and ostentation, 2 Chronicles 32:25, 26.

Ver. 7. He rebelled. This was prudent, because he had confidence in the Lord. Let us not serve the enemy while God is on our side.

7. Rebelled against the king of Assyria — By refusing to pay the customary tribute, and proclaiming himself independent of Assyria. This was the cause of Sennacherib’s invasion. Verse 13.

Verse 8. From the tower of the watchmen] See the same words, 2 Kings 17:9. It seems a proverbial mode of expression: he reduced every kind of fortification; nothing was able to stand before him.

Verse 8. He smote the Philistines even unto Gaza — And recovered from them what his father had lost, and more, 2 Chronicles 28:18. From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city — That is, all the country over, both the country villages and fortified towns. When he had purged out the corruptions which his father had brought in, he might expect to recover the possessions which his father had lost. These his victories over the Philistines had been foretold by Isaiah 14:28.

8. Smote the Philistines — Who in the reign of Ahaz “had invaded the cities of the low country, and of the south of Judah.” 2 Chronicles 28:18. Unto Gaza — In the southern part of the great Philistine plain, (see on Joshua 10:41,) so that he probably recovered all the cities that the Philistines had taken from Judah. From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city — That is, from the more exposed districts to the fortified towns. See note on 2 Kings 17:9. Keil is of opinion that this war against the Philistines occurred after the defeat of Sennacherib.

Verse 9. In the fourth year] This history has been already given, 2 Kings 17:3, &c.

FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 9-12.

The fall of the kingdom of Israel was so important and memorable a catastrophe that it was recorded in the annals of Judah as well as in those of Israel; and one object of our historian in introducing a notice of it here, seems to be to contrast it with the greater permanence of Judah under the God-fearing Hezekiah. Judah successfully rebelled against Assyria because her king trusted in Jehovah and kept his law; Israel fell because her people “obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded.” Verse 12.

9. Fourth year… seventh year — That is, the greater part of the fourth year of Hezekiah fell in the seventh year of Hoshea. See note on verse 1.

10. They took it — Here, as in 2 Kings 17:6, it is noticeable that the writer does not say that Shalmaneser captured Samaria, though his narrative seems to imply it. See note on 2 Kings 17:6.

FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 9-12.

The fall of the kingdom of Israel was so important and memorable a catastrophe that it was recorded in the annals of Judah as well as in those of Israel; and one object of our historian in introducing a notice of it here, seems to be to contrast it with the greater permanence of Judah under the God-fearing Hezekiah. Judah successfully rebelled against Assyria because her king trusted in Jehovah and kept his law; Israel fell because her people “obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded.” Verse 12.

9. Fourth year… seventh year — That is, the greater part of the fourth year of Hezekiah fell in the seventh year of Hoshea. See note on verse 1.

FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 9-12.

The fall of the kingdom of Israel was so important and memorable a catastrophe that it was recorded in the annals of Judah as well as in those of Israel; and one object of our historian in introducing a notice of it here, seems to be to contrast it with the greater permanence of Judah under the God-fearing Hezekiah. Judah successfully rebelled against Assyria because her king trusted in Jehovah and kept his law; Israel fell because her people “obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded.” Verse 12.

9. Fourth year… seventh year — That is, the greater part of the fourth year of Hezekiah fell in the seventh year of Hoshea. See note on verse 1.

V. 13. Them-Many of them; universal particles being frequently so used both in scripture, and other authors; and this success God gave him; to lift him up to his own greater and more shameful destruction: to humble and chastise his own people for their manifold sins, and, to gain an eminent opportunity to advance his own honour by that miraculous deliverance which he designed for his people.

Verse 13. Sennacherib king of Assyria — Who succeeded Shalmaneser, probably his son. He was encouraged to make this attempt against Judah by his predecessor’s success against Israel, whose honours he wished to emulate, and whose victories he would push forward. This invasion of Judah was a great calamity to that kingdom, by which God tried the faith of Hezekiah, and chastised the people, who are called a hypocritical nation, (Isaiah 10:6,) because they did not heartily concur with Hezekiah in effecting a reformation, nor willingly part with their idols; much less did they give up all their sins, and turn to God in true repentance. Against the fenced cities of Judah, and took them — That is, most of them: for that they were not all taken appears from 2 Kings 19:8. When he had made himself master of the frontier towns and garrisons, most of the others fell into his hands of course. By this success he was lifted up to his own greater and more shameful destruction, and an eminent occasion was afforded for the manifestation of God’s power and glory in that miraculous deliverance which he designed to effect for his people.

Ver. 13. Sennacherib, son of Salmaneser, and called Sargon, in Isaiah 20:1. This young prince, smitten and fired with the mania of conquest, had left Babylon or Nineveh with an army, probably not less than three hundred thousand men, few of whom ever saw their country again. He had taken the five capital cities mentioned in ver. 34, and pushed his conquests, as Herodotus relates, to the frontiers of Egypt.

SENNACHERIB’S INVASION OF JUDAH, 13-16.

Of Hezekiah’s reign, as recorded from this point on through chap. 20, we have a parallel history in Isaiah 36-39, which on the whole agrees so closely with this history in Kings as to necessitate the conclusion that both narratives had one and the same author. Which is the original copy, or whether both narratives as we now have them were drawn from a source older than either, are questions which have been variously answered by the critics and interpreters. Some have held that this account in Kings is the original one, and that of Isaiah is taken from it, whilst others have maintained precisely the reverse opinion. But against both these views stands the fact that each narrative contains matter not found in the other. Not to speak of numerous verbal differences, it will be observed that the account of Sennacherib’s first invasion, and Hezekiah’s submission and payment of tribute, (verses 14-16,) is altogether wanting in Isaiah, and Isaiah’s hymn of thanksgiving (Isaiah 38:9-20) is wanting in Kings. It follows, therefore, either that both accounts have been taken from some older history no longer extant, or else that both were composed by one and the same author, who made verbal changes, and added or omitted certain things in each narrative according to his own judgment and the design of the work to which each belonged. Beyond this it is impossible now to make any positive decision.

13. The fourteenth year — According to Rawlinson, this date is irreconcilable with the Assyrian inscriptions, and he proposes to read twenty-seventh for fourteenth. Sennacherib — The son and successor of Sargon. “The long notices which we possess of this monarch in the books of the Old Testament, his intimate connexion with the Jews, the fact that he was the object of a preternatural exhibition of the Divine displeasure, and the remarkable circumstance that this miraculous interposition appears under a thin disguise in the records of the Greeks, have always attached an interest to his name which the kings of this remote period and distant region very rarely awaken. It has also happened that the recent Mesopotamian researches have tended to give to Sennacherib a special prominence over other Assyrian monarchs, more particularly in this country, [England,] our great excavator [Layard] having devoted his chief efforts to the disinterment of a palace of this great king’s construction, which has supplied to our National Collection almost one half of its treasures. The result is, that while the other sovereigns who bore sway in Assyria are generally wholly unknown, or float before the mind’s eye as dim and shadowy forms, Sennacherib stands out to our apprehension as a living and breathing man, the impersonation of all that pride and greatness which we assign to the Ninevite kings, the living embodiment of Assyrian haughtiness, Assyrian violence, and Assyrian power.” — RAWLINSON, Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p. 155. All the fenced cities — The fortified towns, forty-six in number according to the inscriptions. See below.

V. 14. Three hundred talents, &c.-Above two hundred thousand pounds.

Verse 14. Hezekiah sent to the king of Assyria, saying, I have offended — Namely, against thee, in revolting, and denying the usual tribute. I have given thee occasion to make war against me, of which I now repent, and am ready to make the satisfaction that shall be demanded. “Where,” says Henry: “was Hezekiah’s courage? Where his confidence in God? Why did he not advise with Isaiah, before he sent this sneaking message?” Three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold — About two hundred and fifty thousand pounds sterling, a vast sum, not however to be paid annually, but as a present ransom. To raise this sum he was forced, not only to empty the public treasures, (verse 15,) but to take the gold plates off from the doors of the temple, and from the pillars, being driven, as he judged, by hard necessity to make this use of these sacred things, to prevent the enemy from burning the city and temple. No doubt Hezekiah designed to restore this treasure in full, as soon as he should be able.

14. Sent to… Lachish — Which city Sennacherib was at the time besieging. On its location see at Joshua 10:3. It is said in 2 Chronicles 32:9 that he “laid siege against Lachish, and all his power with him.” Layard found what he regarded as a representation of this siege on the slabs which he exhumed at Nineveh, and which bear the following inscription: “Sennacherib, the mighty king, king of the country of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment before the city of Lachish — I give permission for its slaughter.” The cut on the opposite page is supposed to represent Lachish, defended by double walls, with bulwarks and towers, and resisting the attack of the Assyrians. Comp. note on 2 Kings 19:8. I have offended — This humiliation and submission of Hezekiah doubtless grew out of a feeling of his inability to cope with so formidable a power as Assyria. According to 2 Chronicles 32:2-6 he prepared himself for a siege by strengthening the fortifications of Jerusalem, and manufacturing arms in abundance, and stopping the fountains and streams outside of the city to prevent their being used by the besieging army. But for all this he trembled when he saw the principal cities of his kingdom fallen into the hands of that power that had so recently carried Israel into captivity. Three hundred talents of silver — About five hundred thousand dollars. Thirty talents of gold — The gold talent of the Hebrews is supposed to have been worth fifty-six thousand nine hundred dollars, and thirty such talents would equal one million seven hundred and seven thousand dollars. Accordingly the whole amount demanded of Hezekiah was over two millions of dollars.

15. All the silver… in the house of the Lord, and… king’s house — Again and again had the treasuries of Jerusalem been emptied to pay similar exactions, (compare 2 Kings 12:18; 16:8,) but various wars of conquest had enabled successive kings to replenish them again; many presents were, also, brought from various quarters and deposited with the king. Comp. 2 Chronicles 32:23, 27.

16. Cut off the gold from the doors — In the first year of his reign Hezekiah had repaired the doors of the temple, (2 Chronicles 29:3,) but it is not said that he overlaid them with gold, which word our translators have here supplied without sufficient authority. He doubtless used various kinds of metal, gold among the rest; and this cutting it off again to give to the king of Assyria shows how difficult it was for him to raise the required amount.

It is interesting to find the above confirmed in the Assyrian annals by the following inscription of Sennacherib, discovered among the ruins of Nineveh: “Because Hezekiah, king of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power, I took forty-six of his strong-fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about I took and plundered a countless number. And from these places I captured and carried off as spoil two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, old and young, male and female, together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates so as to prevent escape. Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty. All these things were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my government, Hezekiah having sent them by way of tribute, and as a token of his submission to my power.” — RAWLINSON’S Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p.

161. The discrepancies, whether apparent or real, between the inscription and the biblical narrative are of little moment compared with the unquestionable confirmation hereby given to the historical veracity of the sacred writers. It will be noticed that the inscription tells with pompous gusto of the Assyrian successes and the spoil that was taken, but makes no record of the disasters which befell the army of Sennacherib. This was in perfect keeping with what we know of the pride and arrogance of all the Assyrian kings.

V. 17. Sent-Having received the money, upon which he agreed to depart from Hezekiah and his land, he breaks his faith with Hezekiah, thereby justifying his revolt, and preparing the way for his own destruction.

Verse 17. The king of Assyria sent Tartan, &c.] Calmet has very justly remarked that these are not the names of persons, but of offices. Tartan, תרתנ tartan or tantan, as in the parallel place in Isaiah, in the Greek version, signifies he who presides over the gifts or tribute; chancellor of the exchequer.

Rabsaris] syrs br, the chief of the eunuchs. Rab-shakeh, hqv br master or chief over the wine cellar; or he who had the care of the king’s drink.

From Lachish] It seems as if the Assyrian troops had been worsted before Lachish, and were obliged to raise the siege, from which they went and sat down before Libnah. While Sennacherib was there with the Assyrian army, he heard that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, had invaded the Assyrian territories. Being obliged therefore to hasten, in order to succour his own dominions, he sent a considerable force under the aforementioned officers against Jerusalem, with a most fearful and bloody manifesto, commanding Hezekiah to pay him tribute, to deliver up his kingdom to him, and to submit, he and his people, to be carried away captives into Assyria! This manifesto was accompanied with the vilest insults, and the highest blasphemies. God interposed and the evils threatened against others fell upon himself.

Manifestoes of this kind have seldom been honourable to the senders. The conduct of Rab-shakeh was unfortunately copied by the Duke of Brunswick, commander-in-chief of the allied army of the centre, in the French revolution, who was then in the plains of Champagne, August 27,1792, at the head of ninety thousand men, Prussians, Austrians, and emigrants, on his way to Paris, which in his manifesto he threatened to reduce to ashes! This was the cause of the dreadful massacres which immediately took place. And shortly after this time the blast of God fell upon him, for in Sept. 20 of the same year, (three weeks after issuing the manifesto,) almost all his army was destroyed by a fatal disease, and himself obliged to retreat from the French territories with shame and confusion. This, and some other injudicious steps taken by the allies, were the cause of the ruin of the royal family of France, and of enormities and calamities the most extensive, disgraceful, and ruinous, that ever stained the page of history. From all such revolutions God in mercy save mankind! Conduit of the upper pool] The aqueduct that brought the water from the upper or eastern reservoir, near to the valley of Kidron, into the city. Probably they had seized on this in order to distress the city. The fuller’s field.] The place where the washermen stretched out their clothes to dry.

Verse 17. The king of Assyria sent Tartan — Having received the money, upon which he agreed to depart from Hezekiah and his land, he breaks his faith with him; thereby justifying his revolt, and preparing the way for his own destruction. They came and stood, &c. — They took up their headquarters, as we now speak, by the conduit or canal, into which water was derived from the upper fish-pond or pool, which was in the highway to the field where the fullers, after they had washed their clothes in that pool, were wont to spread them. This was a most unjust behaviour of the king of Assyria, since Hezekiah had paid the fine he had imposed on him.

RAB-SHAKEH’S INSULTING MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH, 17-37.

17. The king of Assyria sent… from Lachish — According to Josephus (Antiq., 10:1, 1) Sennacherib bound himself to depart from Jerusalem upon receiving the three hundred silver and thirty gold talents mentioned above, but having received it, “had no regard to what he had promised; but while he himself went to the war against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, he left his general Rab-shakeh and two others of his principal commanders, with great forces, to destroy Jerusalem.” But it seems better to refer this siege of Jerusalem to a second invasion of Sennacherib, made a year or more after he had received Hezekiah’s submission and tribute of gold and silver, for it appears from verse 21 that Hezekiah had formed some alliance with Egypt, and so, like Hoshea, (compare 2 Kings 17:4,) “brought no present to the king of Assyria.” This is the view of Rawlinson, who describes the matter thus: “Sennacherib, understanding that the real enemy whom he had to fear on his southwestern frontier was not Judea but Egypt, marched his army through Palestine — probably by the coast route — and without stopping to chastise Jerusalem, pressed south-wards to Libnah and Lachish, which were at the extreme verge of the Holy Land, and probably at this time subject to Egypt. He first commenced the siege of Lachish ‘with all his power,’ (2 Chronicles 32:9;) and while engaged in this operation, finding that Hezekiah was not alarmed by his proximity, and did not send in his submission, he detached a body of troops from his main force, and sent it under a Tartan, or general, supported by two high officers of the court — the Rab-shakeh, or chief cupbearer, and the Rabsaris, or chief eunuch — to summon the rebellious city to surrender.” — Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p. 165. Tartan… Rabsaris… Rab-shakeh — These words have, respectively, the meaning given them by Rawlinson in the note just quoted, and from being common official titles came to be used as proper names. The etymology of Tartan is uncertain. “The name is said to be derived from the Persian tar, summit, and tan, person; that is, high personage; or from the Persian tara, Sanscrit tara, a star, and tan; consequently, star-form.” — Furst. The office of chief cupbearer is common in the East. In Genesis 40:2, 21, he is called “chief of the butlers.” Nehemiah held this office at the Persian court. Nehemiah 1:11; 2:1. It seems to have been a custom for high officers of the court to accompany the king to battle; and very probably the most loyal and successful generals or captains were rewarded with offices and titles of this kind in the royal court, so that we need not wonder that a royal cupbearer should also be a high military officer. The same may be said of the chief of the eunuchs. “In the Ottoman Porte,” says Kitto, “the Kislar Aga, or chief of the black eunuchs, is one of the principal personages in the empire, and in an official paper of great solemnity is styled by the Sultan the most illustrious of the officers who approach his august person, and worthy of the confidence of monarchs and of sovereigns. It is, therefore, by no means improbable that such an office should be associated with such a military commission; perhaps not for directly military duties, but to take charge of the treasure, and to select from the female captives such as might seem worthy of the royal harem.” The conduit of the upper pool — The upper pool is undoubtedly Gihon, at the head of the Hinnom valley, described in note on 1 Kings 1:33. Its conduit, or aqueduct, would naturally have been a canal running from it in a southeasterly direction down the valley of Hinnom to the west side of the city. It was, perhaps, identical with the subterranean aqueduct by which Hezekiah himself brought down the waters of this pool “on the west to the city of David.” 2 Chronicles 32:30. Consequently the highway of the fuller’s field must have been the road leading from the west side of the city northward, and so called because here was a common resort of the fullers of the city, who, on account of the offensive smells and uncleanliness of their work, and also for the sake of room to dry cloths, would require a field outside the city limits. The approach of the Assyrian host would, therefore, have been from the north, and the commanders stood sufficiently near the city to address the people on the wall. Verse 26 Here, for the first time, we meet with a biblical notice of fullers, whose art is of great antiquity. “Of the processes followed in the art of cleaning cloth, and the various kinds of stuff among the Jews, we have no direct knowledge. In an early part of the operation they seem to have trod the cloths with their feet, as the Hebrew Ain-Rogel, or En-Rogel, (literally, foot-fountain,) has been rendered on rabbinical authority, ‘Fuller’s Fountain,’ on the ground that fullers trod the cloths there with their feet. They were also rubbed with the knuckles, as in modern washing. A subsequent operation was probably that of rubbing the cloth on an inclined plane, in a mode which is figured in the Egyptian paintings, and still preserved in the East.” — M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia.

Verse 18. Called to the king] They wished him to come out that they might get possession of his person.

Eliakim-over the household] What we would call lord chamberlain. Shebna the scribe] The king’s secretary.

Joah-the recorder.] The writer of the public annals.

Verse 18. When they had called to the king — That is, had sent a message to him to come and treat with them; there went out to him Eliakim, &c. — Of whom see Isaiah 22:15, 20.

18. Over the household — Holding the office of royal chamberlain. See note on 1 Kings 4:6. Scribe… recorder — See notes on 2 Samuel 8:16, 17.

V. 19. Thus saith, &c.-But what are the greatest men when they come to compare with God, or when God comes to contend with them?

Verse 19. What confidence is this] hzh ˆwjcbh hm ma habbittachon hazzeh. The words are excessively insulting: What little, foolish, or unavailing cause of confidence is it, to which thou trustest? I translate thus, because I consider the word ˆwjcb bittachon as a diminutive, intended to express the utmost contempt for Hezekiah’s God.

Verses 19, 20. Thus saith the great king, What confidence is this, &c. — What is it thou canst trust in to defend thee from my great power? Thou sayest — Either to thy people, to encourage them, or rather, within thy own heart. But, (or, surely,) they are vain words — Unprofitable, idle talk, without any effect: or they come not from thy heart; thou speakest this against thy knowledge. I have counsel and strength for the war — Counsel to contrive, strength, or courage, to execute; which two things are of greatest necessity and use in war. But the original words may be rendered, Thou speakest surely words of the lips; that is, thou encouragest thyself and thy people with words, but counsel and strength are for war — Are necessary for thy defence; neither of which thou hast within thyself, but must seek them from others, and where wilt thou find them? On whom, as it follows, dost thou trust?

Ver. 19. Rabshakeh said, in a speech which shows the style of generals, tyrants, and conquerors in those days. The whole is an insult to heaven, contempt of foes, and pride insupportable in character. It has however one word of meanness: “Now therefore I pray thee give pledges.” Certainly a man who talked of conquering the gods, ought not to have degraded himself as a suppliant to a mortal. See on 2 Chronicles 29. 32.; and on Isaiah 37., where this invasion is more copiously related.

19. Rab-shakeh said — He seems to have been the chief speaker — the herald and principal ambassador of the king, while Tartan had higher authority and command in the matter of the movements of the army. The great king — Thus the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian kings delighted to be called and to call themselves, for their “princes were altogether kings.” Isaiah 10:8; compare Ezra 7:12; Ezekiel 26:7; Daniel 2:37. Hence the frequent occurrence on the monuments of such titles as “great king,” “mighty king,” “king of hosts,” “king of kings,” “the glorious king,” “the mighty ruler.” What confidence is this — Better, what is this trust which thou trustest? What does it amount to? He refers to Hezekiah’s supposed trust in the king of Egypt. Compare verse 21.

Verses 19, 20. Thus saith the great king, What confidence is this, &c. — What is it thou canst trust in to defend thee from my great power? Thou sayest — Either to thy people, to encourage them, or rather, within thy own heart. But, (or, surely,) they are vain words — Unprofitable, idle talk, without any effect: or they come not from thy heart; thou speakest this against thy knowledge. I have counsel and strength for the war — Counsel to contrive, strength, or courage, to execute; which two things are of greatest necessity and use in war. But the original words may be rendered, Thou speakest surely words of the lips; that is, thou encouragest thyself and thy people with words, but counsel and strength are for war — Are necessary for thy defence; neither of which thou hast within thyself, but must seek them from others, and where wilt thou find them? On whom, as it follows, dost thou trust?

20. But they are but vain words — Rather, only a word of the lips; that is, an idle, inconsiderate saying. Compare Job 2:2; Proverbs 14:23.

V. 21. This broken reed-Whoever trusts in man, leans on a broken reed: but God is the rock of ages.

Verse 21. The staff of this bruised reed] Egypt had already been greatly bruised and broken, through the wars carried on against it by the Assyrians.

Verse 21. Thou trustest upon this bruised reed — Sennacherib probably thought that Hezekiah depended on Egypt for help, and therefore represents the power of that kingdom to be as weak as the canes or reeds that grew on the banks of the Nile, (to which he seems to allude,) on which, if a man leaned, they brake, and the splinters ran into his hand. Such is Pharaoh, says he; a man gets no help, but mischief, by relying on him. Whoever trusts in man, leans on a broken reed; but God is the Rock of ages.

21. Staff of this bruised reed — A figure especially well chosen, since the banks of the Nile, the great river of Egypt, abounded with reeds. Compare also Ezekiel 29:6. The slender reed is a poor thing to lean upon, and when bruised or broken is still more frail. “Sennacherib compares Egypt with a broken reed, not because he had already broken its power, but because he regarded it as good as already broken.” — Thenius.

V. 22. Is not, &c.-Thus boldly he speaks of the things which he understood not, judging of the great God, by their petty gods; and of God’s worship by the vain fancies of the Heathens, who measured piety by the multitude of altars.

Verse 22. Whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away] This was artfully malicious. Many of the people sacrificed to Jehovah on the high places; Hezekiah had removed them, (2 Kings 18:4,) because they were incentives to idolatry: Rab-shakeh insinuates that by so doing he had offended Jehovah, deprived the people of their religious rights, and he could neither expect the blessing of God nor the cooperation of the people.

Verse 22. But if ye say, We trust in the Lord — His weak arguing here proceeds from his ignorance of that God in whom Hezekiah trusted, and of his law. Is not that he whose high places, &c., Hezekiah hath taken away? — Thereby robbing him of that worship and service which he had in those places. Thus he speaks boldly of those things which he understood not, calling that a crime which was a great virtue, and judging of the great God by their false and petty gods, and of God’s worship according to the vain fancies of the heathen, who measured piety by the multitude of altars.

22. If ye say — Here Rab-shakeh addresses more directly the three officers of Hezekiah, as also the other people on the wall. The parallel passage in Isaiah (Isaiah 36:7) reads, if thou say. Whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away — Rab-shakeh assumes that the removal of the high places and their altars was an offence to Jehovah, as was also the restricting of his worship to the altar in Jerusalem, and he argues that God would not favour a people whose king was guilty of such sacrilege and impiety. Compare 2 Chronicles 32:12.

Verse 23. I will deliver thee two thousand horses] Another insult: Were I to give thee two thousand Assyrian horses, thou couldst not find riders for them. How then canst thou think that thou shalt be able to stand against even the smallest division of my troops?

Verses 23, 24. Now, therefore, give pledges to my lord the king — That is, give hostages to ensure thy future obedience and subjection. And I will deliver thee two thousand horses, &c. — There is so little likelihood of thy being able to withstand the power of my master, who has thousands of chariots and horses, that I challenge thee to produce two thousand skilful horsemen that know how to manage horses, and I will give thee two thousand horses for them. How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain, &c. — How wilt thou force him to turn his back to thee, and flee away from thee?

23. Give pledges to — Rather, enter into intercourse with, or, make an agreement with. If thou be able — The whole verse is a contemptuous assumption of the weakness of the Jewish military force. The sense is, Suppose you make a bargain with the king of Assyria, I venture to say he will deliver you two thousand horses on condition that you furnish men enough to use them as cavalry, and I have no fear that you will be able to meet the condition. “The meaning is not that Hezekiah could not raise two thousand soldiers in all, but that he could not produce so many men who were able to fight as horsemen.” — Keil.

Verses 23, 24. Now, therefore, give pledges to my lord the king — That is, give hostages to ensure thy future obedience and subjection. And I will deliver thee two thousand horses, &c. — There is so little likelihood of thy being able to withstand the power of my master, who has thousands of chariots and horses, that I challenge thee to produce two thousand skilful horsemen that know how to manage horses, and I will give thee two thousand horses for them. How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain, &c. — How wilt thou force him to turn his back to thee, and flee away from thee?

24. Turn away the face — Or, cause to face about, that is, put to flight. One captain of the least — That is, how canst thou repulse even one of the less valiant officers who commands one of the smallest divisions of the army? The word tjp, here rendered captain, means properly a governor or satrap. It is “first used of Assyrian subordinate stadtholders and generals; (Isaiah 36:9;) afterwards transferred to the governors and prefects of the Babylonian, (Jeremiah 51:57; Ezekiel 23:6, 23,) Median, (Jeremiah 51:28,) and Persian empires, (Esther 8:9; 9:3;) applied especially to the Persian governors on this side of the Euphrates and in Judea, (Nehemiah 2:7, 9; 3:7; Ezra 8:36; Haggai 1:1, 14,) Nehemiah and Zerubbabel being such. The word was transplanted into Hebrew by early Assyrian influence.” — Furst.

V. 25. Am I, &c.-He neither owned God’s word, nor regarded his providence; but he forged this, to strike a terror into Hezekiah and the people.

Verse 25. Amos I now come up without the Lord] As Rab-shakeh saw that the Jews placed the utmost confidence in God, he wished to persuade them that by Hezekiah’s conduct Jehovah had departed from them, and was become ally to the king of Assyria, and therefore they could not expect any help from that quarter.

Verse 25. Am I now come up without the Lord? — Without his consent and commission? The Lord hath said unto me, Go up against this land — They were vain, boasting words, without any foundation for them. He neither owned God’s word, nor regarded his providence; but he forged this to strike a terror into Hezekiah and the people.

25. The Lord said to me — The thought in this verse is thus well paraphrased by Bahr: “So far from thy being justified in relying upon Jehovah, he is, on the contrary, on our side, and it is by his command that we are come hither to destroy Jerusalem.” It is by no means impossible, but rather probable, that Rab-shakeh had heard of, and here alludes to, such prophecies of Jehovah’s chastising Judah by the rod of Assyrian power as the one in Isaiah 10:5-11. It was perfectly consistent with Assyrian polytheism to believe in the truth and power of Jehovah as well as of other gods. See note on 2 Kings 17:29, 33.

Verse 26. Talk not with us in the Jews’ language] The object of this blasphemous caitiff was to stir up the people to sedition, that the city and the king might be delivered into his hand.

Verse 26. Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language — It is probable Eliakim perceived the people to be terrified with his big words, and therefore requested him, in the name of the other commissioners sent to treat with him, to speak no longer in the Jews’ language, but in his own: for he was sent, not to treat with the people, but with them, who understood the Syrian tongue very well. In the ears of the people that are upon the wall — Upon which these officers stood; not being willing to put themselves into the power of such a barbarous and perfidious enemy by going out of the city.

26. Speak… in the Syrian language — The Jewish officers thus interrupted Rab-shakeh in the midst of his address. Such words as those of verse 25 are, alas! too true, and have support, whether Assyria fully comprehends it or not, in oracles which Jehovah’s own prophets have uttered. For a representative of Assyria to speak of them in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people may easily occasion murmurings and rebellion. The Syrian language, more properly the Aramaic, (tymra,) seems at this time to have been commonly understood in Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia. Its close affinity with the Hebrew would enable those who spoke one of these languages as their vernacular easily to acquire the use of the other; but the mass of the people would be familiar only with the tongue in which they were born. On the wall — So it appears that this interview was held near the walls of the city, and within hearing of the soldiers stationed thereon.

V. 27. To the men-To tell them to what extremities and miseries he will force them.

Verse 27. That they may eat their own dung] That they may be duly apprised, if they hold on Hezekiah’s side, Jerusalem shall be most straitly besieged, and they be reduced to such a state of famine as to be obliged to eat their own excrements.

Verses 27-29. Hath he not sent me to the men, &c. — To tell them to what extremity and misery he will force them. Then Rab-shakeh cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language — That he might affright the people into a compliance with his proposal, which he perceived that Eliakim and his brethren endeavoured to prevent. Thus saith the king, &c. — Here he proclaims again, with the greatest assurance, the power of his king, and the weakness of Hezekiah; representing from thence, how they were deluded with empty promises if he persuaded them he should be able to defend them.

27. That they may eat their own dung — “He says in substance: Ye are abusing your common people. In exposing them to a wasting siege ye are bringing them, with yourselves, into the direct extremity, so that they will at last be compelled to consume their own excrement.” — Bahr.

V. 28. Jews language-The tradition of the Jews is, that Rabshaketh was an apostate Jew. If so, his ignorance of the God of Israel was the less excusable, and his enmity the less strange: for apostates are usually the most bitter and spiteful enemies.

Verse 28. Hear the word of the great king-of Assyria] This was all intended to cause the people to revolt from their allegiance to their king.

Verses 27-29. Hath he not sent me to the men, &c. — To tell them to what extremity and misery he will force them. Then Rab-shakeh cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language — That he might affright the people into a compliance with his proposal, which he perceived that Eliakim and his brethren endeavoured to prevent. Thus saith the king, &c. — Here he proclaims again, with the greatest assurance, the power of his king, and the weakness of Hezekiah; representing from thence, how they were deluded with empty promises if he persuaded them he should be able to defend them.

28. Stood and cried — He stationed himself more conspicuously before the eyes of the men on the wall, and elevated his voice so as to be distinctly heard by them.

Verses 27-29. Hath he not sent me to the men, &c. — To tell them to what extremity and misery he will force them. Then Rab-shakeh cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language — That he might affright the people into a compliance with his proposal, which he perceived that Eliakim and his brethren endeavoured to prevent. Thus saith the king, &c. — Here he proclaims again, with the greatest assurance, the power of his king, and the weakness of Hezekiah; representing from thence, how they were deluded with empty promises if he persuaded them he should be able to defend them.

RAB-SHAKEH’S INSULTING MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH, 17-37.

17. The king of Assyria sent… from Lachish — According to Josephus (Antiq., 10:1, 1) Sennacherib bound himself to depart from Jerusalem upon receiving the three hundred silver and thirty gold talents mentioned above, but having received it, “had no regard to what he had promised; but while he himself went to the war against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, he left his general Rab-shakeh and two others of his principal commanders, with great forces, to destroy Jerusalem.” But it seems better to refer this siege of Jerusalem to a second invasion of Sennacherib, made a year or more after he had received Hezekiah’s submission and tribute of gold and silver, for it appears from verse 21 that Hezekiah had formed some alliance with Egypt, and so, like Hoshea, (compare 2 Kings 17:4,) “brought no present to the king of Assyria.” This is the view of Rawlinson, who describes the matter thus: “Sennacherib, understanding that the real enemy whom he had to fear on his southwestern frontier was not Judea but Egypt, marched his army through Palestine — probably by the coast route — and without stopping to chastise Jerusalem, pressed south-wards to Libnah and Lachish, which were at the extreme verge of the Holy Land, and probably at this time subject to Egypt. He first commenced the siege of Lachish ‘with all his power,’ (2 Chronicles 32:9;) and while engaged in this operation, finding that Hezekiah was not alarmed by his proximity, and did not send in his submission, he detached a body of troops from his main force, and sent it under a Tartan, or general, supported by two high officers of the court — the Rab-shakeh, or chief cupbearer, and the Rabsaris, or chief eunuch — to summon the rebellious city to surrender.” — Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p. 165. Tartan… Rabsaris… Rab-shakeh — These words have, respectively, the meaning given them by Rawlinson in the note just quoted, and from being common official titles came to be used as proper names. The etymology of Tartan is uncertain. “The name is said to be derived from the Persian tar, summit, and tan, person; that is, high personage; or from the Persian tara, Sanscrit tara, a star, and tan; consequently, star-form.” — Furst. The office of chief cupbearer is common in the East. In Genesis 40:2, 21, he is called “chief of the butlers.” Nehemiah held this office at the Persian court. Nehemiah 1:11; 2:1. It seems to have been a custom for high officers of the court to accompany the king to battle; and very probably the most loyal and successful generals or captains were rewarded with offices and titles of this kind in the royal court, so that we need not wonder that a royal cupbearer should also be a high military officer. The same may be said of the chief of the eunuchs. “In the Ottoman Porte,” says Kitto, “the Kislar Aga, or chief of the black eunuchs, is one of the principal personages in the empire, and in an official paper of great solemnity is styled by the Sultan the most illustrious of the officers who approach his august person, and worthy of the confidence of monarchs and of sovereigns. It is, therefore, by no means improbable that such an office should be associated with such a military commission; perhaps not for directly military duties, but to take charge of the treasure, and to select from the female captives such as might seem worthy of the royal harem.” The conduit of the upper pool — The upper pool is undoubtedly Gihon, at the head of the Hinnom valley, described in note on 1 Kings 1:33. Its conduit, or aqueduct, would naturally have been a canal running from it in a southeasterly direction down the valley of Hinnom to the west side of the city. It was, perhaps, identical with the subterranean aqueduct by which Hezekiah himself brought down the waters of this pool “on the west to the city of David.” 2 Chronicles 32:30. Consequently the highway of the fuller’s field must have been the road leading from the west side of the city northward, and so called because here was a common resort of the fullers of the city, who, on account of the offensive smells and uncleanliness of their work, and also for the sake of room to dry cloths, would require a field outside the city limits. The approach of the Assyrian host would, therefore, have been from the north, and the commanders stood sufficiently near the city to address the people on the wall. Verse 26 Here, for the first time, we meet with a biblical notice of fullers, whose art is of great antiquity. “Of the processes followed in the art of cleaning cloth, and the various kinds of stuff among the Jews, we have no direct knowledge. In an early part of the operation they seem to have trod the cloths with their feet, as the Hebrew Ain-Rogel, or En-Rogel, (literally, foot-fountain,) has been rendered on rabbinical authority, ‘Fuller’s Fountain,’ on the ground that fullers trod the cloths there with their feet. They were also rubbed with the knuckles, as in modern washing. A subsequent operation was probably that of rubbing the cloth on an inclined plane, in a mode which is figured in the Egyptian paintings, and still preserved in the East.” — M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia.

Verses 30, 31. Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord — This was high presumption indeed, to endeavour to persuade them not to place their confidence in God, as if his master were stronger than God. Make an agreement with me by a present — To redeem yourselves from all the calamities of a close siege, and from that death and destruction which will certainly follow on them: or, according to the marginal reading, make with me a blessing, that is, a blessed peace, whereby you may be delivered out of your distressed and miserable condition, and may receive from me the blessings of protection and provision, which your king cannot afford you. Then eat ye every man of his own vine — Upon these terms I will give you no disturbance; but quietly suffer each of you to enjoy his own possessions.

RAB-SHAKEH’S INSULTING MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH, 17-37.

17. The king of Assyria sent… from Lachish — According to Josephus (Antiq., 10:1, 1) Sennacherib bound himself to depart from Jerusalem upon receiving the three hundred silver and thirty gold talents mentioned above, but having received it, “had no regard to what he had promised; but while he himself went to the war against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, he left his general Rab-shakeh and two others of his principal commanders, with great forces, to destroy Jerusalem.” But it seems better to refer this siege of Jerusalem to a second invasion of Sennacherib, made a year or more after he had received Hezekiah’s submission and tribute of gold and silver, for it appears from verse 21 that Hezekiah had formed some alliance with Egypt, and so, like Hoshea, (compare 2 Kings 17:4,) “brought no present to the king of Assyria.” This is the view of Rawlinson, who describes the matter thus: “Sennacherib, understanding that the real enemy whom he had to fear on his southwestern frontier was not Judea but Egypt, marched his army through Palestine — probably by the coast route — and without stopping to chastise Jerusalem, pressed south-wards to Libnah and Lachish, which were at the extreme verge of the Holy Land, and probably at this time subject to Egypt. He first commenced the siege of Lachish ‘with all his power,’ (2 Chronicles 32:9;) and while engaged in this operation, finding that Hezekiah was not alarmed by his proximity, and did not send in his submission, he detached a body of troops from his main force, and sent it under a Tartan, or general, supported by two high officers of the court — the Rab-shakeh, or chief cupbearer, and the Rabsaris, or chief eunuch — to summon the rebellious city to surrender.” — Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p. 165. Tartan… Rabsaris… Rab-shakeh — These words have, respectively, the meaning given them by Rawlinson in the note just quoted, and from being common official titles came to be used as proper names. The etymology of Tartan is uncertain. “The name is said to be derived from the Persian tar, summit, and tan, person; that is, high personage; or from the Persian tara, Sanscrit tara, a star, and tan; consequently, star-form.” — Furst. The office of chief cupbearer is common in the East. In Genesis 40:2, 21, he is called “chief of the butlers.” Nehemiah held this office at the Persian court. Nehemiah 1:11; 2:1. It seems to have been a custom for high officers of the court to accompany the king to battle; and very probably the most loyal and successful generals or captains were rewarded with offices and titles of this kind in the royal court, so that we need not wonder that a royal cupbearer should also be a high military officer. The same may be said of the chief of the eunuchs. “In the Ottoman Porte,” says Kitto, “the Kislar Aga, or chief of the black eunuchs, is one of the principal personages in the empire, and in an official paper of great solemnity is styled by the Sultan the most illustrious of the officers who approach his august person, and worthy of the confidence of monarchs and of sovereigns. It is, therefore, by no means improbable that such an office should be associated with such a military commission; perhaps not for directly military duties, but to take charge of the treasure, and to select from the female captives such as might seem worthy of the royal harem.” The conduit of the upper pool — The upper pool is undoubtedly Gihon, at the head of the Hinnom valley, described in note on 1 Kings 1:33. Its conduit, or aqueduct, would naturally have been a canal running from it in a southeasterly direction down the valley of Hinnom to the west side of the city. It was, perhaps, identical with the subterranean aqueduct by which Hezekiah himself brought down the waters of this pool “on the west to the city of David.” 2 Chronicles 32:30. Consequently the highway of the fuller’s field must have been the road leading from the west side of the city northward, and so called because here was a common resort of the fullers of the city, who, on account of the offensive smells and uncleanliness of their work, and also for the sake of room to dry cloths, would require a field outside the city limits. The approach of the Assyrian host would, therefore, have been from the north, and the commanders stood sufficiently near the city to address the people on the wall. Verse 26 Here, for the first time, we meet with a biblical notice of fullers, whose art is of great antiquity. “Of the processes followed in the art of cleaning cloth, and the various kinds of stuff among the Jews, we have no direct knowledge. In an early part of the operation they seem to have trod the cloths with their feet, as the Hebrew Ain-Rogel, or En-Rogel, (literally, foot-fountain,) has been rendered on rabbinical authority, ‘Fuller’s Fountain,’ on the ground that fullers trod the cloths there with their feet. They were also rubbed with the knuckles, as in modern washing. A subsequent operation was probably that of rubbing the cloth on an inclined plane, in a mode which is figured in the Egyptian paintings, and still preserved in the East.” — M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia.

V. 31. A present-Upon which terms, I will give you no disturbance; but quietly suffer each of you to enjoy his own possession.

Verses 30, 31. Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord — This was high presumption indeed, to endeavour to persuade them not to place their confidence in God, as if his master were stronger than God. Make an agreement with me by a present — To redeem yourselves from all the calamities of a close siege, and from that death and destruction which will certainly follow on them: or, according to the marginal reading, make with me a blessing, that is, a blessed peace, whereby you may be delivered out of your distressed and miserable condition, and may receive from me the blessings of protection and provision, which your king cannot afford you. Then eat ye every man of his own vine — Upon these terms I will give you no disturbance; but quietly suffer each of you to enjoy his own possessions.

31. Make an agreement with me by a present — A very erroneous rendering of the terse and simple Hebrew hkrb yta wc[, make along with me a blessing, namely, the blessing of peace, quiet, security, and plenty, such as that portrayed in the latter part of this verse and in verse 32. Come out to me — The blessing of peace that is promised can only be secured by a timely and cheerful surrender.

Verse 32. Until I come and take you away] This was well calculated to stir up a seditious spirit. Ye cannot be delivered; your destruction, if ye resist, is inevitable; Sennacherib will do with you, as he does with all the nations he conquers, lead you captive into another land: but if you will surrender without farther trouble, he will transport you into a land as good as your own.

Verse 32. Until I take you away to a land like your own — That is, a fruitful and pleasant land. Because he could not conceal from them his intentions of transplanting them into another land, having already discovered these intentions in his dealing with the Israelites and other nations; he assures them they should be no losers by it, and should only change their place, but not their condition and comforts, which they should enjoy in that land no less than in their own.

32. Until I come — From the siege of Lachish and the Egyptian campaign. Compare note on verse 17. This seems to be the most natural reference of these words, for Rab-shakeh here speaks in the name of his absent master, who will finish the destruction of that “bruised reed” Egypt, and make the necessary preparations for returning to Assyria, and settling his captives in a pleasant land, before he comes to take them away. We need not attempt to define the land referred to; the whole promise was a mere pretext.

33. Hath any of the gods — Skillfully and powerfully does the orator close his speech by claiming that none of the gods had thus far been able to resist the power of Assyria. He probably does not mean to imply that the gods of the conquered nation had actually fought against the king of Assyria and been destroyed in the conflict, but rather, that they had not opposed his march. He does not mean to contradict what he says in verse 25, but would, perhaps, have it inferred that the gods of some of these countries, if not all, invited his coming, and favoured his conquests. At least none of them resisted his arms, but the images of some of them he cast into the fire and destroyed. 2 Kings 19:18.

Verse 34. Where are the gods of Hamath] Sennacherib is greater than any of the gods of the nations. The Assyrians have already overthrown the gods of Hamath, Arpad, Hena, and Ivah; therefore, Jehovah shall be like one of them, and shall not be able to deliver Jerusalem out of the hand of my master.

The impudent blasphemy of this speech is without parallel. Hezekiah treated it as he ought: it was not properly against him, but against the LORD; therefore he refers the matter to Jehovah himself, who punishes this blasphemy in the most signal manner.

Verses 34, 35. Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? — These were cities or countries which the kings of Assyria had conquered, as were the other places here mentioned. And therefore Rab-shakeh argued that the gods of Assyria were more powerful than the gods of any other nation. Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, &c. — He desires them to produce an instance of one god that had been able to save his country, when his master invaded it. And by this he endeavours to persuade them, that it would be their wisdom to deliver up their city to him, insomuch as their God would not be able to preserve it, unless he could do more than any other god had done; which he concluded was unlikely.

Ver. 34. Hamath, the old name of a kingdom, of which Amesa was the capital.—Arphad lay north of Damascus.

34. On Hamath, Sepharvaim, and Ivah, see notes on 2 Kings 17:24. From the frequent association of Arpad with Hamath (2 Kings 19:13; Isaiah 10:9; 36:19; 37:13; Jeremiah 49:23) it is probable that it was not far from that city, and is, perhaps, identical with Arfad in Northern Syria. The site of Hena has not been identified with certainty. It is usually supposed to have been in Mesopotamia. Some find it in a town on the Euphrates called Anah, and the Assyrian inscriptions mention a town called Anat, on an island in the Euphrates.

Verses 34, 35. Where are the gods of Hamath and of Arpad? — These were cities or countries which the kings of Assyria had conquered, as were the other places here mentioned. And therefore Rab-shakeh argued that the gods of Assyria were more powerful than the gods of any other nation. Who are they, among all the gods of the countries, &c. — He desires them to produce an instance of one god that had been able to save his country, when his master invaded it. And by this he endeavours to persuade them, that it would be their wisdom to deliver up their city to him, insomuch as their God would not be able to preserve it, unless he could do more than any other god had done; which he concluded was unlikely.

RAB-SHAKEH’S INSULTING MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH, 17-37.

17. The king of Assyria sent… from Lachish — According to Josephus (Antiq., 10:1, 1) Sennacherib bound himself to depart from Jerusalem upon receiving the three hundred silver and thirty gold talents mentioned above, but having received it, “had no regard to what he had promised; but while he himself went to the war against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, he left his general Rab-shakeh and two others of his principal commanders, with great forces, to destroy Jerusalem.” But it seems better to refer this siege of Jerusalem to a second invasion of Sennacherib, made a year or more after he had received Hezekiah’s submission and tribute of gold and silver, for it appears from verse 21 that Hezekiah had formed some alliance with Egypt, and so, like Hoshea, (compare 2 Kings 17:4,) “brought no present to the king of Assyria.” This is the view of Rawlinson, who describes the matter thus: “Sennacherib, understanding that the real enemy whom he had to fear on his southwestern frontier was not Judea but Egypt, marched his army through Palestine — probably by the coast route — and without stopping to chastise Jerusalem, pressed south-wards to Libnah and Lachish, which were at the extreme verge of the Holy Land, and probably at this time subject to Egypt. He first commenced the siege of Lachish ‘with all his power,’ (2 Chronicles 32:9;) and while engaged in this operation, finding that Hezekiah was not alarmed by his proximity, and did not send in his submission, he detached a body of troops from his main force, and sent it under a Tartan, or general, supported by two high officers of the court — the Rab-shakeh, or chief cupbearer, and the Rabsaris, or chief eunuch — to summon the rebellious city to surrender.” — Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p. 165. Tartan… Rabsaris… Rab-shakeh — These words have, respectively, the meaning given them by Rawlinson in the note just quoted, and from being common official titles came to be used as proper names. The etymology of Tartan is uncertain. “The name is said to be derived from the Persian tar, summit, and tan, person; that is, high personage; or from the Persian tara, Sanscrit tara, a star, and tan; consequently, star-form.” — Furst. The office of chief cupbearer is common in the East. In Genesis 40:2, 21, he is called “chief of the butlers.” Nehemiah held this office at the Persian court. Nehemiah 1:11; 2:1. It seems to have been a custom for high officers of the court to accompany the king to battle; and very probably the most loyal and successful generals or captains were rewarded with offices and titles of this kind in the royal court, so that we need not wonder that a royal cupbearer should also be a high military officer. The same may be said of the chief of the eunuchs. “In the Ottoman Porte,” says Kitto, “the Kislar Aga, or chief of the black eunuchs, is one of the principal personages in the empire, and in an official paper of great solemnity is styled by the Sultan the most illustrious of the officers who approach his august person, and worthy of the confidence of monarchs and of sovereigns. It is, therefore, by no means improbable that such an office should be associated with such a military commission; perhaps not for directly military duties, but to take charge of the treasure, and to select from the female captives such as might seem worthy of the royal harem.” The conduit of the upper pool — The upper pool is undoubtedly Gihon, at the head of the Hinnom valley, described in note on 1 Kings 1:33. Its conduit, or aqueduct, would naturally have been a canal running from it in a southeasterly direction down the valley of Hinnom to the west side of the city. It was, perhaps, identical with the subterranean aqueduct by which Hezekiah himself brought down the waters of this pool “on the west to the city of David.” 2 Chronicles 32:30. Consequently the highway of the fuller’s field must have been the road leading from the west side of the city northward, and so called because here was a common resort of the fullers of the city, who, on account of the offensive smells and uncleanliness of their work, and also for the sake of room to dry cloths, would require a field outside the city limits. The approach of the Assyrian host would, therefore, have been from the north, and the commanders stood sufficiently near the city to address the people on the wall. Verse 26 Here, for the first time, we meet with a biblical notice of fullers, whose art is of great antiquity. “Of the processes followed in the art of cleaning cloth, and the various kinds of stuff among the Jews, we have no direct knowledge. In an early part of the operation they seem to have trod the cloths with their feet, as the Hebrew Ain-Rogel, or En-Rogel, (literally, foot-fountain,) has been rendered on rabbinical authority, ‘Fuller’s Fountain,’ on the ground that fullers trod the cloths there with their feet. They were also rubbed with the knuckles, as in modern washing. A subsequent operation was probably that of rubbing the cloth on an inclined plane, in a mode which is figured in the Egyptian paintings, and still preserved in the East.” — M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia.

Verse 36. Answer him not.] The blasphemy is too barefaced; Jehovah is insulted, not you; let him avenge his own quarrel. See the succeeding chapter.

Verse 36. But the people held their peace — That is, both these three men, and the people that were with them upon the wall, especially the people to whom he had chiefly spoken, and from whom he expected an answer. For the king’s command was, Answer him not — This was wisely ordered, lest by their words they should betray their fears, or provoke their enemies to greater injuries or blasphemies, or give them some advantage or direction for their further proceedings; as also that by this instance of obedience and calmness, the king of Assyria might see the resolution of the people to cleave unto their king, and the vanity of his attempts to seduce them to a defection from him.

36. The people held their peace — There must have been an impressive solemnity as well as a noble dignity in that silence of the people, which left the Assyrian ambassadors in complete ignorance of the impression their message and words had made.

Verse 37. Then came Eliakim-and Shebna-and Joah-to Hezekiah with their clothes rent] It was the custom of the Hebrews, when they heard any blasphemy, to rend their clothes, because this was the greatest of crimes, as it immediately affected the majesty of God, and it was right that a religious people should have in the utmost abhorrence every insult offered to the object of their religious worship. These three ambassadors lay the matter before the king as God’s representative; he lays it before the prophet, as God’s minister; and the prophet lays it before God, as the people’s mediator.

II KINGS

RAB-SHAKEH’S INSULTING MESSAGE TO HEZEKIAH, 17-37.

17. The king of Assyria sent… from Lachish — According to Josephus (Antiq., 10:1, 1) Sennacherib bound himself to depart from Jerusalem upon receiving the three hundred silver and thirty gold talents mentioned above, but having received it, “had no regard to what he had promised; but while he himself went to the war against the Egyptians and Ethiopians, he left his general Rab-shakeh and two others of his principal commanders, with great forces, to destroy Jerusalem.” But it seems better to refer this siege of Jerusalem to a second invasion of Sennacherib, made a year or more after he had received Hezekiah’s submission and tribute of gold and silver, for it appears from verse 21 that Hezekiah had formed some alliance with Egypt, and so, like Hoshea, (compare 2 Kings 17:4,) “brought no present to the king of Assyria.” This is the view of Rawlinson, who describes the matter thus: “Sennacherib, understanding that the real enemy whom he had to fear on his southwestern frontier was not Judea but Egypt, marched his army through Palestine — probably by the coast route — and without stopping to chastise Jerusalem, pressed south-wards to Libnah and Lachish, which were at the extreme verge of the Holy Land, and probably at this time subject to Egypt. He first commenced the siege of Lachish ‘with all his power,’ (2 Chronicles 32:9;) and while engaged in this operation, finding that Hezekiah was not alarmed by his proximity, and did not send in his submission, he detached a body of troops from his main force, and sent it under a Tartan, or general, supported by two high officers of the court — the Rab-shakeh, or chief cupbearer, and the Rabsaris, or chief eunuch — to summon the rebellious city to surrender.” — Ancient Monarchies, vol. ii, p. 165. Tartan… Rabsaris… Rab-shakeh — These words have, respectively, the meaning given them by Rawlinson in the note just quoted, and from being common official titles came to be used as proper names. The etymology of Tartan is uncertain. “The name is said to be derived from the Persian tar, summit, and tan, person; that is, high personage; or from the Persian tara, Sanscrit tara, a star, and tan; consequently, star-form.” — Furst. The office of chief cupbearer is common in the East. In Genesis 40:2, 21, he is called “chief of the butlers.” Nehemiah held this office at the Persian court. Nehemiah 1:11; 2:1. It seems to have been a custom for high officers of the court to accompany the king to battle; and very probably the most loyal and successful generals or captains were rewarded with offices and titles of this kind in the royal court, so that we need not wonder that a royal cupbearer should also be a high military officer. The same may be said of the chief of the eunuchs. “In the Ottoman Porte,” says Kitto, “the Kislar Aga, or chief of the black eunuchs, is one of the principal personages in the empire, and in an official paper of great solemnity is styled by the Sultan the most illustrious of the officers who approach his august person, and worthy of the confidence of monarchs and of sovereigns. It is, therefore, by no means improbable that such an office should be associated with such a military commission; perhaps not for directly military duties, but to take charge of the treasure, and to select from the female captives such as might seem worthy of the royal harem.” The conduit of the upper pool — The upper pool is undoubtedly Gihon, at the head of the Hinnom valley, described in note on 1 Kings 1:33. Its conduit, or aqueduct, would naturally have been a canal running from it in a southeasterly direction down the valley of Hinnom to the west side of the city. It was, perhaps, identical with the subterranean aqueduct by which Hezekiah himself brought down the waters of this pool “on the west to the city of David.” 2 Chronicles 32:30. Consequently the highway of the fuller’s field must have been the road leading from the west side of the city northward, and so called because here was a common resort of the fullers of the city, who, on account of the offensive smells and uncleanliness of their work, and also for the sake of room to dry cloths, would require a field outside the city limits. The approach of the Assyrian host would, therefore, have been from the north, and the commanders stood sufficiently near the city to address the people on the wall. Verse 26 Here, for the first time, we meet with a biblical notice of fullers, whose art is of great antiquity. “Of the processes followed in the art of cleaning cloth, and the various kinds of stuff among the Jews, we have no direct knowledge. In an early part of the operation they seem to have trod the cloths with their feet, as the Hebrew Ain-Rogel, or En-Rogel, (literally, foot-fountain,) has been rendered on rabbinical authority, ‘Fuller’s Fountain,’ on the ground that fullers trod the cloths there with their feet. They were also rubbed with the knuckles, as in modern washing. A subsequent operation was probably that of rubbing the cloth on an inclined plane, in a mode which is figured in the Egyptian paintings, and still preserved in the East.” — M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopaedia.