- 113-
- In reference to the nations mentioned in 2 Kings 18:34,,Arpad, mentioned in the Bible
(comp. also Isaiah 10:9; Jeremiah 49:23) and in the Assyrian monuments in connection
with Hamath, was a considerable and powerful Syrian town with adjacent territory,
probably the modern Tell Erfad, about three hours north of Aleppo. Hamath and
Sepharvaim - the twain Sipar - have been previously referred to. From its conjunction
with the latter place, we infer that Hena was a city in Babylonia, probably the modern
Anat, four days' journey from Bagdad, on both banks of the Euphrates. The locality of
Ivvah, or Avvah (2 Kings 17:24, 31), has not been ascertained; but it was probably also a
city of Babylonia. All these places were conquered by Sargon; but there is nothing
inconsistent with this in the reference to them by the Rabh-Shakeh as affording evidence
of the supreme power of Assyria.
It was an argument calculated, indeed, to influence heathens, to whom the question was
as to the comparative power of gods, to be decided by outward results. But the very
essence of Hebrew conviction lay in this, that there was none other God than Jehovah. It
is this which constitutes the victory over that which is seen, but on which the men of the
world ever deceive themselves in their ignorance of the power of a faith which is based
on personal experience. And thus what in their view would seem the strongest argument
in their appeal to "common sense" is in reality its refutation. It was in this spirit that the
people on the wall of Jerusalem obeyed the injunction of Hezekiah, and answered not a
word to the Assyrian.
It was wise and right in the representatives of Hezekiah to bring their report of this
interview with clothes rent (2 Kings 8:37); wise and right also on the part of the king to
share in this token alike of mourning and humiliation (compare 1 Kings 20:32; 2 Kings
6:30), as in a great public calamity. It identified Israel with its LORD, and made public
recognition that every blasphemy of Him was a public crime and calamity, and hence a
call to public mourning.*
- The Talmud appeals to this passage as proof that every one who hears a blasphemy or
who hears it reported, is bound to rend his garment (Moed. Q. 26a). The general direction
is given in Sanh vii. 5; in the Gemara on this Mishnah (Sanh. 6oa), it is inferred from 2
Kings 2:12, where the same expression is used, but with the addition "in two pieces," that
every such rent is to be permanent. In regard to the rent for blasphemy, it is ruled that the
name Jehovah must have been expressly used, whether by Jew or Gentile, but that this
had no longer application after the dispersion of Israel, as otherwise a person might have
his clothes full of rents.
It was in such garb that the king went into the Temple to make his appeal to Jehovah. In
this garb also did he send his former delegates to the Rabh-Shakeh, together with "the
elders," probably the chief officials, of the now reformed priesthood,* to Isaiah to
bespeak his prayers.**
(^)