Isaiah 37:10

Isa_37:10

Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee

A piece of satanic advice

I.

LET US WEIGH THIS PIECE OF SATANIC ADVICE. It is a very dangerous temptation for three reasons.

1. Because it appeals to the natural pride of the heart. There is a universal instinct which makes a man abhor the idea of being deceived. There is something in the very idea which rouses all the pride that lies latent in every heart.

2. There is no disguising the fact that if God did deceive us we are in a hopeless plight, and therefore there is force in the temptation.

3. The methods of Gods government being beyond our comprehension, sometimes appear to incline towards the tempters suggestion,--from appearances one might say, God is going to leave us in the lurch.

II. LET US TURN ROUND AND TEAR THE ADVICE UP.

1. We may tear it up because it comes too late. If God be a deceiver we are already so thoroughly deceived, and have been so for years, that it is rather late in the day to come and advise us not to be.

2. We may tear it up, because if God deceive us we may be quite certain that there is nobody else that would not. From all we know of our God, His holiness, His righteousness, and His faithfulness, if He can deceive us, then are we quite certain that there are none to be trusted

3. There is not one atom of evidence to support the libel. Search the world through, and see if you can find a man who will deliberately say, I have tried God, I have trusted Him, and He has deceived me.

4. There is overwhelming evidence to refute it. Never yet did man trust his God and be put to shame. Heaven and earth and hell declare that Jehovah never hath deceived and never can deceive. (A. G. Brown.)

Sennacherib versus Jehovah

Never before in his experience had Sennacherib heard of a God who could resist his progress; he believed in the almighty power of Asshur. (B. Blake, B. D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Thus God would have him to utter a most horrible blasphemy before his destruction: as to call the author of all truth, a deceiver: some gather hereby that Shebna had disclosed unto Sennacherib the answer that Isaiah sent to the king.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

He tries to influence Hezekiah himself, as Rab-shakeh had addressed the people.

God . . . deceive--(Compare Num 23:19).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

10–13. Sennacherib’s letter to Hezekiah. It is in substance a repetition of the chief argument of the Rabshakeh, with the unimportant modification that Hezekiah is here regarded as deceived by his God, while the Rabshakeh chose to represent him as a deceiver of his people.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly,.... He boasts of the achievements of himself and his ancestors, and of more than was true; and which, if it had been true, was more to their disgrace than honour, namely, utterly to destroy kingdoms, and their inhabitants, to gratify their lusts; but though many had been destroyed by them, yet not all; not Ethiopia, whose king was come out to make war with him, and of whom he seems to be afraid; nor Egypt, which was in confederacy with Ethiopia; nor Judea, he was now invading; but this he said in a taunting way, to terrify Hezekiah:

and shalt thou be delivered? canst thou expect it? surely thou canst not. Is it probable? yea, is it possible thou shouldest be delivered? it is not; as sure as other lands have been destroyed, so sure shall thine.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Let not thy God deceive thee - The similar message which had been sent by Rabshakeh Isa 36:14-15 had been sent mainly to the people to induce them not to put confidence in Hezekiah, as if he would deceive them by leading them to rely on the aid of Yahweh. As that had failed, he, as a last resort, sent a similar message to Hezekiah himself, designed to alienate his mind from God, and assuring him that resistance would be vain. To convince him, he referred him Isa 37:11-13 to the conquests of the Assyrians, and assured him that it would be impossible to resist a nation that had subdued so many ethers. He had it not in his power to add Egypt to the list of subdued kingdoms, or it would have been done.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10-13. Sennacherib, in his arrogance and ignorance, again insults the God of Israel by lowering him to the grade of the national gods around, and boasts of the great things his predecessors had done.

Gozan — Situated on the Chaboras — the river Chebor of Ezekiel — which flows from the north into the Euphrates.

Haran — Farther west than “Gozan.” From here Abram went to Canaan.

Children of Eden — If by this is meant the tribe of Eden, (see Eze_27:23,) situated on the border of Media, which is not unlikely, then a long curve of territory was made by Sennacherib to denote the extensiveness of Assyrian conquest. Nobody now knows where Hena or Ivah lay.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee. Sennacherib recognized Jehovah as a god, the God of the Jews, but put him on a par with the other "gods of the nations" (ver. 11), and (lid not believe in his being able to contend with Asshur. If he were really, through his priests or prophets, giving Hezekiah assurances of protection and deliverance, he could only be "deceiving" him.

The God in whom we trust.

To trust in God

I OUGHT TO SEEM TO US THE MOST SIMPLE AND NATURAL THING.

1. All power is his. We shrink from weakness as a support, but we lean our whole weight on strength with perfect willingness and readiness: and it is Almighty God; it is he to whom "all power is given in heaven and on earth," who invites our confidence.

2. All wisdom is his. Power without wisdom may lead astray, may work more harm than help: it is the only wise God "who asks us to put our trust in him.

3. All kindness is his. Power with wisdom but without love might be arrayed against us, might overwhelm us with confusion: it is the God whose "new, best Name is love," that offers us the shelter of his wing.

4. All faithfulness is his. Love that might last but a little while is of little worth; it might change into indifference or even into hatred and hostility: it is the "Father of lights with whom is no variableness," it is "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever," who says to us, "Come unto me," "Trust in me," "Abide in me," "Cast all your care on me." Surely it should be the simplest, the most natural, thing to yield instant and eager response to the Divine invitation, and to put our heart"s whole trust in "the Lord our God." Yet to trust in him

II IS MUCH MORE RARE THAT IT SHOULD BE. Do we find men leaning on God, and so leaning on him that their hearts are full of peace, of spiritual rest, of hope, of heavenly joy? Is "the God in whom we trust" a phrase that has as large and lull a meaning to our minds as it should have? Is not a living, sustaining, rejoicing trust in God a comparatively rare, rather than a constant and universal thing, even in Christian hearts? And why is it so, if so it be? Is it not because we allow ourselves to be so sadly imposed upon by the temporal and the superficial? We persist in representing to ourselves that the visible, the audible, the tangible, the material, is the real, the, true, and the substantial. We, who walk by faith and not by sight, whose life is spiritual, who are citizens of heaven, ought to understand that it is this which is illusive, evanescent, unreal, and that the invisible, the intangible, the eternal, is the real and the reliable; we ought to know and to realize that he, whom not having seen we love, the invisible but ever-present, the almighty and never-failing, Saviour, is the One who is worthy of our confidence, and in the deepest and fullest sense it should be true that it is the Lord in whom we trust.

III IS A PRIVILEGE OF WHICH WE NEED TO AVAIL OURSELVES CONTINUALLY.

1. In prosperity, for Gods sake. For God wills that we should be ever trusting in him, "in whom are all our springs," and from whom we derive everything we enjoy. To trace our well-being to ourselves, and to trust in the arm of flesh instead of referring all to the living God, brings down his deep displeasure. (see Deu_10:8-18)

2. In adversity, for our own sake. For then God alone can help and save us. We ourselves shall have failed; misfortune, disaster, will have baffled and beaten us; our friends will fail us; human sympathy and succour will avail somewhat, but it will leave much more undone than it will do. Divine interposition alone will supply our need the pity of the Divine Friend; the help of the heavenly Father; the ministry of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter and the Sanctifier of the hearts of men. C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The message. "Thus shall ye say to Hizkiyahu king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem will not be given into the hand of the king of Asshur. Behold, thou hast surely heard what (K. that which) the kings of Asshur have done to all lands, to lay the ban upon them; and thou, thou shouldst be delivered?! Have the gods of the nations, which my fathers destroyed, delivered them: Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the Benē-‛Eden, which are in Tellasar? Where is (K. where is he) the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of 'Ir-Sepharvaim, Hena', and 'Ivah?"Although ארץ is feminine, אותם (K. אתם), like להחרימם, points back to the lands (in accordance with the want of any thoroughly developed distinction of the genders in Hebrew); likewise אשׁר quas pessumdederunt. There is historical importance in the fact, that here Sennacherib attributes to his fathers (Sargon and the previous kings of the Derketade dynasty which he had overthrown) what Rabshakeh on the occasion of the first mission had imputed to Sennacherib himself. On Gozan, see p. 33. It is no doubt identical with the Zuzan of the Arabian geographers, which is described as a district of outer Armenia, situated on the Chabur, e.g., in the Merasid. ("The Chabur is the Chabur of el-Hasaniye, a district of Mosul, to the east of the Tigris; it comes down from the mountains of the land of Zuzan, flows through a broad and thickly populated country in the north of Mosul, which is called outer Armenia, and empties itself into the Tigris." Ptolemy, on the other hand (Isa 37:18, Isa 37:14), is acquainted with a Mesopotamian Gauzanitis; and, looking upon northern Mesopotamia as the border land of Armenia, he says, κατέχει δὲ τῆς ξηώρας τὰ μὲν πρὸς τῆ Αρμενία ἡ Ανθεμουσία (not far from Edessa) ὑφ ἥν ἡ Χαλκῖτις ὑπὸ δὲ ταύτην ἡ Γαυζανῖτις, possibly the district of Gulzan, in which Nisibin, the ancient Nisibis, still stands.

(Note: See Oppert, Expdition, i. 60.)

For Hrn (Syr. Horon; Joseph. Charran of Mesopotamia), the present Harrn, not far from Charmelik, see Genesis, p. 327. The Harran in the Guta of Damascus (on the southern arm of the Harus), which Beke has recently identified with it, is not connected with it in any way. Retseph is the Rhesapha of Ptol. v. 18, 6, below Thapsacus, the present Rusafa in the Euphrates-valley of ez-Zor, between the Euphrates and Tadmur (Palmyra; see Robinson, Pal.). Telassar, with which the Targum (ii. iii.) and Syr. confound the Ellasar of Gen 14:1, i.e., Artemita (Artamita), is not the Thelseae of the Itin. Antonini and of the Notitia dignitatum - in which case the Benē-‛Eden might be the tribe of Bt Genn (Bettegene) on the southern slope of Lebanon (i.e., the 'Eden of Coelesyria, Amo 1:5; the Paradeisos of Ptol. v. 15, 20; Paradisus, Plin. v. 19) - but the Thelser of the Tab. Peuting., on the eastern side of the Tigris; and Benē-‛Eden is the tribe of the 'Eden mentioned by Ezekiel (Eze 27:23) after Haran and Ctesiphon. Consequently the enumeration of the warlike deeds describes a curve, which passes in a north-westerly direction through Hamath and Arpad, and then returns in Sepharvaim to the border of southern Mesopotamia and Babylonia. 'Ir-Sepharvaim is like 'Ir-Nchs, 'Ir-shemesh, etc. The legends connect the name with the sacred books. The form of the name is inexplicable; but the name itself probably signifies the double shore (after the Aramaean), as the city, which was the southernmost of the leading places of Mesopotamia, was situated on the Euphrates. The words ועוּה הנע, if not take as proper names, would signify, "he has taken away, and overthrown;" but in that case we should expect ועוּוּ הניעוּ or ועוּיתי הניעתי. They are really the names of cities which it is no longer possible to trace. Hena' is hardly the well-known Avatho on the Euphrates, as Gesenius, V. Niebuhr, and others suppose; and 'Ivah, the seat of the Avvı̄m (Kg2 17:31), agrees still less, so far as the sound of the word is concerned, with "the province of Hebeh (? Hebeb: Ritter, Erdk. xi. 707), situated between Anah and the Chabur on the Euphrates," with which V. Niebuhr combines it.

(Note: For other combinations of equal value, see Oppert, Expdition, i. 220.)

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

“Thus shall ye say to Hezekiah, king of Judah, Let not thy God deceive thee, in whom thou trustest, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.” This recognition of Hezekiah’s royal dignity, of which Rabshakeh seemed to take no notice, if significant at all, as some interpreters imagine, may be accounted for upon the ground, that in this message the design of the Assyrian was not to destroy the people’s confidence in Hezekiah, but the king’s own confidence in God. For the same reason, Sennacherib’s blasphemy is much more open and direct than that of Rabshakeh. The word saying may be referred either to Hezekiah or to God. The English Version makes the last construction necessary, by changing the collocation of the words; but many others understand the sense to be, ‘in whom thou trustest, saying’. On the whole, it is best, in a case so doubtful, to retain the Hebrew collocation with all its ambiguity.

Joseph Addison Alexander, The Prophecies of Isaiah (1846–1847; New York: Scribner, 1870–1878) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

trustest

(See Scofield "Psa 2:12")

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.