2 kings 18 commentary

2 KI GS 18 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Hezekiah King of Judah
1 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of
Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began
to reign.
BAR ES, "In the third year - If Hoshea ascended the throne toward the close of
the 12th year of Ahaz 2Ki_17:1, and if Ahaz reigned not much more than 15 years 2Ki_
16:2, the first of Hezekiah might synchronise in part with Hoshea’s third year.
Hezekiah - The name given by our translators follows the Greek form, ᅠζεκίας
Ezekias, rather than the Hebrew, which is Hizkiah. Its meaning is “strength of Yahweh.”
CLARKE, "Now - in the third year of Hoshea - See the note on 2Ki_16:1 (note),
where this chronology is considered.
GILL, "Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of
Israel,.... That is, in the third year of his rebelling against the king of Assyria, when he
shook off his yoke, and refused to be tributary to him any longer, see 2Ki_17:1,
that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign; having finished
the account of the kingdom of Israel, and the captivity of the people, the historian
returns to the kingdom of Judah, and the things of it.
HE RY, "We have here a general account of the reign of Hezekiah. It appears, by
comparing his age with his father's, that he was born when his father was about eleven
or twelve years old, divine Providence so ordering that he might be of full age, and fit for
business, when the measure of his father's iniquity should be full. Here is,
I. His great piety, which was the more wonderful because his father was very wicked
and vile, one of the worst of the kings, yet he was one of the best, which may intimate to
us that what good there is in any is not of nature, but of grace, free grace, sovereign
grace, which, contrary to nature, grafts into the good olive that which was wild by nature

(Rom_11:24), and also that grace gets over the greatest difficulties and disadvantages:
Ahaz, it is likely, gave his son a bad education as well as a bad example; Urijah his priest
perhaps had the tuition of him; his attendants and companions, we may suppose, were
such as were addicted to idolatry; and yet Hezekiah became eminently good. When God's
grace will work what can hinder it?
JAMISO , "2Ki_18:1-3. Hezekiah’s good reign.
Hezekiah ... began to reign. Twenty and five years old — According to this
statement (compare 2Ki_16:2), he must have been born when his father Ahaz was no
more than eleven years old. Paternity at an age so early is not unprecedented in the
warm climates of the south, where the human frame is matured sooner than in our
northern regions. But the case admits of solution in a different way. It was customary for
the later kings of Israel to assume their son and heir into partnership in the government
during their lives; and as Hezekiah began to reign in the third year of Hoshea (2Ki_18:1),
and Hoshea in the twelfth year of Ahaz (2Ki_17:1), it is evident that Hezekiah began to
reign in the fourteenth year of Ahaz his father, and so reigned two or three years before
his father’s death. So that, at the beginning of his reign in conjunction with his father, he
might be only twenty-two or twenty-three, and Ahaz a few years older than the common
calculation makes him. Or the case may be solved thus: As the ancient writers, in the
computation of time, take notice of the year they mention, whether finished or newly
begun, so Ahaz might be near twenty-one years old at the beginning of his reign, and
near seventeen years older at his death; while, on the other hand, Hezekiah, when he
began to reign, might be just entering into his twenty-fifth year, and so Ahaz would be
near fourteen years old when his son Hezekiah was born - no uncommon age for a young
man to become a father in southern latitudes [Patrick].
K&D, "2Ki_18:1-2
Length and character of Hezekiah's reign.
(Note: On comparing the account of Hezekiah's reign given in our books (2 Kings
18-20) with that in 2 Chron 29-32, the different plans of these two historical works
are at once apparent. The prophetic author of our books first of all describes quite
briefly the character of the king's reign (2Ki_18:1-8), and then gives an elaborate
description of the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib and of his attempt to get
Jerusalem into his power, together with the destruction of the proud Assyrian force
and Sennacherib's hasty return to Nineveh and death (2Ki_18:13-19, 2Ki_18:37);
and finally, he also gives a circumstantial account of Hezekiah's illness and recovery,
and also of the arrival of the Babylonian embassy in Jerusalem, and of Hezekiah's
conduct on that occasion (2 Kings 20). The chronicler, on the other hand, has fixed
his chief attention upon the religious reformation carried out by Hezekiah, and
therefore first of all describes most elaborately the purification of the temple from all
idolatrous abominations, the restoration of the Jehovah-cultus and the feast of
passover, to which Hezekiah invited all the people, not only the subjects of his own
kingdom, but the remnant of the ten tribes also (2 Chron 29-31); and then simply
gives in 2 Kings 32 the most summary account of the attack made by Sennacherib
upon Jerusalem and the destruction of his army, of the sickness and recovery of
Hezekiah, and of his great riches, the Babylonian embassy being touched upon in
only the most casual manner. The historical character of the elaborate accounts
given in the Chronicles of Hezekiah's reform of worship and his celebration of the

passover, which Thenius follows De Wette and Gramberg in throwing doubt upon,
has been most successfully defended by Bertheau as well as others. - On the disputed
question, in what year of Hezekiah's reign the solemn passover instituted by him fell,
see the thorough discussion of it by C. P. Caspari (Beitrr. z. Einleit. in d. B. Jesaia,
pp. 109ff.), and our Commentary on the Chronicles, which has yet to appear.)
2Ki_18:1, 2Ki_18:2. In the third year of Hoshea of Israel, Hezekiah became king over
Judah, when he was twenty-five years old. According to 2Ki_18:9, 2Ki_18:10, the fourth
and sixth years of Hezekiah corresponded to the seventh and ninth of Hoshea;
consequently his first year apparently ran parallel to the fourth of Hoshea, so that
Josephus (Ant. ix. 13, 1) represents him as having ascended the throne in the fourth year
of Hoshea's reign. But there is no necessity for this alteration. If we assume that the
commencement of his reign took place towards the close of the third year of Hoshea, the
fourth and sixth years of his reign coincided for the most part with the sixth and ninth
years of Hoshea's reign. The name ‫ה‬ָ ִ‫ק‬ְ‫ז‬ ִ‫ה‬ or ‫הוּ‬ָ ִ‫ק‬ְ‫ז‬ ִ‫ה‬ (2Ki_18:9, 2Ki_18:13, etc.) is given in
its complete form ‫הוּ‬ָ ִ‫ק‬ְ‫ז‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫,י‬ “whom Jehovah strengthens,” in 2 Chr. 29ff. and Isa_1:1; and
‫ה‬ָ ִ‫ק‬ְ‫ז‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫ו‬ in Hos_1:1 and Mic_1:1. On his age when he ascended the throne, see the Comm.
on 2Ki_16:2. The name of his mother, ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ֲ‫,א‬ is a strongly contracted form of ‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ֲ‫א‬ (2Ch_
29:1).
BE SO , ". In the third year of Hoshea, Hezekiah began to reign — amely, in the
third of those nine years, mentioned 2 Kings 17:1; of which see the note there, and
below, 2 Kings 18:10. 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.
COFFMA , ""His mother's name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah" (2 Kings
18:2). "Thirty O.T. characters bore the name Zechariah."[1]
"He removed the high places ..." (2 Kings 18:4). Whitcomb gives us a summary of
the reforms of Hezekiah: "(1) He opened the temple doors which Ahaz had closed (2
Chronicles 28:24; 29:3); (2) He ordered the cleansing of the temple (2 Chronicles
29:4-19); (3) He offered appropriate sacrifices (2 Chronicles 29:20-36); (4) He
invited Israelites of every tribe to come to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30:5-12)."[2] (5)
He also celebrated a Passover that had to be delayed a month to allow the
worshippers to become clean (2 Chronicles 30:1-12).

Wonderful as these reforms of Hezekiah were, they were soon nullified by the
actions of kings like Manasseh and Amon. "Even God's prophets came to see the
inevitability of Judah's destruction. Jeremiah, for example, did not believe that
Judah would change; and, in view of her obstinacy advised men no longer to pray
for her (Jeremiah 14:11; 15:1).[3]
"He brake in pieces the brazen serpent" (2 Kings 18:4). Once more we have a
powerful incidental witness of the long prior existence of the Pentateuch. We reject
the snide critical references to this `serpent' as a tradition. John 3:14-15 even gives
us .T. witness of the absolute authenticity of what is written here and in the
Pentateuch.
"After him was none like him among all the kings of Judah" (2 Kings 18:5). The
critical canard to the effect that, "This statement is contradicted by 2 Kings
23:25,"[4] is based upon a failure to read exactly what the text says. "The verdict
that, `after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah,' is a reference to
Hezekiah's confidence in God, in which he had no equal; whereas in the case of
Josiah it was his conscientious adherence to the Law of Moses that is extolled in the
same words (2 Kings 23:25); so that there is no grounds for saying that there is a
contradiction in these verses."[5] As a matter of fact there was no other king either
before or after either one of these good kings who was in any sense "like unto
them."
"He smote the Philistines" (2 Kings 18:8). These victories of Hezekiah against the
Philistines doubtless occurred in the interim between the death of Sargon II and the
establishment of his son Sennacherib's authority in ineveh. That interval was a
period of about four or five years, but by 701 B.C. Sennacherib was ready to punish
his rebellious vassals in the west. This and 2 Kings 19 will deal with his threat to
Jerusalem.
"From the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city" (2 Kings 18:8). (See our
comment on this expression under 2 Kings 17:9, above.) Another equivalent is,
"From one end of the country to the other."
EBC, "HEZEKIAH
B.C. 715-686
2 Kings 18:1-37
"For Ezekias had done the thing that pleased the Lord, and was strong in the ways
of David his father, as Esay the prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision,
had commanded him."
- Sirach 48:22

THE reign of Hezekiah was epoch-making in many respects, but especially for its
religious reformation, and the relations of Judah with Assyria and with Babylon. It
is also most closely interwoven with the annals of Hebrew prophecy, and acquires
unwonted luster from the magnificent activity and impassioned: eloquence of the
great prophet Isaiah, who merits in many ways the title of "the Evangelical
Prophet," and who was the greatest of the prophets of the Old Dispensation.
According to the notice in 2 Kings 18:2, Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he
began to reign in the third year of Hoshea of Israel. This, however, is practically
impossible consistently with the dates that Ahaz reigned sixteen years and became
king at the age of twenty, for it would then follow that Hezekiah was born when his
father was a mere boy-and this although Hezekiah does not seem to have been the
eldest son; for Ahaz had burnt "his son," and, according to the Chronicler, more
than one son, to propitiate Moloch. Probably Hezekiah was a boy of fifteen when he
began to reign. The chronology of his reign of twenty-nine years is, unhappily, much
confused.
The historian of the Kings agrees with the Chronicler, and the son of Sirach, in
pronouncing upon him a high eulogy, and making him equal even to David in
faithfulness. There is, however, much difference in the method of their descriptions
of his doings. The historian devotes but one verse to his reformation-which probably
began early in his reign, though it occupied many years. The Chronicler, on the
other hand, in his three chapters manages to overlook, if not to suppress, the one
incident of the reformation which is of the deepest interest. It is exactly one of those
suppressions which help to create the deep misgiving as to the historic exactness of
this biased and late historian. It must be regarded as doubtful whether many of the
Levitic details in which he revels are or are not intended to be literally historic.
Imaginative additions to literal history became common among the Jews after the
Exile, and leaders of that day instinctively drew the line between moral homiletics
and literal history. It may be perfectly historical that, as the Chronicler says,
Hezekiah opened and repaired the Temple; gathered the priests and the Levites
together, and made them cleanse themselves; offered a solemn sacrifice; reappointed
the musical services; and-though this can hardly have been till after the Fall of
Samaria in 722-invited all the Israelites to a solemn, but in some respects irregular,
passover of fourteen days. It may be true also that he broke up the idolatrous altars
in Jerusalem, and tossed their debris into the Kidron; and (again after the
deportation of Israel) destroyed some of the bamoth in Israel as well as in Judah. If
he re-instituted the courses of the priests, the collection of tithes, and all else that he
is said to have done, {2 Chronicles 31:2-21} he accomplished quite as much as was
effected in the reign of his great-grandson Josiah. But while the Chronicler dwells
on all this at such length, what induces him to omit the most significant fact of all-
the destruction of the brazen serpent?
The historian tells us that Hezekiah "removed the bamoth"-the chapels on the high
places, with their ephods and teraphim-whether dedicated to the worship of
Jehovah or profaned by alien idolatry. That he did, or attempted, something of this
kind seems certain; for the Rabshakeh, if we regard his speech as historical in its

details, actually taunted him with impiety, and threatened him with the wrath of
Jehovah on this very account. Yet here we are at once met with the many difficulties
with which the history of Israel abounds, and which remind us at every turn that we
know much less about the inner life and religious conditions of the Hebrews than we
might infer from a superficial study of the historians who wrote so many centuries
after the events which they describe. Over and over again their incidental notices
reveal a condition of society and worship which violently collides with what seems to
be their general estimate. Who, for instance, would not infer from this notice that in
Judah, at any rate, the king’s suppression of the "high places," and above all of
those which were idolatrous, had been tolerably thorough? How much, then, are we
amazed to find that Hezekiah had not effectually desecrated even the old shrines
which Solomon had erected to Ashtoreth, Chemosh, and Milcom "at the right hand
of the mount of corruption"-in other words, on one of the peaks of the Mount of
Olives, in full view of the walls of Jerusalem and of the Temple Hill!
"And he brake the images," or, as the R.V more correctly renders it, "the pillars,"
the matstseboth. Originally-that is, before the appearance of the Deuteronomic and
the Priestly Codes-no objection seems to have been felt to the erection of a
matstsebah. Jacob erected one of these baitulia or anointed stones at Bethel, with
every sign of Divine approval. Moses erected twelve round his altar at Sinai. Joshua
erected them in Shechem and on Mount Ebal. Hosea, in one passage, {Hosea 3:4}
seems to mention pillars, ephods, and teraphim as legitimate objects of desire.
Whether they have any relation to obelisks, and what is their exact significance, is
uncertain; but they had become objects of just suspicion in the universal tendency to
idolatry, and in the deepening conviction that the second commandment required a
far more rigid adherence than it had hitherto received.
"And cut down the groves"-or rather the Asherim, the wooden, and probably in
some instances phallic, emblems of the nature-goddess Asherah, the goddess of
fertility. She is sometimes identified with Astarte, the goddess of the moon and of
love; but there is no sufficient ground for the identification. Some, indeed, doubt
whether Asherah is the name of a goddess at all. They suppose that the word only
means a consecrated pole or pillar, emblematic of the sacred tree.
Then comes the startling addition, "And brake in pieces the brazen serpent that
Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it."
This addition is all the more singular because the Hebrew tense implies habitual
worship. The story of the brazen serpent of the wilderness is told in umbers 21:9;
but not an allusion to it occurs anywhere, till now-some eight centuries later-we are
told that up to this time the Children of Israel bad been in the habit of burning
incense to it! Comparing umbers 21:4, with umbers 33:42, we find that the scene
of the serpent-plague of the Exodus was either Zal-monah ("the place of the image")
or Punon, which Bochart connects with Phainoi, a place mentioned as famous for
copper-mines. Moses, for unknown reasons, chose it as an innocent and potent
symbol; but obviously in later days it subserved, or was mingled with, the tendency
to ophiolatry, which has been fatally common in all ages in many heathen lands. It is
indeed most difficult to understand a state of things in which the children of Israel

habitually burned incense to this venerable relic, nor can we imagine that this was
done without the cognizance and connivance of the priests. Ewald makes the
conjecture that the brazen Saraph had been left at Zalmonah, and was an occasional
object of Israelite adoration in pilgrimage for the purpose. There is, however,
nothing more extraordinary in the prevalence of serpent-worship among the Jews
than in the fact that, "in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, we (the
Jews), and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, burnt incense unto the Queen of
Heaven." If this were the case, the serpent may have been brought to Jerusalem in
the idolatrous reign of Ahaz. It shows an intensity of reforming zeal, and an inspired
insight into the reality of things, that Hezekiah should not have hesitated to smash to
pieces so interesting a relic of the oldest history of his people, rather than see it
abused to idolatrous purposes. Certainly, in conduct so heroic, and hatred of
idolatry so strong, the Puritans might well find sufficient authority for removing
from Westminster Abbey the images of the Virgin, which, in their opinion, had been
worshipped, and before which lamps had had been perpetually burned. If we can
imagine an English king breaking to pieces the shrine of the Confessor in the Abbey,
or a French king destroying the sacred ampulla of Rheims or the goupillon of St.
Eligius, on the ground that many regarded them with superstitious reverence, we
may measure the effect produced by this startling act of Puritan zeal on the part of
Hezekiah.
"And he called it ehushtan." If this rendering-in which our A.V and R.V follow
the LXX and the Vulgate-be correct, Hezekiah justified the iconoclasm by a brilliant
play of words. The Hebrew words for "a serpent" (nachash) and for brass
(nedwsheth) are closely akin to each other; and the king showed his just estimate of
the relic which had been so shamefully abused by contemptuously designating it-as
it was in itself and apart from its sacred historic associations "nehushtan," a thing
of brass. The rendering, however, is uncertain, for the phrase may be
impersonal-"one" or "they" called it ehushtan-in which case the assonance had
lost any ironic connotation.
For this act of purity of worship, and for other reasons, the historian calls Hezekiah
the best of all the kings of Judah, superior alike to all his predecessors and all his
successors. He regarded him as coming up to the Deuteronomic ideal, and says that
therefore "the Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth."
The date of this great reformation is rendered uncertain by the impossibility of
ascertaining the exact order of Isaiah’s prophecies. The most probable view is that it
was gradual, and some of the king’s most effective measures may not have been
carried out till after the deliverance from Assyria. It is clear, however, that the
wisdom of Hezekiah and his counselors began from the first to uplift Judah from
the degradation and decrepitude to which it had sunk under the reign of Ahaz. The
boy-king found a wretched state of affairs at his accession. His father had
bequeathed to him "an empty treasury, a ruined peasantry, an unprotected frontier,
and a shattered army"; but although he was still the vassal of Assyria, he reverted
to the ideas of his great-grandfather Uzziah. He strengthened the city, and enabled
it to stand a siege by improving the water supply. Of these labors we have, in all

probability, a most interesting confirmation in the inscription by Hezekiah’s
engineers, discovered in 1880, on the rocky walls of the subterranean tunnel (siloh)
between the spring of Gihon and the Pool of Siloam. He encouraged agriculture, the
storage of produce, and the proper tendance of flocks and herds, so that he acquired
wealth which dimly reminded men of the days of Solomon.
There is little doubt that he early meditated revolt from Assyria; for renewed
faithfulness to Jehovah had elevated the moral tone, and therefore the courage and
hopefulness, of the whole people. The Forty-Sixth Psalm, whatever may be its date,
expresses the invincible spirit of a nation which in its penitence and self-purification
began to feel itself irresistible, and could sing:-
"God is our hope and strength,
A very present help in trouble.
Therefore will we not fear, though the earth be moved,
Though the hills be carried into the midst of the sea,
There is a river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God,
The Holy City where dwells the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; therefore shall she not be shaken;
God shall help her, and that right early.
Heathens raged and kingdoms trembled:
He lifted His voice-the earth melted away.
Jehovah of Hosts is with us;
Elohim of Jacob is our refuge." {Psalms 46:1-11}
It was no doubt the spirit of renewed confidence which led Hezekiah to undertake
his one military enterprise-the chastisement of the long-troublesome Philistines. He
was entirely successful. He not only won back the cities which his father had lost, {2
Chronicles 28:18} but he also dispossessed them of their own cities, even unto Gaza,
which was their southernmost possession-"from the tower of the watchman to the
fenced city." There can be no doubt that this act involved an almost open defiance
of the Assyrian King; but if Hezekiah dreamed of independence, it was essential for
him to be free from the raids and the menace of a neighbor so dangerous as
Philistia, and so inveterately hostile. It is not improbable that he may have devoted
to this war the money which would otherwise have gone to pay the tribute to
Shalmaneser or Sargon, which had been continued since the date of the appeal of

Ahaz to Tiglath-Pileser II. When Sargon applied for the tribute Hezekiah refused it,
and even omitted to send the customary present.
It is clear that in this line of conduct the king was following the exhortations of
Isaiah. It showed no small firmness of character that he was able to choose a decided
course amid the chaos of contending counsels. othing but a most heroic courage
could have enabled him at any period of his reign to defy that dark cloud of
Assyrian war which ever loomed on the horizon, and from which but little sufficed
to elicit the destructive lightning-flash.
There were three permanent parties in the Court of Hezekiah, each incessantly
trying to sway the king to its own counsels, and each representing those counsels as
indispensable to the happiness, and even to the existence, of the State.
I. There was the Assyrian party, urging with natural vehemence that the fierce
northern king was as irresistible in power as he was terrible in vengeance. The
fearful cruelties which had been committed at Beth-Arbel, the devastation and
misery of the Trans-Jordanic tribes, the obliteration and deportation of the heavily
afflicted districts of Zebulon, aphtali, and the way of the sea in Galilee of the
nations, the already inevitable and imminent destruction of Samaria and her king
and the whole orthern Kingdom, together with that certain deportation of its
inhabitants of which the fatal policy had been established by Tiglath-Pileser, would
constitute weighty arguments against resistance. Such considerations would appeal
powerfully to the panic of the despondent section of the community, which was only
actuated, as most men are, by considerations of ordinary political expediency. The
foul apparition of the inevites, which for five centuries afflicted the nations, is now
only visible to us in the bas-reliefs and inscriptions unearthed from their burnt
palaces. There they live before us in their own sculptures, with their "thickset,
sensual figures," and the expression of calm and settled ferocity on their faces,
exhibiting a frightful nonchalance as they look on at the infliction of diabolical
atrocities upon their vanquished enemies. But in the eighth century before Christ
they were visible to all the eastern world in the exuberance of the most brutal parts
of the nature of man. Men had heard how, a century earlier, Assurnazipal boasted
that he had "dyed the mountains of the airi with blood like wool"; how he had
flayed captive kings alive, and dressed pillars with their skins; how he had walled
up others alive, or impaled them on stakes; how he had burnt boys and girls alive,
put out eyes, cut off hands, feet, ears, and noses, pulled out the tongues of his
enemies, and "at the command of Assur his god" had flung their limbs to vultures
and eagles, to dogs and bears. The Jews, too, must have realized with a vividness
which is to us impossible the cruel nature of the usurper Sargon. He is represented
on his monuments as putting out with his own hands the eyes of his miserable
captives; while, to prevent them from flinching when the spear which he holds in his
hand is plunged into their eye-sockets, a hook is inserted through their nose and lips
and held fast with a bridle. Can we not imagine the pathos with which this party
would depict such horrors to the tremblers of Judah? Would they not bewail the
fanaticism which led the prophets to seduce their king into the suicidal policy of
defying such a power? To these men the sole path of national safety lay in

continuing to be quiet vassals and faithful tributaries of these destroyers of cities
and treaders-down of foes.
II. Then there was the Egyptian party, headed probably by the powerful Shebna,
the chancellor. His foreign name, the fact that his father is not mentioned, and the
question of Isaiah-"What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast
hewed thee out a sepulcher here?"-seem to indicate that he was by birth a foreigner,
perhaps a Syrian. The prophet, indignant at his powerful interference with domestic
politics, threatens him, in words of tremendous energy, with exile and degradation.
He lost his place of chancellor, and we next find him in the inferior, though still
honorable, office of secretary, {sopher, 2 Kings 18:18} while Eliakim had been
promoted to his vacant place (Isaiah 22:21). Perhaps he may have afterwards
repented, and the doom have been lightened. Circumstances at any rate reduced
him from the scornful spirit which seems to have marked his earlier opposition to
the prophetic counsels, and perhaps the powerful warning and menace of Isaiah
may have exercised an influence on his mind.
III. The third party, if it could even be called a party, was that of Isaiah and a few of
the faithful, aided no doubt by the influence of the prophecies of Micah. Their
attitude to both the other parties was antagonistic.
1. As regards the Assyrian, they did not attempt to minimize the danger. They
represented the peril from the kingdom of ineveh as God’s appointed scourge for
the transgressions of Judah, as it had been for the transgressions of Israel.
Thus Micah sees in imagination the terrible march of the invader by Gath, Akko,
Beth-le-Aphrah, Maroth, Lachish, and Lamentations. He plays with bitter anguish
on the name of each town as an omen of humiliation and ruin, and calls on Zion to
make herself bald for the children of her delight, and to enlarge her baldness as the
vultures, because they are gone into captivity. He turns fiercely on the greedy
grandees, the false prophets, the blood-stained princes, the hireling priests, the
bribe-taking soothsayers, who were responsible for the guilt which should draw
down the vengeance. He ends with the fearful prophecy-which struck a chill into
men’s hearts a century later, and had an important influence on Jewish
history-"Therefore, because of you shall Zion be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem
become ruins, and the hill of the Temple as heights in the wood"; -though there
should be an ultimate deliverance from Migdal-Eder, and a remnant should be
saved.
Similar to Micah’s, and possibly not uninfluenced by it, is Isaiah’s imaginary
picture of the march of Assyria, which must have been full of terror to the poor
inhabitants of Jerusalem.
"He is come to Aiath!
He is passed through Migron!

At Michmash he layeth up his baggage:
They are gone over the pass:
‘Geba,’ they cry, ‘is our lodging.’
Ramah trembleth:
Gibeah of Saul is fled!
Raise thy shrill cries O daughter of Gallim!
Hearken, O Laishah! Answer her, O Anathoth!
Madmenah is in wild flight (?).
The inhabitants of Gebim gather their stuff to flee.
This very day shall he halt at ob.
He shaketh hishand at the mount of the daughter of Zion,
The hill of Jerusalem."
Yet Isaiah, and the little band of prophets, in spite of their perils, did not share the
views of the Assyrian party or counsel submission. On the contrary, even as they
contemplate in imagination this terrific march of Sargon, they threaten Assyria. The
Assyrian might smite Judah, but God should smite the Assyrians. He boasts that he
will rifle the riches of the people as one robs the eggs of a trembling bird, which does
not dare to cheep or move the wing. But Isaiah tells him that he is but the axe
boasting against the hewer, and the wooden staff lifting itself up against its wielder.
Burning should be scattered over his glory. The Lord of hosts should lop his boughs
with terror, and a mighty one should hew down the crashing forest of his haughty
Lebanon.
2. Still more indignant were the true prophets against those who trusted in an
alliance with Egypt. From first to last Isaiah warned Ahaz, and warned Hezekiah,
that no reliance was to be placed on Egyptian promises-that Egypt was but like the
reed of his own ile. He mocked the hopes placed on Egyptian intervention as being
no less sure of disannulment than a covenant with death and an agreement with
Sheol. This rebellious reliance on the shadow of Egypt was but the weaving of an
unrighteous web, and the adding of sin to sin. It should lead to nothing but shame
and confusion, and the Jewish ambassadors to Zoan and Egypt should only have to
blush for a people that could neither help nor profit. And then branding Egypt with
the old insulting name of Rahab, or "Blusterer," he says, -
"Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose.

Therefore have I called her ‘Rahab, that sitteth still.’"
Indolent braggart-that was the only designation which she deserved! Intrigue and
braggadocio-smoke and lukewarm water, -this was all which could be expected from
her!
Such teaching was eminently distasteful to the worldly politicians, who regarded
faith in Jehovah’s intervention as no better than ridiculous fanaticism, and forgot
God’s Wisdom in the inflated self-satisfaction of their own. The priests-luxurious,
drunken, scornful-were naturally with them. Men were fine and stylish, and in their
religious criticisms could not express too lofty a contempt for any one who, like
Isaiah, was too sincere to care for the mere polishing of phrases, and too much in
earnest to shrink from reiteration. In their self-indulgent banquets these sleek, smug
euphemists made themselves very merry over Isaiah’s simplicity, reiteration, and
directness of expression. With hiccoughing insolence they asked whether they were
to be treated like weaned babes; and then wagging their heads, as their successors
did at Christ upon the cross, they indulged themselves in a mimicry, which they
regarded as witty, of Isaiah’s style and manner. With him they said it is all, - which
may be imitated thus:-With him it is always "Bit and bit, bid and bid, forbid and
forbid, forbid and forbid, a little bit here, a little bit there." Monosyllable is heaped
on monosyllable; and no doubt the speakers tipsily adopted the tones of fond
mothers addressing their babes and weanlings. Using the Hebrew words, one of
these shameless roysterers would say, "Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav, quav-la-quav,
quav-la-quav, Z’eir sham, Z’eir sham, -that is how that simpleton Isaiah speaks."
And then doubtless a drunken laugh would go round the table, and half a dozen of
them would be saying thus, "Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav, " at once. They derided
Isaiah just as the philosophers of Athens derided St. Paul-as a mere spermologos, "
a seed-pecker!" {Acts 17:18} or "picker-up of learning’s crumbs." Is all this petty
monosyllabism fit teaching for persons like us? Are we to be taught by copybooks?
Do we need the censorship of this Old Morality?
On whom, full of the fire of God, Isaiah turned, and told these scornful tipplers,
who lorded it over God’s heritage in Jerusalem, that, since they disdained his
stammerings, God would teach them by men of strange lips and alien tongue. They
might mimic the style of the Assyrians also if they liked; but they should fall
backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. {Isaiah 28:7-22}
It must not be forgotten that the struggle of the prophets against these parties was
far more severe than we might suppose. The politicians of expediency had
supporters among the leading princes. The priests-whom the prophets so constantly
and sternly denounce-adhered to them; and, as usual, the women were all of the
priestly party. {comp. Isaiah 32:9-20} The king indeed was inclined to side with his
prophet, but the king was terribly overshadowed by a powerful and worldly
aristocracy, of which the influence was almost always on the side of luxury, idolatry,
and oppression.

3. But what had Isaiah to offer in the place of the policy of these worldly and
sacerdotal advisers of the king? It was the simple command "Trust in the Lord." It
was the threefold message "God is high; God is near; God is Love." Had he not told
Ahaz not to fear the "stumps of two smouldering torches," when Rezin and Pekah
seemed awfully dangerous to Judah? So he tells them now that, though their sins
had necessitated the rushing stroke of Assyrian judgment, Zion should not be
utterly destroyed. In Isaiah "the calmness requisite for sagacity rose from faith."
Mr. Bagehot might have appealed to Isaiah’s whole policy in illustration of what he
has so well described as the military and political benefits of religion. Monotheism is
of advantage to men not only "by reason of the high concentration of steady feeling
which it produces, but also for the mental calmness and sagacity which surely
spring from a pure and vivid conviction that the Lord reigneth." Isaiah’s whole
conviction might have been summed up in the name of the king himself: "Jehovah
maketh strong."
King Hezekiah, apparently not a man of much personal force, though of sincere
piety, was naturally distracted by the counsels of these three parties: and who can
judge him severely if, beset with such terrific dangers, he occasionally wavered, now
to one side, now to the other? On the whole, it is clear that he was wise and faithful,
and deserves the high eulogy that his faith failed not. aturally he had not within
his soul that burning light of inspiration which made Isaiah so sure that, even
though clouds and darkness might lower on every side, God was an eternal Sun,
which flamed forever in the zenith, even when not visible to any eye save that of
Faith.
GUZIK, "A. The righteous reign of Hezekiah.
1. (2 Kings 18:1-2) Hezekiah reigns over Judah for 29 years.
ow it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea the son of Elah, king of Israel, that
Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. He was twenty-five years
old when he became king, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His
mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah.
a. In the third year of Hoshea: Hezekiah came to the throne of Judah at the very end
of the Kingdom of Israel. Three years after the start of his reign the Assyrian armies
laid siege to Samaria, and three years after that the northern kingdom was
conquered.
i. The sad fate of the northern kingdom was a valuable lesson to Hezekiah. He saw
first hand what happened when the people of God rejected their God and His word,
and worshipped other gods.
ii. “Perhaps the knottiest of all scriptural chronological problems occurs in this
chapter. . . . Despite the many ingenious attempts to resolve these difficulties, the
harmonization of these data remains a thorny problem.” (Patterson and Austel)

iii. In the third year of Hoshea: “729/8 B.C. in which year Hezekiah became co-
regent with Ahaz. His sole reign began in 716/6 B.C. Compare this with 2 Kings
18:13 where his fourteenth year as sole ruler (716/5-687/6 B.C.) is a date (701 B.C.)
verifiable from Sennacherib’s annals.” (Wiseman)
b. He reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem: Hezekiah was one of the better kings
of Judah, and thus had a long and mostly blessed reign.
PETT, "‘ ow it came about in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel,
that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign.’
In the twelfth year of Ahaz’s co-regency with Jotham, Hoshea ‘began to reign’ (2
Kings 17:1), thus this is describing when Hezekiah’s co-regency with Ahaz began in
c.729-8 BC, not the commencement of his sole reign in c 716 BC. It was the practise
in Judah for each king to bring his heir into co-regency with him, both in order that
he may gain experience in the running of the kingdom and so that he might be well
established on the throne with the reins of authority in his hands when his father
died.
PETT, "The Reign of Hezekiah King of Judah c. 716-687 BC (2 Kings 18:1 to 2
Kings 20:21). Co-regency from c 729 BC.
There now begins the reign of one of the two great kings after David of whom it
could be said ‘after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among
those who were before him.’ The other will be Josiah (compare 2 Kings 23:25). In
both cases the words are hyperbole and not intended to be applied literally
(otherwise David would have been seen as excelled). But they adequately make clear
the excellence of the two kings, Hezekiah because he excelled in faith, and Josiah
because he excelled in obedience to the Law. And this was so even though in the end
both failed because of their alliances with others.
The story of Hezekiah is portrayed as of one who was victorious on every hand, and
who eventually stood up against the great king of Assyria, emerging weakened and
battered, but triumphant. In some ways it can be seen as similar to the story of
David against Goliath. Both dealt with those who ‘defied the living God’ (2 Kings
19:6), and both emphasised the weak facing the strong and overcoming them in the
power of YHWH. Indeed that is one of the themes of these chapters, the effective
power of YHWH, for great emphasis is laid on the impossibility of anyone
successfully defying the king of Assyria, apart, of course, from YHWH. It is made
clear that all the great cities of the ancient world and their gods failed to successfully
defy him, and that all the gods of those nations were ineffective against him. Who
then could stand before him? And the answer given is ‘YHWH’. All the gods of the
nations he had swept aside, but in YHWH he was to come across the One who
would humiliate him utterly.

Once again we note that the prophetic author is not interested in history for its own
sake, but for what it reveals about YHWH. We are told very little about the early
years of Hezekiah’s reign, or about his closing years. All the years of waiting for the
right moment, and the manoeuvrings and conspiracies involving surrounding
nations, are ignored. Having given us a brief summary of his reign the author’s
concentration is on the face to face contest between the ‘great king’ of earth and the
great King of Heaven, and it is that that is described in detail. It will then be
followed by a description of how (1). YHWH was able to extend Hezekiah’s life, and
in the process gave him a hugely significant sign of His power, and (2). the way in
which Hezekiah finally failed YHWH by entering into negotiations with Babylon,
something which spelled doom for the future, both events taking place before the
deliverance of Jerusalem. But the Babylonian incident explains why Hezekiah could
never really be the awaited ‘chosen King’. For in the end Hezekiah was more
interested in impressing men than God. That was why he could never be the
Messiah promised by Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 9:5-6; Isaiah 11:1-4.
Hezekiah’s reign as described by the author can be divided up as follows:
Overall Analysis.
a Introduction to his reign (2 Kings 18:1-3).
b Summary of Hezekiah’s successful reign because he did what was right in the
eyes of YHWH (2 Kings 18:4-8).
c A reminder of what happened to Hoshea and Samaria which highlights both
Jerusalem’s own subsequent escape, and Hezekiah’s successful contrasting reign (2
Kings 18:9-12).
d The treaty made and broken, and the invasion of the King of Assyria (2
Kings 18:13-17).
e The messengers of the King of Assyria call on the people of Jerusalem to
surrender and in the process demean Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18 to 2 Kings 19:1).
f The intercession of Hezekiah and the assurance of Isaiah (2 Kings 19:2-8).
g The second call to surrender, in view of the approaching Egyptian army,
which is much more polite to Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:9-14).
f The further intercession of Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:15-19).
e The reply of YHWH, the God of Israel, to the great king of Assyria (2 Kings
19:20-28).
d YHWH’s Assurance to Judah that the remnant will escape (2 Kings 19:29-
31).
c The humbling and death of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:32-37).
b The sickness and healing of Hezekiah after a great sign is given, after which
Hezekiah foolishly exposes his wealth and armaments to the king of Babylon and is
warned of what the consequences will be (2 Kings 20:1-19).
a The conclusion to his reign (2 Kings 20:20-21).
ote that in ‘a’ we have the introduction to the reign of Hezekiah, and in the
parallel the close of his reign. In ‘b’ we have outlined the successes of his reign, and
in the parallel the reason why he failed to achieve his potential. In ‘c’ Assyria
humble Israel, and in the parallel YHWH humbles Assyria. In ‘d’ a treaty is made

and broken and Judah is hemmed in, and in the parallel YHWH’s covenant stands
firm and the remnant will be restored. In ‘e’ the King of Assyria calls on Jerusalem
to surrender ad informs them of what he will do, and in the parallel YHWH gives
His reply to the great king of Assyria. In ‘f’ Hezekiah intercedes before YHWH and
in the parallel he does so a second time. Central in ‘g’ is the final call to Hezekiah to
yield.
PULPIT, "2 Kings 18:1-8
THE EARLY YEARS Or HEZEKIAH. From his narrative of the destruction of the
kingdom of Samaria, the writer turns, with evident relief, to the accession of the
good king Hezekiah in Judah, and to a brief account of
The narrative is still exceedingly brief, and has to be filled out from the Second
Book of Chronicles, where the religious reformation of Hezekiah is treated with
great fullness (2 Kings 29-31.).
2 Kings 18:1
ow it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah King of Israel, that
Hezekiah the son of Ahaz King of Judah began to reign. There can scarcely be any
doubt of this synchronism, which is in close accordance with the dates in 2 Kings
18:9,2 Kings 18:10 of this chapter, and agrees well with the Assyrian inscriptions.
Hezekiah's accession may be placed almost certainly in B.C. 727.
BI 1-37, "Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea.
A striking reformation, a ruthless despotism, and an unprincipled
diplomacy
I. A striking reformation (2Ki_18:3-8).
1. The perverting tendency of sin. The brazen serpent was a beneficent ordinance of
God to heal those in the wilderness who had been bitten by the fiery serpent. But this
Divine ordinance, designed for a good purpose, and which had accomplished good,
was now, through the forces of human depravity, become a great evil. See how this
perverting power acts in relation to such Divine blessings, as
(1) health;
(2) riches;
(3) genius;
(4) knowledge;
(5) governments; and
(6) religious institutions.
2. The true attributes of a reformer. Here we observe

(1) Spiritual insight. Hezekiah saw in this serpent which appeared like a God to
the people, nothing but a piece of brass—“Nehushtan.”
(2) Invincible honesty. He not only saw that it was brass, but said so,—
thundered it into the ears of the people.
(3) Practical courage. “He brake in pieces the brasen serpent.”
3. The true soul of a reformer. What is that which gave him the true insight and
attributes of a reformer, which in truth was the soul of the whole?
(1) Entire consecration to the right.
(2) Invincible antagonism to the wrong.
II. A ruthless despotism. There are two despots mentioned in this chapter—
Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, both kings of Assyria.
1. He had already invaded a country in which he had no right.
2. He had received from the king most humble submission and large contributions
to leave his country alone. Mark his humiliating appeal.
III. An unprincipled diplomacy,
1. He represents his master, the King of Assyria, to be far greater than he is.
2. He seeks to terrify them with a sense of their utter inability to resist the invading
army. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Hezekiah’s good reign
The history of God’s ancient people is full of surprises. The whole course of their
national life was marked by wonderful Divine interpositions. An public records, when
carefully studied, disclose the fact that God, through His providence, is acting as master
of affairs, and though statesmen and political economists refer the shifting events of
national career to natural causes, it is evident to the clear thinker that God is an
uncalculated factor, the explanation is meagre and faulty. But in the history of the elect
people, the Divine element was unmistakably prominent. In these particulars the history
of the Jews was unique, and sublime above that of any other nation. And yet the
behaviour of the people was quite as surprising. With only the thinnest of veils
separating them from God—their daily experience august with the manifestations of His
presence—the penalties of sin and the rewards of righteousness, things tangible and
perceptible, they went on in a mad career of impiety and wickedness as recklessly as
though they had never heard of Jehovah. But there are lights as well as shadows to the
picture. Now and then a man in authority rose to the level of his responsibility and ruled
in the fear of God, and the nation, as nations commonly do, catching inspiration from
their leader, entered upon an era of prosperity. Notable among these faithful few was
Hezekiah, King of Judah.
1. Hezekiah “did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” His theory of
government was a simple one; to make it as far as possible a transcript of the Divine
government. Statesmanship, in his conception of it, was no familiarity with human
precedents, a mastery of the wiles and contrivances by which men in power manage
to make all events subserve their purpose, a skilful sword-play in which some trick of
fence is more highly esteemed than truth and righteousness. With that one purpose

sovereign and constant, all details of administration grouped themselves about it,
and in harmony with it, as the atoms of the gem aggregate themselves about the
centre of crystallization, the value and lustre of the jewel, due to its unity. No
government of contradictions this, whose worth was to be ascertained by averaging
its failings and its merits, but an honest attempt on the part of the king to make his
rule an answer to the prayer, “Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” It is the
fatal defect in most forms of government that this overrule of God is ignored. Men
are dull scholars, slow to learn that to do right is to do well, in public affairs as well
as in private conduct. To do “that which is fight in the sight of the Lord” is the
fundamental and unalterable principle in all policies of government that vindicate
themselves in history. Treasuries and armies and the intrigues of cabinets may win
temporary successes; but they are short-lived.
2. Hezekiah “trusted in the Lord God of Israel.” That gave him confidence and made
him uncompromising in all his measures. He was no cautious strategist, trying
experiments, uncertain of their issue, advancing so slowly that there would be
opportunity to retrace his steps if the event seemed likely to disappoint his
expectation a He did not trust in his own shrewdness and far-sightedness. He was
not anxious about the signs of the times, a calculator of popular weather
probabilities. No one more well aware than he of the unreliability of the tone and
temper of public moods. He trusted in God, the eternal and the unchanging, “a
personal God, the Lord God of Israel, doing His pleasure in the armies of heaven and
among the children of men.” So he had no responsibility except for duty;
consequences were in higher and wiser hands than his. Like a soldier under
command, he had only to obey orders. And withal he had a serene and satisfying
assurance that he should be contented with last results. The Divine wishes could not
be thwarted, and whatever pleased God would please him. When the first Napoleon
came to the throne, and saw how unbelief was destroying both the faith and the
conscience of the French nation, he said to his advisers, “If there is no God, we must
create one.” No man can prosperously direct the affairs of a great people without
personal faith in God. There are crises in affairs when he loses heart and hope unless
he “endures as seeing Him who is invisible.” There are hours when the policy of strict
righteousness threatens immediate disaster, and the temptation to slight concessions
for large apparent good is strong, and how can king or president resist it unless they
are able to look up through the obscurity and confidently say, “Clouds and darkness
are round about Him, but judgment and justice are the habitation of His throne?”
Religion is too often depreciated as the superstition of the cloister and the Church,
but all history shows that it has been the most practical and powerful force in the
administration of government.
3. Hezekiah “clave to the Lord and departed not from following Him.” This religious
faith was something more than an intellectual assent to certain general truths, more
even than the recognition that Divine Providence is the operative factor in human
history. His convictions had a personal force, and caused him to see that he ought to
be, and led him to endeavour to be, himself a good man. Behind all the righteous
measures he proposed, there was the weight and push of a righteous character. It
was not enough that the service due to God had mention in public documents and on
state occasions; he himself must render that service in his private capacity. The
people must see, in his individual behaviour, the recognition of the sovereignty of
those principles that were embedded in the statutes, and gave shape and colour to
the national policy. Other things being equal, the better the character of king and
governor and legislator, the stronger the presumption that their administration of

affairs will be judicious, sound, and strong. The man who governs himself rightly has
taken the first step towards knowing how to govern others for their good.
4. “And the Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went.” This is
the brief but significant summing up of the history of Hezekiah’s reign. The account
is notable for its omissions. There is no record of new territory added to the
kingdom, of armies organised, of treasuries filled, of advance in industrial enterprise
and business prosperity, the specifications that figure so largely in the common
description of national growth. In the thought of the inspired writer, the
enumeration of items like these was of small importance in comparison with the
great overshadowing fact that the Divine presence was visible, and the Divine favour
evident, in the whole course of the people’s history. That of itself was sufficient to
ensure success and renown. Since God was for them, who or what could be against
them? (Monday Club Sermons.)
Hezekiah’s good reign
Heredity is fickle, or wicked Ahaz would not have had a son like Hezekiah. The piety of
the father does not necessarily involve the godliness of the son, nor does the iniquity of
the parent make virtue impossible in his posterity. Judah had no worse king than Ahaz,
and no better than Hezekiah. There are surprises of goodness in bad families, and of
wickedness in families which bear an honoured name. There is also a sweet word of hope
for the offspring of bad people. Hezekiah and Josiah were sons of such evil monsters as
Ahaz and Amon. The surroundings and character of Hezekiah supply useful lessons.
I. An evil environment. Hezekiah’s life boldly challenged and denied the supremacy of
circumstances, and emphasised the truth that real manhood rules circumstances, and is
not ruled by them.
1. Evil in the home. Ahaz contributed in the fullest measure possible, both by precept
and example, to the moral ruin of his family. Every form of heathenism he found in
the land he strenuously supported, and introduced new varieties of sin from other
lands. There is not a single virtuous thing recorded of him during his whole life. The
kindest thing he ever did was to die, and even that service was performed
involuntarily.
2. A corrupt nation. Evil was popular. The flowing tide of public sentiment was with
Ahaz, idolatry, and vice. The nation had lost its conscience. The last restraints of
decency and custom had been removed. There was not an institution in all the land
for the protection of youth,, and the young prince, and any other virtuous youth,
might say with literal truth, No man careth for my soul.
II. A splendid character. Untoward circumstances develop brave men. Battles and
storms make heroes possible.
1. Unwavering decision. “In the first month of the first year of his reign,” he set
about the work of reform (2Ch_29:3). He was only twenty-five years of age. But his
youth had been wisely spent, and when opportunity of great usefulness came, he was
ready.
2. Religious enthusiasm. He restored the purity and dignity of Divine worship
(verses 4-6). He went back to first principles; he dug down to the only sure
foundation of national strength. No nation can be strong whose temple doors are

closed.
3. Widespread success. His achievements were so great and complete, that he
eclipsed all the kings who preceded and succeeded him (verse 5). His trust was in the
Lord (verse 5), and his faith was honoured of God (verses 7, 8). Truly character is
above circumstances, and the history of this Jewish prince is a lesson of hope for the
young people of to-day. (R. W. Keighley.)
A just ruler a type of God
John Ruskin, in Stones of Venice, calls attention to the pleasing fact that in the year 813
the Doge of Venice devoted himself to putting up two great buildings—St. Mark’s, for the
worship of God, and a palace for the administration of justice to man. Have you ever
realised how much God has honoured law in the fact that all up and down the Bible He
makes the Judge a type of Himself, and employs the scene of a court-room to set forth
the grandeurs of the great judgment day? Book of Genesis: “Shall not the Judge of all the
earth do right?” Book of Deuteronomy: “The Lord shall judge His people.” Book of
Psalms: “God is Judge Himself.” Book of the Acts: “Judge of quick and dead.” Book of
Timothy: “The Lord the righteous Judge.” Never will it be understood how God honours
judges and court-rooms until the thunderbolt of the last day shall sound the opening of
the great assize—the day of trial, the day of clearance, the day of doom, the day of
judgment. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
The spiritual scores successes
Remember that flesh dies and spirit lives: in the long run, it is the spiritual that is
mighty. Think of that insignificant-looking little black-eyed Jew clanking his chains in
Rome, and writing to “the saints that are in Ephesus.” Think of Athanasius calmly facing
the Arian rabble. Think of Leo the Great consolidating a spiritual empire when the old
Roman civilisation was shattered and failing in ruins. Think of Augustine writing the
City of God in 410 when the world was thrilled with dismay because Rome had been
stormed by Alaric the Goth. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our
faith.” To be spiritual is to be already victorious.
The religious-the greatest of reforms
In his History of the Eighteenth Century, Mr. Lecky said: “Although the career of the
elder Pitt and the splendid victories by land and sea that were won during his ministry
formed unquestionably the most dazzling episodes in the reign of George II., they must
yield in real importance to that religious revolution which shortly before had begun in
England by the preaching of the Wesleys and Whitefield.” Methodism was the least
result of Wesley’s efforts, for, as Green the historian had said, “the noblest result of the
religious revival was the steady attempt which had never ceased from that day to this to
remedy the guilt, the ignorance, the physical suffering, and the social degradations of the
profligate and the poor.” Wesley preached and taught in his class-meetings and in his
journals the true application of the great saying of burke, that “whatever is morally
wrong can never be politically right.”—

2 He was twenty-five years old when he became
king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine
years.His mother’s name was Abijah[a] daughter
of Zechariah.
BAR ES, "Twenty and five years old was he - This statement, combined with
that of 2Ki_16:2, would make it necessary that his father Ahaz should have married at
the age of 10, and have had a child born to him when he was 11 years of age. This is not
impossible; but its improbability is so great, that most commentators suggest a
corruption in some of the numbers.
The Zachariah here mentioned was perhaps one of the “faithful witnesses” of Isaiah
Isa_8:2.
GILL, "Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign,.... Now as
Ahaz his father began to reign at twenty, and reigned sixteen, he must die at thirty six; so
that this son of his must be born to him when at eleven years of age, for only so many
years there be between twenty five and thirty six, which may seem wonderful; but, as
Grotius observes, Hezekiah had now entered into the twenty fifth year, and he might be
just turned of twenty four, and so his father might be twelve years of age at his birth:
besides, as it is usual for the divine historian to take away or add the incomplete years of
kings, Ahaz might be near twenty one when he began to reign, and might reign almost
seventeen, which makes the age of Ahaz to be about thirty eight; and Hezekiah being but
little more than twenty four, at his death there were thirteen or near fourteen years
difference in their age, and which was an age that need not be thought incredible for
begetting of children. Bochart (f) and others (g) have given many instances of children
begotten by persons under that age, even at ten years of age (h): four years after his
birth, the famous city of Rome began to be founded (i), A. M. 3256, and before Christ
748, as commonly received, though it is highly probable it was of a more early date;
according to Dionysius Halicarnassensis, it was founded in the first year of the seventh
Olympaid, in the times of Ahaz, A. M. 3118 (k):
and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem; so that he reigned twenty
three years or more after the captivity of the ten tribes:
his mother's name also was Abi the daughter of Zachariah; perhaps the
daughter of the same that was taken by Isaiah for a witness, Isa_8:3 who very probably
was a very good woman, and took care to give her son a religious education, though he
had so wicked a father.
COKE, ". Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign— In chap. 2
Kings 16:2 it is recorded, that Ahaz was but twenty years old when he began to

reign, and that he reigned sixteen years before he died, so that he lived in the whole
six and thirty years. ow his son Hezekiah is said to be five and twenty years old
when he began to reign, and consequently he must have been born when his father
exceeded not twelve years of age. Houbigant observes, that in the parallel place, 2
Chronicles 28:1 the Syriac, Arabic, and LXX read, Ahaz was twenty-five years old
when he began to reign.
PETT, "‘He was twenty five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned
twenty nine years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Abi the daughter of
Zechariah.’
We now learn that at twenty five years old Hezekiah became sole ruler and reigned
as sole ruler for a further twenty nine years (716-687 BC). (He had become co-
regent as soon as he had attained to ‘manhood’ when he was around thirteen years
of age). The name of the queen mother was Abi (short for Abijah) daughter of
Zechariah.
PULPIT, "Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign (on the
difficulties connected with this statement, and the best mode of meeting them, see
the comment upon 2 Kings 16:1); and he reigned twenty and nine years in
Jerusalem. So Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 10.3. § 1), and the author of Chronicles (2
Chronicles 29:1). He reigned fourteen years before his severe illness, and fifteen
afterwards. His mother's name also was Abi. Abi, "my father," is scarcely a possible
name. We must, therefore, correct Kings by Chronicles, and regard her true name
as Abijah, which menus "Jehovah is my father" (compare "Abiel"). The daughter
of Zachariah. Perhaps the Zechariah of Isaiah 8:2.
3 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord,
just as his father David had done.
BAR ES, "He did that which was right ... - This is said without qualification of
only three kings of Judah, Asa 1Ki_15:11, Hezekiah, and Josiah 2Ki_22:2. See some
details of Hezekiah’s acts at the commencement of his reign in 2 Chr. 29, etc. It is
thought that his reformation was preceded, and perhaps caused, by the prophecy of
Micah recorded in Jer_26:18; Mic_3:12.
CLARKE, "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord - In chap. 29

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.
GILL, "And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to
all that David his father did. Some of the kings of Judah, that were better than some
others, are said to do that which was right, but not like David; or they did as he did, but
not according to all that he did, as is here said of Hezekiah.
HE RY, "1. He was a genuine son of David, who had a great many degenerate ones
(2Ki_18:3): He did that which was right, according to all that David his father did,
with whom the covenant was made, and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of it. We
have read of some of them who did that which was right, but not like David, 2Ki_14:3.
They did not love God's ordinances, nor cleave to them, as he did; but Hezekiah was a
second David, had such a love for God's word, and God's house, as he had. Let us not be
frightened with an apprehension of the continual decay of virtue, as if, when times and
men are bad, they must needs, of course, grow worse and worse; that does not follow,
for, after many bad kings, God raised up one that was like David himself.
K&D, "2Ki_18:3-4
As ruler Hezekiah walked in the footsteps of his ancestor David. He removed the high
places and the other objects of idolatrous worship, trusted in Jehovah, and adhered
firmly to Him without wavering; therefore the Lord made all his undertakings prosper.
‫ּות‬‫מ‬ ָ ַ‫,ה‬ ‫ּית‬‫ב‬ ֵ ַ ַ‫,ה‬ and ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ (see at 1Ki_14:23) embrace all the objects of idolatrous worship,
which had been introduced into Jerusalem and Judah in the reigns of the former kings,
and more especially in that of Ahaz. The singular ‫ה‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ is used in a collective sense =
‫ים‬ ִ‫ר‬ ֵ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ (2Ch_31:1). The only other idol that is specially mentioned is the brazen serpent
which Moses made in the wilderness (Num_21:8-9), and which the people with their
leaning to idolatry had turned in the course of time into an object of idolatrous worship.
The words, “to this day were the children of Israel burning incense to it,” do not mean
that this took place without interruption from the time of Moses down to that of
Hezekiah, but simply, that it occurred at intervals, and that the idolatry carried on with
this idol lasted till the time of Hezekiah, namely, till this king broke in pieces the brazen
serpent, because of the idolatry that was associated with it. For further remarks on the
meaning of this symbol, see the Comm. on Num_21:8-9. The people called (‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫ק‬ִ ַ‫,ו‬ one
called) this serpent ‫ן‬ ָ ְ‫שׁ‬ ֻ‫ח‬ְ‫,נ‬ i.e., a brazen thing. This epithet does not involve anything

contemptuous, as the earlier commentators supposed, nor the idea of “Brass-god”
(Ewald).
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 18:3-6) Hezekiah’s righteousness.
And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father
David had done. He removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars, cut down
the wooden image and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for
until those days the children of Israel burned incense to it, and called it ehushtan.
He trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among
all the kings of Judah, nor who were before him. For he held fast to the LORD he
did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the LORD
had commanded Moses.
a. He did what was right in the sight of the LORD . . . He removed the high places:
Hezekiah was one of Judah’s most zealous reformers, even prohibiting worship on
the high places. These were popular altars for sacrifice set up as the worshipper
desired, not according to God’s direction.
i. “God was never happy about this practice, but none of the other good kings ever
found the courage to forbid it. Hezekiah did.” (Dilday)
b. And broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made: umbers 21:1-9
describes how during a time of a plague of fiery serpents upon the whole nation,
Moses made a bronze serpent for the nation to look upon and be spared death from
the snake bites. This statement in 2 Kings tells us that this particular bronze serpent
had been preserved for more than 800 years and had come to be worshipped as
ehushtan. Hezekiah, in his zeal, broke in pieces this bronze artifact and put and
end to the idolatrous worship of this object.
i. This bronze serpent was wonderful thing - when the afflicted people of Israel
looked upon it, they were saved. It was even a representation of Jesus Christ, as
Jesus Himself said in John 3:14-15. At the same time, man could take something so
good and so used by God and make a destructive idol out of it.
ii. In the same way, sometimes good things become idols and therefore must be
destroyed. For example, if the true cross of Jesus or His actual burial cloth were to
be discovered, and these objects became idolatrous distractions, then it would be
better for those objects to be destroyed. “Although it was an interesting memorial, it
must be utterly destroyed, because it presented a temptation to idolatry. Here if ever
in this world was a relic of high antiquity, of undoubted authenticity, a relic which
had seen its hundreds of years, about which there was no question as to its being
indisputably the very serpent which Moses made; and it was moreover a relic which
had formerly possessed miraculous power - for in the wilderness the looking at it
had saved the dying. Yet it must be broken in pieces, because Israel burned incense

to it.” (Spurgeon)
iii. God’s people must likewise be on guard against idolatry today. There are many
dangers of idolatry in the modern church:
· Making leaders idols
· Making education an idol
· Making human eloquence an idol
· Making customs and habits of ministry an idol
· Making forms of worship an idol
iv. The name ehushtan means “piece of brass” and is a way to make less of this
object that was made an idol. “So Hezekiah had it turned from an object of false
worship into scrap-metal.” (Wiseman)
v. “Such was the venom of the Israelitish idolatry, that the brazen serpent stung
worse than the fiery.” (Trapp)
c. He trusted in the LORD God of Israel, so that after him was none like him among
all the kings of Judah: Hezekiah was unique in his passion and energy of his
personal trust in God and for promoting the true worship of God. This is even more
remarkable when we consider that his father Ahaz was one of the worst kings Judah
had (2 Kings 16:10-20).
i. “It is remarkable that such a man as Hezekiah could be the son of Ahaz. Yet we
must remember that all his life he was under the influence of Isaiah.” (Morgan)
PETT, "‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, in accordance with all
that David his father had done.’
Hezekiah did what was right in the eyes of YHWH in accordance with all that David
had done. He was thus pleasing to YHWH. The ones who prior to this were spoken
of similarly were Asa (1 Kings 15:11), and by inference Jehoshaphat, who walked in
the ways of his father Asa (1 Kings 22:43). Compare also Josiah (2 Kings 22:2).
These were the ones whom YHWH especially blessed.
PULPIT, "And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all
that David his father did. Such unqualified praise is only assigned to two other kings
of Judah—Asa (1 Kings 15:11) and Josiah (2 Kings 22:2). It is curious that all three
were the sons of wicked fathers. Hezekiah was probably, at an early age, Brought
under the influence of Isaiah, who was on familiar terms with his father Ahaz
(Isaiah 7:3-16), and would be likely to do all that lay in his power to turn Hezekiah

from his father's evil ways, and to foster all the germs of good in his character.
4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred
stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke
into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for
up to that time the Israelites had been burning
incense to it. (It was called ehushtan.[b])
BAR ES, "He removed the high places - This religious reformation was effected
in a violent and tumultuous manner (marginal reference). The “high places,” though
forbidden in the Law (Deu_12:2-4, Deu_12:11-14; compare Lev_26:30), had practically
received the sanction of Samuel 1Sa_7:10; 1Sa_9:12-14, David 2Sa_15:32, Solomon 1Ki_
3:4, and others, and had long been the favorite resorts of the mass of the people (see
1Ki_3:2 note). They were the rural centers for the worship of Yahweh, standing in the
place of the later synagogue;, and had hitherto been winked at, or rather regarded as
legitimate, even by the best kings. Hezekiah’s desecration of these time-honored
sanctuaries must have been a rude shock to the feelings of numbers; and indications of
the popular discontent may be traced in the appeal of Rab-shakeh 2Ki_18:22, and in the
strength of the reaction under Manasseh 2Ki_21:2-9; 2Ch_33:3-17.
The brasen serpent - See the marginal reference. Its history from the time when it
was set up to the date of Hezekiah’s reformation is a blank. The present passage favors
the supposition that it had been brought by Solomon from Gibeon and placed in the
temple, for it implies a long continued worship of the serpent by the Israelites generally,
and not a mere recent worship of it by the Jews.
And he called it Nehushtan - Rather, “And it was called Nehushtan.” The people
called it, not “the serpent” ‫נחשׁ‬ nāchâsh, but “the brass,” or “the brass thing” ‫נחשׁתן‬
ne
chûshtān. Probably they did not like to call it “the serpent,” on account of the dark
associations which were attached to that reptile (Gen_3:1-15; Isa_27:1; Psa_91:13; etc.).
CLARKE, "Brake in pieces the brazen serpent - The history of this may be seen
in Num_21:8 (note), Num_21:9 (note).
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
‫נחש‬ nachash, to divine, and ‫תן‬ 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. ‫נחש‬ nachash
signifies to view, eye attentively, observe, to search, inquire accurately, etc.; and hence is
used to express divination, augury. As a noun it signifies brass or copper, filth, verdigris,
and some sea animal, Amo_9:3; see also Job_26:13, and Isa_26:1. It is also frequently
used for a serpent; and most probably for an animal of the genus Simia, in Gen_3:1
(note), 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 ‫נחש‬ 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, Gen_3:1, etc.,
does not signify a serpent of any kind; and that with a creature of the genus Simia the
whole account best agrees.
GILL, "He removed the high places,.... Which the best of the kings of Judah never
attempted, and which is observed of them to their discredit:
and broke the images, and cut down the groves; the idols his father set up and
served, 2Ki_16:4, groves and idols in them, were early instances of idolatry; See Gill on
Jdg_3:7, and their use for temples are still continued, not only among some Indian
nations (l), but among some Christians in the northern parts of Europe (m):
and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made; which he made
in the wilderness, and which was brought by the children of Israel with them into the
land of Canaan, and was kept as a memorial of the miracle wrought by looking to it,
being laid up in some proper place where it had been preserved to this day:
for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it not from the
time it was brought into Canaan, nor even in later times, in the days of Asa and
Jehoshaphat, who would never have suffered it; very probably this piece of idolatry
began in the times of Ahaz, who encouraged everything of that kind: for this serpent they
had a great veneration, being made by Moses, and a means in his time of healing the
Israelites; and they imagined it might be of some service to them, in a way of mediation
to God; and worthy of worship, having some degree of divinity, as Kimchi and Ben
Gersom; but Laniado (n) excuses them from all show of idolatry, and supposes what
they did was for the honour of God only; hence sprung the heresy of the Ophites,
according to Theodoret:
and he called it Nehushtan; perceiving they were ensnared by it, and drawn into
idolatry to it, by way of contempt he called it by this name, which signifies "brass";

suggesting that it was only a mere piece of brass, had no divinity in it, and could be of no
service to them in divine things; and, that it might no longer be a snare to them, he
broke it into pieces; and, as the Jews (o) say, ground it to powder, and scattered it to
every wind, that there might be no remains of it.
HE RY, "2. He was a zealous reformer of his kingdom, and as we find (2Ch_29:3) he
began betimes to be so, fell to work as soon as ever he came to the crown, and lost no
time. He found his kingdom very corrupt, the people in all things too superstitious. They
had always been so, but in the last reign worse than ever. By the influence of his wicked
father, a deluge of idolatry had overspread the land; his spirit was stirred against this
idolatry, we may suppose (as Paul's at Athens), while his father lived, and therefore, as
soon as ever he had power in his hands, he set himself to abolish it (2Ki_18:4), though,
considering how the people were wedded to it, he might think it could not be done
without opposition. (1.) The images and the groves were downright idolatrous and of
heathenish original. These he broke and destroyed. Though his own father had set them
up, and shown an affection for them, yet he would not protect them. We must never
dishonour God in honour to our earthly parents. (2.) The high places, though they had
sometimes been used by the prophets upon special occasions and had been hitherto
connived at by the good kings, were nevertheless an affront to the temple and a breach of
the law which required them to worship there only, and, being from under the
inspection of the priests, gave opportunity for the introducing of idolatrous usages.
Hezekiah therefore, who made God's word his rule, not the example of his predecessors,
removed them, made a law for the removal of them, the demolishing of the chapels,
tabernacles, and altars there erected, and the suppressing of the use of them, which law
was put in execution with vigour; and, it is probable, the terrible judgments which the
kingdom of Israel was now under for their idolatry made Hezekiah the more zealous and
the people the more willing to comply with him. It is well when our neighbours' harms
are our warnings. (3.) The brazen serpent was originally of divine institution, and yet,
because it had been abused to idolatry, he broke it to pieces. The children of Israel had
brought that with them to Canaan; where they set it up we are not told, but, it seems, it
had been carefully preserved, as a memorial of God's goodness to their fathers in the
wilderness and a traditional evidence of the truth of that story, Num_21:9, for the
encouragement of the sick to apply to God for a cure and of penitent sinners to apply to
him for mercy. But in process of time, when they began to worship the creature more
than the Creator, those that would not worship images borrowed from the heathen, as
some of their neighbours did, were drawn in by the tempter to burn incense to the
brazen serpent, because that was made by order from God himself and had been an
instrument of good to them. But Hezekiah, in his pious zeal for God's honour, not only
forbade the people to worship it, but, that it might never be so abused any more, he
showed the people that it was Nehushtan, nothing else but a piece of brass, and that
therefore it was an idle wicked thing to burn incense to it; he then broke it to pieces, that
is, as bishop Patrick expounds it, ground it to powder, which he scattered in the air, that
no fragment of it might remain. If any think that the just honour of the brazen serpent
was hereby diminished they will find it abundantly made up again, Joh_3:14, where our
Saviour makes it a type of himself. Good things, when idolized, are better parted with
than kept.
JAMISO , "2Ki_18:4-37. He destroys idolatry.
He removed the high places and brake the images, etc. — The methods
adopted by this good king for extirpating idolatry, and accomplishing a thorough

reformation in religion, are fully detailed (2Ch_20:3; 2Ch_31:19). But they are indicated
very briefly, and in a sort of passing allusion.
brake in pieces the brazen serpent — The preservation of this remarkable relic of
antiquity (Num_21:5-10) might, like the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, have remained
an interesting and instructive monument of the divine goodness and mercy to the
Israelites in the wilderness: and it must have required the exercise of no small courage
and resolution to destroy it. But in the progress of degeneracy it had become an object of
idolatrous worship and as the interests of true religion rendered its demolition
necessary, Hezekiah, by taking this bold step, consulted both the glory of God and the
good of his country.
unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it — It is not to be
supposed that this superstitious reverence had been paid to it ever since the time of
Moses, for such idolatry would not have been tolerated either by David or by Solomon in
the early part of his reign, by Asa or Jehoshaphat had they been aware of such a folly.
But the probability is, that the introduction of this superstition does not date earlier than
the time when the family of Ahab, by their alliance with the throne of Judah, exercised a
pernicious influence in paving the way for all kinds of idolatry. It is possible, however, as
some think, that its origin may have arisen out of a misapprehension of Moses’ language
(Num_21:8). Serpent-worship, how revolting soever it may appear, was an extensively
diffused form of idolatry; and it would obtain an easier reception in Israel because many
of the neighboring nations, such as the Egyptians and Phoenicians, adored idol gods in
the form of serpents as the emblems of health and immortality.
BE SO , "2 Kings 18:4. 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 ehushtan — Or rather, echushtan, 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.
COKE, "2 Kings 18:4. He removed the high places, &c.— It was a great
demonstration of Hezekiah's sincere piety and zeal towards 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, however, think that the surest way so 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. See 2 Chronicles 29 : &c. The reason why
Hezekiah destroyed the brazen serpent, we are told, was because the children of
Israel burned incense to it: not that we are to suppose, that all along, from the days
of Moses, this brazen serpent was made an object of religious worship. This is what
neither David, nor Solomon in the beginning of his reign, would have allowed of;
nor can we think but that Asa or Jehoshaphat, when they rooted out idolatry, would
have made an end of this, had they perceived that the people at that time either paid
worship or burned incense to it. The commencement of this superstition, therefore,
must be of later date; probably from the time that Ahab's family, by being allied to
the crown of Judah by marriage, introduced all kinds of idolatry. One false
inducement to the worship of this image, might be a mistake of the words of Moses,
umbers 21:8. Whosoever looketh upon it shall live, whence they might think, by its
mediation to obtain a blessing. However, we may imagine, that their burning
incense, or any other perfumes before it, was designed only in honour of the true
God, by whose direction Moses made it: but then, in process of their superstition,
they either worshipped the God of Israel under that image, or, what is worse,
substituted a heathen god in his room, and worshipped the brazen serpent as his
image; which they might the more easily be induced to do, because the practice of
some neighbouring nations was, to worship their gods under the form of a serpent.

Upon this account Hezekiah wisely chose, rather to lose this memorial of God's
wonderful mercy, than to suffer it any longer to be abused to idolatry; and therefore
he brake it in pieces, that is, as the Talmudists express it, "He ground it to powder,
and then scattered it in the air, that there might not be the least remains of it." And
yet, notwithstanding all the care which he took to destroy it, Sigonius, in his history
of Italy, tells us, that in the church of St. Ambrose in Milan, they shew a brazen
serpent intire, which they pretend to be the very same with that erected by Moses in
the wilderness; though it must be owned, that among their learned men there are
some who acknowledge the cheat, and disclaim it. See Le Clerc, and Prid. Connect.
A. 726. Parkhurst observes, that the name ehushtan, ‫,נהשׁתן‬ seems a compound of
‫נחשׁ‬ nichesh, to divine, and ‫תן‬ ten, a serpent, and so denotes the divining spirit; and
therefore, he thinks the passage should be rendered: Hezekiah brake the serpent of
brass which Moses made, because even to those days the children of Israel were
burning incense to it, and called it ehushtan. So the Targum renders the latter part
of the verse, and they were calling it ehushtan. This implies, that the children of
Israel had so far perverted the use of this eminent type of Christ, as to apply to it for
magical purposes, as the heathens did to their sacred serpents, or serpentine images;
and that therefore Hezekiah brake it. Houbigant translates in the same manner.
ELLICOTT, "(4) He removed.—He it was who removed. According to this
statement, Hezekiah made the Temple of Jerusalem the only place where Jehovah
might be publicly worshipped. (Comp. 2 Kings 18:22, and the fuller account in 2
Chronicles 29:3-36.)
Brake the images.—Shattered the pillars (1 Kings 14:23; Hosea 3:4; 2 Chronicles
14:2).
The groves.—Heb., the Asherah. It should probably be plural, the Asherim, as in 2
Chronicles 31:1, and all the versions here. (See ote on 2 Kings 17:16.)
Brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made.—The attempt of Bähr and
others to evade the obvious force of this simple statement is quite futile. It is clear
that the compiler of Kings believed that the brasen serpent which Hezekiah
destroyed was a relic of the Mosaic times. (See the narrative in umbers 21:4-9, and
the allusion to the fiery serpents in Deuteronomy 8:15.) His authority may have been
oral tradition or a written document. In ancient Egypt the serpent symbolised the
healing power of Deity; a symbolism which is repeated in the Græco-Roman myth of
Æsculapius. When Moses set up the Brasen Serpent, he taught the people by means
suited to their then capacity that the power of healing lay in the God whose prophet
he was—namely, Jehovah; and that they must look to Him, rather than to any of the
gods of Egypt, for help and healing. (Kuenen does not believe in the great antiquity
of this relic. Yet the Egyptian and Babylonian remains which have come down to
our time have lasted many centuries more than the interval between Moses and
Hezekiah; and some of them were already ancient in the Mosaic age. Our own
Doomsday Book is at least as old as the brasen serpent was when it was destroyed.
There is really no tangible historical ground for this extreme unwillingness to admit

the authenticity of anything attributed by tradition to the authorship and
handiwork of Moses.)
And he called it.—Rather, and it was called. Literally, and one called it. The
impersonal construction, like the German man nannte.
ehushtan.—The popular name of the serpent-idol. It is vocalised as a derivative
from nĕ’hôsheth, “brass,” or “copper;” but it may really be formed from nâ‘hâsh,
“serpent,” and denote “great serpent” rather than “brass-god.” (Comp. the term
Leviathan, Job 3:8.) Further, although the word is certainly not a compound of nĕ
‘hôsheth, “copper,” and tân (i.e., tannîn), “serpent,” this may have been the popular
etymology of the word. (Comp. the proper name, ehushta, 2 Kings 24:8.)
ISBET, "HEZEKIAH’S REFORMS
‘He removed the high places.’
2 Kings 18:4
It is a mark of Hezekiah’s breadth of mind that he sought to unite the kingdoms in
their worship. We read in Chronicles of his attempt to draw Israel and Judah
together for a Passover. And though much ridicule was poured upon him, yet that
Passover was actually held, amid such scenes of enthusiastie zeal as even Jerusalem
had rarely witnessed.
I. The first lesson we are taught is how a good son may come from a bad home.—
That home must have been a very den of vileness which had a man like Ahaz at the
head of it. There were many worthless kings on David’s throne, but there were few
if any who were worse than Ahaz, and Ahaz was Hezekiah’s father. There had been
kings distinguished for their courage, though they were sadly wanting in their piety;
but Ahaz was as far from being brave as he was from being a worshipper of God—
and it was under the control of such a father, and within the influence of such a
home, that Hezekiah ripened to his manhood. Eli had been a holy man, yet his two
sons were terribly degraded. Ahaz was one of the wickedest of men, yet his son was
a bright example of true goodness. From which we learn that you do not explain
everything by harping on the one word environment, for sometimes, into the good
olive tree, there is grafted that which would be wild by nature. Let us never forget
what Hezekiah had to contend with in his youth. He was not encircled with
examples such as make goodness beautiful. And it adds to our admiration of the
man, and of the noble stand he made for God and righteousness, to think how little
he owed to these sweet influences which have had such quiet power in moulding us.
If it was possible for this boy to be good, then it is possible for every boy to be good.
There is no excuse to think they would be better, had they been born and bred in
different homes. The grace of God can save and keep so mightily, even within a
home like that of Ahaz, that the child shall be sheltered in the evil day, and grow
into the strength of Hezekiah.
II. We ought to note how Hezekiah gave to spiritual things the foremost place.—We
read in Chronicles how in the first year of his reign he set about the renovation of

the Temple. There was a vast deal lying to be done, and Hezekiah was not the man
to shirk it. There was an army to reorganise, and an emptied treasury to fill again.
Yet the first concern of the king was not the taxes, nor was it the re-creating of his
forces; his first concern was the worship of Jehovah and the honour that was due
unto His name. It is always the mark of a great and noble mind that it sees things in
their relative proportions. Greatness can seize the things that really matter, however
they be obscured to other eyes. And this is one sign of Hezekiah’s greatness that,
with so many matters clamouring for attention, he should have given his first and
freshest thought to what concerned the worship of Jehovah. Are there not
multitudes who place religion among the things they will see to by and by? Some
day they fully intend to be religious, but meantime they are otherwise engaged.
There is no more tragical mistake than that—none more certain to issue in
disaster—none that more surely brings the life to ruin by inverting the true order of
its interests. ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added
unto you.’ That was the course which Hezekiah took, and for him it was most
literally true. or will it prove itself less true for us, with tasks to do that are quite
commonplace, and battles to fight of which no one ever hears.
III. We learn that good things may become a snare.—We read that Hezekiah
ground to powder the Brazen Serpent of the wilderness. What sacred memories
clustered round that emblem! It was one of the most precious relics of the past. It
had been fashioned by Moses when the people were dying, and in a look at it there
had been life. But this very sacredness became its peril, for the people had begun to
worship it, and had grown to regard it with an awe and reverence that were the just
prerogatives of God. It was for that reason that Hezekiah destroyed it. It was very
precious, yet it was doing harm. Better that it should be ground to powder, than
prove a stumbling-block to any little ones. Was it not actions such as this that Jesus
thought of, when He said, ‘If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out: for it is better
that one member should perish than that the whole body should be cast into hell?’
Illustrations
(1) ‘The worship of relics has in all ages been a favourite form of superstition and
idolatry. Men have sought in old bones, in locks of hair, in the fancied blood of
martyrs, and a thousand other sources, the blessings which they can find only in
God.’
(2) ‘By that act of the reforming Hezekiah, recorded in the Word of God, we are
taught to endure nothing in religion but what God has appointed. If ever there was
a case where respect for relics could have been sanctioned, it was in regard to that
symbol or type of Christ which Hezekiah destroyed. But no! it had become a snare,
and must perish; it was put in God’s place, and inexorable destruction was
therefore its doom.’
PETT, "Verses 4-8
Summary of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kings 18:4-8).

2 kings 18 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to 2 kings 18 commentary

Similar to 2 kings 18 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2 kings 18 commentary