and Isaiah 36:11), and in Nehemiah 13:24.

The suggestion was haughtily rejected, and the Assyrian openly avowed that his object was not to

negotiate with the king nor his repres entatives, but to produce a reaction among the besieged,

whom he represented as reduced to the utmost straits. To them he now directly appealed. They

were not to allow themselves to be deceived. Hezekiah would not be able to deliver them - viz., by

the aid of Egypt - nor yet was this other pretension well-founded, that Jehovah would deliver

them. Rather was it their wisdom to ignore the king, and make a treaty of submission* to Assyria,

in virtue of which, instead of their present misery, they might contin ue to enjoy undisturbed

possession of their land till they could be transported into districts equally fertile with their own.

* Lit., "make a blessing," probably not referring so much to religious ceremonies connected with

such treaties, as to the offering of gifts on such occasions, - the term, "a blessing," being

frequently used for "a present."

This bold avowal of the ultimate policy of Assyria must have marred an appeal otherwise cleverly

contrived. But its effectiveness would be completely destroyed - at least with the pious in Israel -

by the contemptuous reference to Jehovah, as if He were like the false gods of other nations,* who

in the past had been unable to deliver the lands of their worshippers from the might of Assyria.

* In reference to the nations mentioned in 2 Kings 18:34,,Arpad, mentioned in the Bible (comp.

also Isaiah 10:9; Jeremiah 49:23) and in the Assyrian monuments in connection with Hamath, was

a considerable and powerful Syrian town with adjacent territory, probably the modern Tell Erfad,

about three hours north of Aleppo. Hamath and Sepharvaim - the twain Sipar - have been

previously referred to. From its conjunction with the latter place, we infer that Hena was a city in

Babylonia, probably the modern Anat, four days' journey from Bagdad, on both banks of the

Euphrates. The locality of Ivvah, or Avvah (2 Kings 17:24, 31), has not been ascertained; but it

was probably also a city of Babylonia. All these places were conquered by Sargon; but there is

nothing inconsistent with this in the reference to them by the Rabh-Shakeh as affording evidence

of the supreme power of Assyria.

It was an argument calculated, indeed, to influence heathens, to whom the question was as to the

comparative power of gods, to be decided by outward results. But the very essence of Hebrew

conviction lay in this, that there was none other God than Jehovah. It is this which constitutes the

victory over that which is seen, but on which the men of the world ever deceive themselves in

their ignorance of the power of a faith which is based on personal experience. And thus what in

their view would seem the strongest argument in their appeal to "common sense" is in reality its

refutation. It was in this spirit that the people on the wall of Jerusalem obeyed the injunction of

Hezekiah, and answered not a word to the Assyrian.

It was wise and right in the representatives of Hezekiah to bring their report of this interview with

clothes rent (2 Kings 8:37); wise and right also on the part of the king to share in this token alike

of mourning and humiliation (compare 1 Kings 20:32; 2 Kings 6:30), as in a great public calamity.

It identified Israel with its LORD, and made public recognition that every blasphemy of Him was

a public crime and calamity, and hence a call to p ublic mourning.*

* The Talmud appeals to this passage as proof that every one who hears a blasphemy or who hears

it reported, is bound to rend his garment (Moed. Q. 26a). The general direction is given in Sanh

vii. 5; in the Gemara on this Mishnah (Sanh. 6oa), it is inferred from 2 Kings 2:12, where the same

expression is used, but with the addition "in two pieces," that every such rent is to be permanent.

In regard to the rent for blasphemy, it is ruled that the name Jehovah must have been expressly

u s ed, whether by Jew or Gentile, but that this had no longer application after the dispersion of

Israel, as otherwise a person might have his clothes full of rents.