- 125-
** The suggestion of a solar eclipse (made by Mr. Bosanquet in the Journal of the As.
Soc. Vol. 15.), which seems adopted by Canon Rawlinson (Speaker's Comment.), who
ascribes to Isaiah a "supernatural fore-knowledge" of the event, is untenable, even on the
ground that it would imply a supernatural influence on Hezekiah in his choice of the
retrogression of the shadow.
It is not difficult to perceive the symbolical significance of this sign. As Isaiah had been
commissioned to offer to Ahaz "a sign" of the promised deliverance, and to leave him the
choice of it, "either in the depth or in the height above" (Isaiah 7:11), so here a similar
alternative was presented to Hezekiah. As Ahaz in his trust in natural means and his
distrust of Jehovah had refused, so Hezekiah in his distrust of natural means and trust of
Jehovah asked for a sign. And lastly, even as Hezekiah had feared that his life-day would
have ended in its mid-day hour, so now, when it was to be lengthened, did the falling
shadow climb up again the ten steps to its mid-day mark.
But there are also deeper lessons to be learnt from this history. The change in the
announcement of what was to befall Hezekiah, in answer to his prayer, is of eternal
meaning. It encourages us "always to pray" - not excluding from the range of our
petitions what are commonly called "things temporal." And yet the very idea of prayer
also excludes any thought of the absolute certainty of such answer as had been primarily
contemplated in the prayer. For prayer and its answer are not mechanically, they are
morally connected, just as between Isaiah's promised sign and its bestowal, the prayer of
the prophet intervened (2 Kings 20:11). As miracle is not magic, so prayer is not
necessitarianism; and on looking back upon our lives we have to thank God as often for
prayers unanswered as for prayers answered.
Yet another lesson connected with the change in the message which Isaiah was to bring
to Hezekiah has been already noted by Jerome. There is widest bearing in this remark of
his (on Ezekiel 33), that it does not necessarily follow because a prophet predicts an event
that what he had predicted should happen. "For," as he adds, the prophet "did not predict
in order that it might happen, but lest it should happen." And the immutability of God's
counsels is not that of fatalism, but depends on the continuance of the circumstances
which had determined them.
This may help us to understand another and in some respects more difficult question.
Evidently alike the announcement of Hezekiah's untimely death and its revocation were
determined by his relation towards God. This would in turn have its important bearing
upon the conduct of the king in the coming Assyrian war, which concerned not only
Hezekiah personally, but the whole Davidic line and the fate of Judah itself. But the
lessons taught the king first by his danger and then by his restoration were precisely those
which Hezekiah needed to learn if, obedient to the admonitions of Isaiah, and believing
the promise of the LORD, he was consistently to carry out the will of Jehovah amidst the
temptations and difficulties of the Assyrian invasion. This, not only because he had had
(^)