III. DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIB’S ARMY AND PROPHECY OF BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY

The next coincidence which I shall lay before you is one which tends to establish two facts of the utmost importance; the one, that the Assyrian army under Sennacherib perished in some remarkable manner; the other, that the Babylonish Captivity was distinctly foretold, when Babylon was as yet no object of fear to Jerusalem.

With respect to the first, indeed, the sudden destruction of the Assyrian host, it was to be expected that if such a catastrophe did occur, it would be an epoch in the times, an event that would fill the whole East with its strangeness; and accordingly, the allusions to it, direct and indirect, which are to be met with in the writings of Isaiah, are very many. His mind seems much possessed by it; and this is indeed an argument for the truth of the fact, not feeble in itself—but the one I have to propose to you is more definite and precise.

In the thirty-ninth chapter of Isaiah, I read as follows: “At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures; there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not. Then came Isaiah the prophet to king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon. Then said he, What have they seen in thy house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in mine house have they seen; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and their shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

1. Now the first thing I would observe is this: that the embassy from the King of Babylon to Hezekiah was to congratulate him on his recovery from his sickness; which sickness must have befallen him in the year of Sennacherib’s invasion, and immediately previous to it—in that year, because he is to said to have reigned twenty and nine years; [2 Kings 18:2.] and the invasion of Judah is said [2 Kings 18:13] to have occurred in the fourteenth year of his reign; leaving him still fifteen years to reign, which was precisely the period by which his life was prolonged beyond his sickness;—immediately previous to that invasion, because the prophet, in the same breath that he assures him from God of his recovery, assures him also that God would deliver the city out of the hand of the King of Assyria, and would defend the city (Is. 38:6), as though the danger was imminent [This clearly fixes the order of the two events, and shows that in 2 Chron. 32:21–24, the order is not observed.] . The recovery, therefore, of Hezekiah, and the destruction of the Assyrians, were events close upon one another in point of time. And after a short interval, allowing for the news of Hezekiah’s recovery to reach Babylon, and an embassy to be prepared, that embassy of congratulation was despatched; or, in other words, the embassy from Babylon must have been close upon the destruction of the Assyrian army,

Now we are told, that upon the eve of the invasion of Jerusalem itself, and whilst Sennacherib was already in the country taking the fenced cities of Judah before him [2 Kings 18:13, 14.] , Hezekiah in his alarm endeavoured to buy off the King of Assyria: “That which thou puttest on me,” said he, “will I bear”—“And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold,”—a sum which completely exhausted the means of Hezekiah; insomuch that after he had given him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the King’s house, he was reduced to the necessity of actually cutting off the gold from the doors of the temple, and from the pillars which he had overlaid, to give to the King of Assyria. Nothing, therefore, could be more complete than the exhaustion of his resources, whether those of the palace or of the temple, immediately before the advance of Sennacherib’s army on the capital—for in spite of this cowardly sacrifice on the part of the Jews, the Assyrians broke faith with them, and marched on Jerusalem.

But from the passage in Isaiah (ch. 39.) which I have extracted, where the embassy from Babylon is mentioned, and the date of which has been already fixed (to the utmost probability at least), we gather that Hezekiah was then in possession of a treasury singularly affluent; so much so, indeed, as to lead him to make a vainglorious display of his vast magazines to these strangers—“he was glad of them, and shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointments, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that he showed them not.” [Isaiah 39:2.]

Here there seems a strange and unaccountable contradiction to the penury he had exhibited so shortly before. A very brief interval had elapsed (as we have proved) since he had scraped the gilding from the very doors and pillars, to make up a sum to purchase the forbearance of the enemy; and now his store is become so ample as to betray him into the vanity of exposing it before the eyes of these suspicious strangers. There is no attempt made to account for the discrepancy. A passage, however, of a very few lines, and very incidentally dropping out in the thirty-second chapter of the second Book of Chronicles (v. 22, 23), and nowhere else, supplies the explanation of this extraordinary and sudden mutation. There, after a short account of the discomfiture of the Assyrians by the angel, it is added, “Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all other, and guided them on every side. And many brought gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah king of Judah; so that he was magnified in the sight of all nations from thenceforth.”

This fact clears up at once the apparent contradiction, though certainly introduced for no such purpose; no man can imagine it; indeed, the order of these several events is confounded in this chapter of Chronicles, and their mutual dependence (on which my argument rests) deranged: so free from all suspicion of contrivance is this combination of incidents in the narrative.

For only let us recapitulate the several particulars of the argument. From a passage in the second Book of Kings (18:13, 14), I learn that Hezekiah spent his resources to the very last to bribe the Assyrian to forbearance; but, as it proved, in vain.

By a comparison of a passage in 2 Kings (18:13, 14), with another in Isaiah (38:1–6), I learn, that the sickness of Hezekiah was immediately before the invasion of Jerusalem by the Assyrians.

By another passage in Isaiah (39:1), I learn that an embassage of congratulation was sent to Hezekiah from Babylon, on his recovery from his sickness. By the same, that these ambassadors found him then in possession of a treasury full to overflowing.

I am at a loss to account for this, nor does the Scripture take any pains to do it for me; but I find, incidentally, a passage in the second Book of Chronicles, which says (32:22, 23) that many had brought gifts to the Lord at Jerusalem, and presents to Hezekiah; so that he was thenceforth magnified in the sight of all nations.

This explains the change of circumstances I had observed for myself. The several particulars, therefore, of the history, gleaned from this quarter and that, perfectly cohere; are evidently component parts of one trustworthy narrative; and no reasonable doubt will remain upon our minds, that Hezekiah was greatly straightened before the invasion, and was suddenly replenished after it; but then the truth of these facts bears upon the truth of the wonderful event which is said to have accompanied and terminated that invasion; not indeed proving the truth of it, but very remarkably agreeing with the supposition of its truth. For certainly this extraordinary and voluntary influx of gifts to Jerusalem from the nations round about, sinking as Judah had long been in its position amongst those nations, indicates some strong re-action or other in its favour at that time; as indeed does this embassage from a far country (such is the description of it), a country then comparatively but little known. The dignity of Israel seems to have once more asserted itself; and though it is not to be affirmed as a positive fact (at least on the authority of the Book of Kings or of Isaiah, though the Book of Chronicles, howbeit, in other parts of this transaction so defective, does seem to imply it), that the miraculous destruction of the Assyrian army was the event which had caused this strong sensation in the countries round about; yet such an event, to say the least, is very consistent with it; and accordingly, the passage of Chronicles to which I refer (32:23), tells us, that “many brought gifts to the Lord at Jerusalem,” as well as “presents to Hezekiah,” in testimony, it may be presumed, of the work being the Lord’s doing, and not the act of man; i.e. that the Assyrian host fell by an infliction from heaven, and not by any ordinary defeat; and if it should suggest itself, that a part of these treasures might have been derived from the spoils of the Assyrian host, and that the amount of gifts from the surrounding nations might have been augmented by the sacking of the tents of the enemy; even as “all the way was full of garments and vessels” (we are told on another occasion of the sudden overthrow of an army of a different nation) “which the Syrians had cast away in their haste;” [2 Kings 7:15.] the argument remains still the same.

2. Neither is this all. Hitherto, we have merely derived from the coincidence an argument for the truth of the miracle.

But it also confirms the prophecy touching the captivity to Babylon; and shows the words to have been spoken very long before the event.

For the aptness with which the several independent particulars we have collected fit into one another, when brought into juxtaposition, without being packed for the purpose, viz., the threat of the Assyrian invasion; the impoverishment of the exchequer of Hezekiah to avert it; the overthrow of the Assyrian host; the influx of treasure to Jerusalem from foreign nations, or from the enemy’s camp; the recovery of Hezekiah; the arrival of the embassage of congratulation from Babylon; the wealth he now exhibits to that embassage, even to ostentation; the harmony, I say, with which these several incidents concur, both in details and dates, is such as could only result from the truth of the whole and of its parts. If we take therefore this fact as a basis, as a fact established, for so I regard it, that at that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; for he had heard that he had been sick and was recovered; and that Hezekiah showed the messengers all that was found in his treasures, &c.;, the warning of Isaiah to which Hezekiah’s vanity gives occasion, rises so naturally out of the premises, is so entirely founded upon them, and so intimately combined with them, that it is next to impossible not to accept it as a fact too. The folly of the King, and the reproof of the prophet, must stand or fall together: the one prompts the other; the truth of the one sustains the truth of the other; the date of the one fixes the date of the other. But this warning, this reproof of Isaiah, and this confession of the King, runs thus:—“What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee?” To which Hezekiah made answer, “They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon. Then said he, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in mine house have they seen; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon, and nothing shall be left, saith the Lord.” [Isaiah 39.]

Thus the period of Hezekiah’s display of his finances being determined to a period soon after the downfall of the Assyrians, this rebuke of the prophet which springs out of it is determined to the same. Then the rebuke was a prophecy; for as yet it remained for Esar-haddon, the son of Sennacherib, to annex Babylon to Assyria by conquest—it remained for the two kingdoms to continue united for two generations more—it remained for Nabopolassar, the satrap of Babylon, to revolt from Assyria, and set up that kingdom for itself—and it remained for Nebuchadnezzar his son to succeed him, and by carrying away the Jews to Babylon, accomplish the words of Isaiah. But this interval occupied a hundred years and upwards; and so far, therefore, must the spirit of prophecy have carried him forward into futurity; and that, too, contrary to all present appearances; for Babylon was as yet but a name to the people of Jerusalem—it was a far country, and was to be swallowed up in the great Assyrian empire, and recover its independence once more, before it could be brought to act against Judah.

The only objection to this argument which I can imagine is, that the prophetical part of the passage might have been grafted upon the historical part by a later hand; but the seaming, I think, must in that case have appeared. Whereas the prophecy is in the form of a rebuke; the rebuke inseparably connected with Hezekiah’s vainglorious display of his treasures; his possession of those treasures to display, at the peculiar crisis when the embassy arrived, though shortly before his poverty was excessive, confirmed as a matter of fact beyond all reasonable doubt, by an undesigned coincidence. The premises, then, being thus established in truth, and the consequences flowing from them being so close and so natural, it is less easy to suppose them fictitious than prophetical.