A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 35: As Birds Flying

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 35: As Birds Flying 

In 2 Samuel chapter 24, a census ordered by David had been conducted by Joab, and Joab had counted eight hundred thousand men of fighting age in Israel, and five hundred thousand in Judah. But it seems that the numbers of the children of Israel who had remained within the bounds of the kingdom had been diminished during the period of the Davidic Kingdom, and there may have been several reasons for that. So only two generations later, after the dividing of the kingdom, Rehoboam raised only a hundred and eighty thousand men out of Judah to fight against Israel, as it is described in 1 Kings chapter 12. However in the time of David, Israel had subjected all of the lands from the River of Egypt which was south of Judah and northwards as far as the “entering in of Hamath”, which is evident in the description of the feast of Solomon that is found in the closing verses of 1 Kings chapter 8.

During his time of conquest, David placed garrisons of troops all throughout the subjected neighboring territories, which would have been necessary to maintain control. So, for example, in 2 Samuel chapter 8 we read “6 Then David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus: and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.” Then a little further on in the same chapter: “14 And he put garrisons in Edom; throughout all Edom put he garrisons, and all they of Edom became David's servants. And the LORD preserved David whithersoever he went.” In subsequent chapters of the books of Kings and Chronicles, very little is said about these garrisons, but they must have remained so long as Judah maintained control over those subject nations, and there must have been many other garrisons throughout the lands which he had subjected or he would not have been able to keep those lands. That would be one factor affecting the ability of Rehoboam to raise troops from Judah, because many of them had evidently been relocated to garrisons throughout the subject states.

But when the kingdom was divided, it is evident that over the subsequent decades, the control of the subject states and even the garrisons within them was not always stable. So in 2 Kings chapter 14 we read what is essentially a passing remark which was made in the description of the death of Jeroboam II which says: “28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?” The “entering in of Hamath” can only be a reference to the Orontes River, from which Hamath had been accessible by sea. This means that from the time of David until the time of the rise of the Assyrian empire and its encroachment on the Levant, Israel had controlled the coasts of the Levant as far north as the egress of the Orontes, which is further north than Hamath itself, and for a time, that territory was regained by Jeroboam II, who ruled Israel until his death, around 742 BC. But around the time of his death, Jeroboam II had once again lost this territory to the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III.

In Assyrian inscriptions, Shalmaneser III is attested as having taken Hamath for Assyria, some time after 845 BC, since he had defeated the king of Damascus and “12 kings of the seacoast” who had sent armies against him in that year, the fourteenth year of his rule. [1] That is why Jeroboam had taken the coasts as far as Hamath for Israel, since Judah had lost them to the Assyrians. Then Tiglath-Pileser III retook Hamath in the third year of his reign, or some time around 742 BC, and placed it under Assyrian tribute once again, which is described in his own inscriptions. But there is a minor discrepancy, because in his inscriptions we read, in part:

19 districts of Hamath, together with the cities of their environs, which (lie) on the shore of the sea of the setting sun, which had gone over to Azariah, in revolt (lit., sin) and contempt of Assyria, I brought within the border of Assyria. [2]

Perhaps the Assyrians only suspected that Hamath broke away and joined themselves to Azariah, or Uzziah, who ruled Judah until around 758 BC, because he was not familiar with Jeroboam and would have had no direct communications with any of these parties, since they were his enemies. It was Azariah who ruled Judah for much of the time of the rule of Jeroboam, and perhaps the assumption was made that Hamath had been returned to Judah, rather than Israel, so he recorded what he had perceived. However the Assyrians were able to distinguish the difference between Israel and Judah at that time. So in another inscription of the same Assyrian king who had taken Hamath from Judah, we read in part that “10,000 foot soldiers of Ahab, the Israelite” had been part of a confederacy of nations who, early in the reign of Shalmaneser III, attempted to stop the Assyrian conquests in the Levant, but were defeated. This also elucidates the fact that although there is no record in Scripture, Israel and the subject states in the north, namely Damascus and Hamath, had been engaging with the Assyrians as early as the time of Ahab, who ruled Israel from about 874 to 853 BC by the same general chronology [3].

But in any event, as we have said, the discrepancy in the inscription of Shalmaneser III is minor, and the Biblical record is the more accurate one in this regard, being a more direct source for what had transpired in Judah and Israel. So Hamath belonged to Judah for about a hundred and fifty years, it was lost to Assyria for a hundred years, it was then regained by Jeroboam II for Israel for as long as fifty years, and it was lost once again in 742 BC, after which it was never recovered.

By that time, countless Israelites who had relocated or who had been stationed as troops within the territories to the north of Israel, which, from their outsider perspective, the Assyrians had perceived as the lands of the Amorites and Syrians, were either killed in battle or had been taken into captivity. Then during the time of Tiglath-Pileser III and his successors, Shalmaneser V and Sargon II, Israel proper was invaded and most of the people remaining in Israel had also gone into captivity. So we see this struggle between Assyria and Israel and Judah is over a hundred and fifty years old by this time, which is the time of Hezekiah and the Assyrian invasion of Judah which, according to the same popular chronologies, had taken place about 701 BC. This entire situation also explains the consternation of Jonah the prophet, whose ministry must have preceded the time of Jeroboam II, and he must have gone to Nineveh during or not much later than the time of Shalmaneser III and very likely even before Jeroboam II had become king of Israel.

While we have some of this information in Scripture, and what we have is found to be in general agreement with the archaeological records, we do not have much information about those outlying areas which the Israelites had settled and controlled. We would assert that the primary reason for that is because the Scripture itself focuses mostly on Israel and Judah in relation to the governments in Jerusalem and Samaria and how their policies had affected the people of Israel proper, which is the land of the twelve tribes as it was divided in the days of Joshua. The fact that Assyrian records mention fighting with the forces of Ahab, while there is no mention of that in Scripture, is an explicit example proving that assertion. For the same reason, perhaps Montana, North Dakota or New Mexico would not be mentioned in a history of the American wars of the 20th century, none of which were fought within the United States itself. An exception might be found if some soldier or government official from one of those states had distinguished himself, but that would only be a passing remark.

So now, at this point in the prophetic ministry of Isaiah, the Assyrians have invaded Judah itself, perhaps about a hundred and fifty years after they had first invaded the outlying territories which had once belonged to Judah. Invading Judah, they have already taken into captivity over two hundred thousand men, women and children, ostensibly they would have killed an unknown number of others in battle, and for the most part, only Jerusalem and its inhabitants remain, all of which we have seen described in Isaiah chapter 36. So Hezekiah, king of Judah, is deprived of at least most of his potential armies, and the ambassadors of the Assyrians who spoke to his officers, as it is recorded in that chapter, were described as having mocked him, insinuating that he would not be able to provide even two thousand men in order to mount a cavalry. This portrays a Jerusalem which is nearly helpless in the face of the mighty Assyrian army, and Hezekiah must have been left scrambling for resources which could not have been sufficient.

As we have seen in our discussion of Isaiah chapter 36, titled The Assyrian Captivity of Judah, Hezekiah had already been a tributary and had not only rebelled against the Assyrians, but had even plotted against them by making a league with the pharaoh of Egypt and other rebellious cities in the Levant, such as the people of Ekron, things which we had seen documented in Assyrian inscriptions in the course of our discussion. While the Scripture informs us that the people of Judah of this time had turned to Egypt, it says nothing of Ekron, whose deposed king, Padi, Hezekiah had even kept in jail. This is another explicit example of events in outlying areas, in which Judah or Israel are involved, but which are never mentioned in Scripture.

These things had placed Hezekiah himself in great peril, in spite of the fate of Jerusalem. Even if he submitted to the Assyrians, it is very likely that, on account of his recent treachery against them, he would have been deposed and his house would have been removed. There are many precedents for this prospect in the history of his own time. For example, only about twelve years before this time, in the eleventh year of the reign of Sargon II, we read in a surviving inscription of the annals of that king the following, in part: “Azuru, king of Ashdod, plotted in his heart to withhold (his) tribute and sent (messages) of hostility to the kings round about him. Because of the evil he had done, I put an end to his rule over the people of his land and set up Ahimitu, his full brother, as king over them.” [4]

These same acts were committed by Hezekiah, in which he had followed virtually the same pattern as the earlier acts of Azuru king of Ashdod, and Hezekiah would almost certainly have suffered the same fate, so he could not bring himself to submit to the Assyrians: he was truly left with nowhere to turn. But while it may be said that he had no choice but to turn to his God, many men may have hardened their hearts with pride and insolence and sought to save themselves. So Hezekiah had made the right decision, and confronted with these circumstances, as Isaiah chapter 37 opens he is portrayed as having humbled himself and turning to Yahweh his God:

1 And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of the LORD. 

As we had left off in Isaiah chapter 36, Rabshakeh finished addressing Hezekiah’s officers and we read: “21 But they held their peace, and answered him not a word: for the king's commandment was, saying, Answer him not. 22 Then came Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, that was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rabshakeh.” We do not know for what reason Hezekiah had sent his officers to hear out the Assyrians with instructions not to answer them, but we may imagine that if he had not sent them at all, perhaps the Assyrians would have immediately put the city under siege. It is evident that at this time, they are still outside the gates, and perhaps they still hope to hear an affirmative answer. But now, rather than sending his officers back to the Assyrians, he sends them to Isaiah the prophet. So even if Hezekiah had not been mentioned by Isaiah for 14 years, he must have known Isaiah as a man of God:

2 And he sent Eliakim, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests covered with sackcloth, unto Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. 3 And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth. 

The words “for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth” seem to be an ancient idiom expressing the fact that the people are helpless in the face of the present distress.

The translation of this passage in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible also begins verse 3 in like manner, “And they said to him…” But as we shall see in verse 5, at this point the officers are only hearing what Hezekiah had told them to say, and they are not yet in the presence of Isaiah himself so they could not yet have said anything to him. The Septuagint also has the clause, although Brenton had placed it at the end of verse 2. But it would be more accurate if it had been translated “that they would say to him”, meaning Isaiah, and it may indeed say that, if we ignore the rabbinical vowel points which were added at a much later time. Now Hezekiah is still speaking to his officers where it continues in verse 4, and he seems to also be relaying this to Isaiah through his officers, where he is asking Isaiah to pray for what is left of Judah in Jerusalem:

4 It may be the LORD thy God will hear the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God, and will reprove the words which the LORD thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that is left. 

This statement which he made to his officers seems to represent a prayer on the part of Hezekiah, but his message to Isaiah reflects a hope that the man of God would join him in that prayer. As we have discussed in relation to chapter 36, the Rabshakeh of Assyria had reproached Yahweh the God of Judah on several occasions, first where he had mistaken the altars of the idols which Hezekiah had torn down as the altars of Yahweh, and the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem as the altar of some idol. Then he blasphemed again where he made the claim that Yahweh had spoken directly to him, saying: “the LORD said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.” But he blasphemed even more so in verse 15 where he rather boastfully declared that Yahweh would not be able to deliver Jerusalem from the hand of the Assyrians. He continued that boast in verses 18 through 20 where he concluded and asked “Who are they among all the gods of these lands, that have delivered their land out of my hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?” So here Hezekiah had prayed that Yahweh Himself had observed this blasphemy, and would avenge His Name, for the sake of Himself if not for the sake of Hezekiah and the people of Jerusalem.

Now, in spite of the text of verse 3 where we read “and they said unto him”, in the verse which follows, which is verse 5, it is evident that these words were not yet spoken to Isaiah, but these were the words which Hezekiah instructed his officers to convey when they did meet with Isaiah. But first we must have a digression.

While we did not make a note of it when we presented chapter 36, in that chapter there are several remarks which should be discussed. In Isaiah 36:5, as the King James Version has it, there is a parenthetical remark added to the words of Rabshakeh, which states “but they are but vain words”. But this is not translated as a parenthetical remark in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, where the verse reads: “Do you think that words alone equate to counsel and strength for battle? Now in whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me?” This translation correlates with that of Brenton in the Septuagint, but the discrepancy is with the King James translators rather than in the Masoretic Text itself.

Then in Isaiah 36:7 the Septuagint has only the words “But if ye say, We trust in the Lord our God;” and the context continues into verse 8 where it reads “yet now make an agreement with my lord the king of the Assyrians…” However in both the King James Version and the Dead Sea Scroll identified as 1QIsaiah^a, there is an additional clause at the end of verse 7 which the King James Version translates as “is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?” The editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible have a note at this passage which explains the presumably additional text as an interpolation and says “The Septuagint is probably original, while the other traditions have inserted a typically Deuteronomistic theological commonplace.”

With this we do not have to agree, since they have no evidence that the text was not simply dropped on account of a simple scribal error in the Septuagint or in the source manuscripts which were used for that translation. The Hexapla of Origen indicates that the lengthy clause is found in his own copies of the Hebrew text, as well as the Old Latin and the other Greek translations, those of Aquila of Sinope, Symmachus and Theodotian. [5] Since the addition represents a fallacy, because Hezekiah removed the altars of the pagan idols and not the altar of Yahweh, as Rabshakeh had charged, it is highly unlikely that some later scribe had added it as a so-called “Deuteronomistic theological commonplace”. That situation would only be probable if the statement was not a fallacy.

Now to continue with Isaiah chapter 37, after Hezekiah’s officers had received their instructions we read:

5 So the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah. 

Here we must imagine that they repeated to Isaiah the words which Hezekiah had given them in verse 3, and probably also verse 4, although the text of that verse may only have been an utterance to his officers which was not necessarily meant for Isaiah. Otherwise, the officers would also have had to present an account of the words of Rabshakeh to Isaiah, that he could also have understood the context. That they may have done. In light of Isaiah’s reply, it is more likely that they had done so, unless Isaiah himself happened to have been one of the bystanders on the wall:

6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say unto your master, Thus saith the LORD, Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. 

This is Hezekiah’s prayer fulfilled, and now the prophecy of Isaiah chapter 31, where Yahweh had promised to defend Jerusalem Himself, “as birds flying”, shall also be fulfilled, although here it is described in different terms:

7 Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. 

The Hebrew word translated as rumour here is שׁמועה or shemuah (Strong’s # 8052), which is defined in Strong’s Concordance as “something heard, i.e. an announcement”. Gesenius has a message, tidings and then secondarily instruction, teaching, doctrine and finally a rumour, citing 2 Chronicles 9:6 [10]. While rumour may be appropriate in the context of its use in 2 Chronicles chapter 9, it is certainly not appropriate here, and should rather have been translated as report. The word translated as blast is רוח or ruwach (# 7307), and it could simply describe wind but it is also the same word which is more often translated as spirit. 

We are not told that the officers of Hezekiah had bothered relating any of this to the Assyrians, and for them to have done so seems quite unlikely. The enemies of God deserve no explanation, as even Christ Himself had not found His enemies worthy of a response once they reproached and blasphemed Him. So the notice here, that Rabshakeh returned, is most likely only an observation which is unrelated to the discourse between Isaiah and the officers of Hezekiah. In any event, we now read:

8 So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. 

Here it is possible, that the Assyrians in their presentation of the “booty of Lachish” did not reckon the booty which they had obtained from Libnah nor any other cities they may have taken later. Both the Scriptural record and the Assyrian inscriptions are incomplete, so it is hard to obtain the full picture and a full account of everything which had transpired. Therefore, it is also apparent that more than the two hundred thousand captives of the booty of Lachish must have been taken from Judah. From this time, Libnah is not again mentioned in Scripture, and I have not yet found any mention of the city in Assyrian inscriptions. But now there is a statement which seems on the surface to challenge the order of events as we have presented them thus far in this section of our commentary:

9 And he heard say concerning Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, He is come forth to make war with thee. And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying, 

With this we shall pause. Here in Isaiah the fenced cities of Judah had already been taken. In 2 Kings chapter 18, after the cities were taken, which is described in verse 13, then Hezekiah is portrayed as having admitted offense and submitting to the king of Assyria, in verse 14. So it seems that these events are not completely recorded here in Isaiah, and it is some time earlier than this that Hezekiah could have submitted to the king of Assyria. His submission must have been made at an earlier time, because as the events of Isaiah chapters 36 and 37 are described, the fenced cities have already been taken, and it is too late for Hezekiah to hope to submit himself once again to the Assyrians. He is past that possibility, and can only appeal to Yahweh his God for relief, which is the point we are at here in Isaiah chapter 37.

In the Assyrian records which we had cited in our discussion of Isaiah chapter 36, the Assyrian king was at Ekron, and had encountered the Egyptian army which he had conquered in the plain of Eltekah, which was near to Ekron, before the invasion of Judah and the taking of the forty-six cities. But the name, or perhaps, the title Tirhakah is not mentioned at that point in the Assyrian inscriptions. That name, if it was indeed treated as a personal name here in Isaiah, is only mentioned in later inscriptions of Esarhaddon, who ruled Assyria from about 680 BC, immediately after the death of Sennacherib. The historical Tirhakah, or Taharqa as it is also spelled, was a king of Kush who had ruled Egypt from about 690 to 664 BC, according to the popular Egyptian chronologies. So his mention here, if this is the same as the historical Tirhakah, may also be a result of the ten-year problem which we have reconciling Assyrian chronology with the chronology of Scripture.

As for the fact that the Assyrians had defeated an Egyptian army at Ekron, which must have been some time before this point in Isaiah, it is possible, that this report received by the king of Assyria while he is at Libnah is of a subsequent incursion by Egypt, in response to the defeat suffered by the earlier Egyptian army at Eltekah while the Assyrians were at Ekron, although this subsequent incursion is not found in the surviving Assyrian inscriptions of the time. However if there was only one incursion into Palestine by the Egyptians, which is the one that failed at Eltekeh, then Padi must have been returned to Ekron by Hezekiah at some point before this time, which is also not described in either Scripture or the inscriptions.

Otherwise, the sequence of events as they are described in 2 Kings chapter 18, especially in verses 13 and 14, are difficult to properly reconcile with the sequence of events presented here in Isaiah. History, whether it be in the chronicles of Scripture or in those of ancient inscriptions, is rarely if ever presented in a perfectly chronological sequence. But as we have presented it, the forty-six fenced cities were taken, Hezekiah feared for Jerusalem, sent an embassy to the king of Assyria, where he probably also returned Padi the king of Ekron, paid Sennacherib the gold he sought, but something was still wrong and Sennacherib was not satisfied. So at that point, agreeing here with Isaiah chapter 36, Rabshakeh was sent to Jerusalem but he did not receive an answer, and now he has departed. This corresponds to the accounts in 2 Kings 18:13-37.

In 2 Kings chapter 19, the officers of Hezekiah are sent to Isaiah, and then we see an account much like we have here in verses 8 and 9 where we read: “8 So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah: for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. 9 And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee: he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying,” and at that point we see what we have here in verse 10. So the Egyptians, after their defeat at Eltekah, must have made a second foray subsequent to that defeat, and here Sennacherib blamed it on Hezekiah, and he sent this message, where he now instructs his officers a second time:

10 Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah king of Judah, saying, Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. 

In his earlier embassy to Jerusalem, Rabshakeh had already accused Hezekiah of having been in league with Egypt, where he addressed his officers at the wall of Jerusalem in Isaiah chapter 36. Now this second message for Hezekiah continues, in the same boastful manner:

11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly; and shalt thou be delivered? 12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed, as Gozan, and Haran, and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Telassar? 13 Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arphad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? 

This was also a reproach of Yahweh, even if it was more subtle than the threats which had earlier been issued by Rabshakeh. It once again makes the challenge that Yahweh the God of Judah is as helpless as the idols of the other nations.

Where we read of “the children of Eden which were in Telassar” the Septuagint has only “which are in the land of Theemath”, referring back to the places which had previously been mentioned, Gozan, Haran and Rezeph and wanting any reference to the “children of Eden”. But the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible generally agrees with the translation of the Masoretic Text represented in the King James Version, only having people in place of children. The Hebrew text has “sons of Eden”, the word עדן or eden (# 5729) being the same word which was used in the early chapters of Genesis. However eden means delight or pleasure, or as a noun pleasantness, and this use of the word here is not a reference to the Garden of Eden described in Genesism so it would be better to translate it as a common word, not as a proper noun. 

Of some of the other places mentioned here, Haran was a town in northern Syria, just north of the river Euphrates, which was the original homeland of Abraham. The name Rezeph, or modern Resafa, seems to describe Rasappa, which is one spelling by which it may be known from inscriptions, and which is a town of central Syria mentioned in the inscriptions of Shalmaneser IV and elsewhere [6, 7]. While Gozan is the name of a river, and one of the places to which the deported children of Israel had been taken, as it is described in 2 Kings chapters 17 and 18, Guzana was also the name of a town and a district in Mesopotamia, to which a governor had been assigned. [8] The name Sepharvaim (Strong’s # 5617) means “the two Sipparas”, which was evidently a city which straddled the Euphrates River north of Babylon. Finally, Telassar seems to have been a reference to Til-Assur, a place later mentioned by Esarhaddon, who left an inscription which said: “I trod under foot the wicked Barnakeans,—inhabitants of Til-Assur, who in the tongue of the people of Mihranu are named Pitaneans.” [9]

So in this address Sennacherib had boastfully expressed the same confidence, based on his past successes, that Rabshekah had already boasted of in his name at the gates of Jerusalem, and now he has sent to essentially only repeat those boasts once again to Hezekiah.

14 And Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it: and Hezekiah went up unto the house of the LORD, and spread it before the LORD. 

So this time, rather than an announcement at the wall of the city, Hezekiah received the message personally from the king, in writing. Perhaps in that manner, the king would be assured that he had ample opportunity to hear it, without its having been changed or diluted by Hezekiah’s own officers, which is always a possibility with third parties. So once again, Hezekiah made an appropriate decision, where he chose to respond to these renewed threats by continuing his petitions to Yahweh his God:

15 And Hezekiah prayed unto the LORD, saying, 16 O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth. 17 Incline thine ear, O LORD, and hear; open thine eyes, O LORD, and see: and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach the living God. 18 Of a truth, LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations, and their countries, 19 And have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone: therefore they have destroyed them. 20 Now therefore, O LORD our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the LORD, even thou only. 

Of course, the reference to “all the nations” could include only those nations with whom the Assyrians had fought and subjected. In the Septuagint the word is οἰκουμένη where Brenton has world, however the word οἰκουμένη does not describe the planet, but rather, only that portion inhabited by the society of men, and here that is the same portion which had also been mostly conquered by the Assyrians. Likewise that defines “all the kingdoms of the earth”. In the Biblical context, it is only the Genesis 10 nations which mattered, and the races outside of the sons of Noah are not a consideration.

The phrase “between the cherubims” evokes the presence of God at the mercy seat, which was situated atop of the ark of the covenant between a cherub which was fixed at each end. So this evokes the mercy of God. Making that appeal, Hezekiah also acknowledges the fact that the gods of the nations were only useless idols, but professes that Yahweh is truly the God who rules over them all. His appeal is not made on behalf of himself or the people, but rather, it is made on behalf of the truth of God.

In the last clause here we read “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the LORD, even thou only.” This makes little sense if the name of Yahweh did not have a meaning, which is ostensibly the “I am” or the “existing one”. So hearing Hezekiah’s words here, the connotation is a plea that all nations know that the God of Judah is “the Existing One” whereas all other gods are mere idols.

Now, although it is not evident that Isaiah was present in the temple when Hezekiah had uttered this prayer, he nevertheless receives an answer through the prophet. That alone must have convinced him that Isaiah truly is a man of the existing God:

21 Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent unto Hezekiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Whereas thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib king of Assyria: 

Now what is presented is an address from Yahweh, through the prophet Isaiah, directed at Sennacherib himself, regardless of whether or not he had actually ever heard it.

22 This is the word which the LORD hath spoken concerning him; The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee. 23 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? and against whom hast thou exalted thy voice, and lifted up thine eyes on high? even against the Holy One of Israel. 

This answer reflects the attitude that the children of Judah should have had towards the Assyrians, and not the attitude which they necessarily had up to this point. On account of Yahweh their God, they should despise and scorn their enemies, and even mock them, or as it is here, they “despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn”. This is the same attitude which the children of Israel should have towards their enemies today, the Jews and all of the non-White races, as they flood their formerly Christian lands seeking whom they may devour. But that scorn and derision must be on account of Yahweh their God, and not on account of their own strength, which is also being drained by their much more numerous enemies.

Yahweh continues addressing Sennacherib through the prophet, showing his actions had personally offended Him:

24 By thy servants hast thou reproached the Lord, and hast said, By the multitude of my chariots am I come up to the height of the mountains, to the sides of Lebanon; and I will cut down the tall cedars thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof: and I will enter into the height of his border, and the forest of his Carmel. 25 I have digged, and drunk water; and with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of the besieged places. 

The word Carmel should have been translated, rather than having been read as a place name, since a כרמל or karmel (# 3760) is a planted field, and therefore a garden, orchard or park, according to Strong’s Concordance. So “the forest of his garden” would be more appropriate here. In the Septuagint, as Brenton has it, it is “forest region”, which agrees with the Greek translation of the passage. 

Now Yahweh takes credit for the things which Sennacherib must have thought that he had accomplished on his own, or by the hand of his own idols:

26 Hast thou not heard long ago, how I have done it; and of ancient times, that I have formed it? now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste defenced cities into ruinous heaps. 

These things had been appointed by Yahweh, and were prophesied as early as Isaiah chapter 10 where we read in part “ 5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.” However they were also prophesied much earlier than that, through the mouth of Balaam the son of Beor, who had spoken in reference to Israel as it is recorded in Numbers chapter 24, and observing some of their surrounding enemies he said, in part: “22 Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.” We must read that to mean that the Kenite would lay wasted, or perhaps, be in poverty and without power, until Israel would be carried away captive. Asshur, the son of Shem in Genesis chapter 10, is the eponymous ancestor of the Assyrians, a word which is everywhere in Scripture translated from the Hebrew word אשׁור or Asshur.

Now because Yahweh decreed the fate of Assyria as an empire, along with their conquests, He also takes credit for diminishing the other nations of the οἰκουμένη, or inhabited earth which they had conquered:

27 Therefore their inhabitants were of small power, they were dismayed and confounded: they were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the housetops, and as corn blasted before it be grown up. 

However the Assyrians despised the gods of their enemies, and that included Yahweh the God of Israel, not knowing that He truly was God:

28 But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy rage against me. 29 Because thy rage against me, and thy tumult, is come up into mine ears, therefore will I put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest. 

This correlates with the earlier prophecy of the purpose of Assyria in Yahweh’s plan for Israel and Judah, where we read in Isaiah chapter 10: “12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks. 13 For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man: 14 And my hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are left, have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped. ” This is a dialog, so now Yahweh answers to this attitude of the king of Assyria: “15 Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood. 16 Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire.” When the axe boasted itself against “him that heweth therewith” it became of no more use to the hewer, so it was with the Assyrian.

So Yahweh would employ the Assyrians, the rod of His anger, to punish the children of Israel, and when He had accomplished that, He would in turn employ the children of Israel to help destroy Assyria, something which would be fulfilled about 90 years after the failed Assyrian siege of Jerusalem. Therefore at this very point, Yahweh announced that He is finished with Assyria, as the words of Isaiah chapter 10 are fulfilled where the Assyrian has vaunted himself against Yahweh, the axe has boasted against the hewer, and from here they shall descend the path to the destruction which they had been assured in that same chapter of Isaiah.

But now Yahweh gives Hezekiah a sign, that for two growing seasons the children of Judah in Jerusalem will not be able to plant, and would have to forage for their food.

30 And this shall be a sign unto thee, Ye shall eat this year such as groweth of itself; and the second year that which springeth of the same: and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof. 

This describes two missed opportunities to plant, which, depending on when in the course of the year that this prophecy had been made, could have been as little as twelve or thirteen months, if the year is approaching a planting season here. So in the next planting season, which seems to be approaching “this year”, the children of Judah would only eat whatever grows of itself. Surely not all the grain or fruit is successfully retrieved in any harvest, so some would fall to the ground, and the seeds would sprout in the following Spring and come up during that next year. But they would also miss planting the following Spring, which indicates that the Assyrian siege must have prevented them from planting for at least that long.

So in consequence of their survival, Yahweh continues with a message of hope:

31 And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: 32 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of mount Zion: the zeal of the LORD of hosts shall do this. 

But where He said “out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant”, this seems to be an early indication of a future captivity. The Babylonian captivity would be expressed in more explicit terms in a prophecy made to Hezekiah in the closing verses of Isaiah chapter 39, but is also forewarned rather enigmatically in Isaiah chapters 13 and 14 and the Burden of Babylon.

Now Yahweh speaks to Hezekiah and reassures him in the face of the immediate circumstances:

33 Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, nor cast a bank against it. 34 By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the LORD. 

We cannot know much about the precise events of Sennacherib’s impending siege of Jerusalem, as we shall see. However an army doesn’t simply rush upon and storm a city as formidable as Jerusalem, and especially in the position where Jerusalem was situated, atop of a mountain ridge and having strong walls which encompassed seven high hills. The city was at an elevation of about 2,500 feet, while Lachish and Libnah were much closer to sea level. Approaching the city, the Assyrians would cut off access to the fields which the people in Jerusalem must have relied upon for planting. They would also probably strip those fields so that they themselves could eat. But they would not be able to storm the city immediately. They would instead be occupied for a time with preparing siege engines, which they would have to build, preparing for the digging of tunnels to undermine the city’s walls, and whatever else they had to plan or prepare in advance. Such preparations, along with moving all of the troops and equipment into place, may have taken an ancient army weeks or even months to complete. So here Yahweh assures Hezekiah that before such preparations are complete, before the Assyrians are actually able to begin their offensive, they would be turned back and driven away.

So he concludes:

35 For I will defend this city to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake. 

This is the fulfillment of the “as birds flying” prophecy of Isaiah chapter 31, where Isaiah had written: “4 For thus hath the LORD spoken unto me, Like as the lion and the young lion roaring on his prey, when a multitude of shepherds is called forth against him, he will not be afraid of their voice, nor abase himself for the noise of them: so shall the LORD of hosts come down to fight for mount Zion, and for the hill thereof. 5 As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it.” Likewise, this is where Yahweh had said earlier in Isaiah chapter 37 that “7 Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his own land…” and also a little later in this chapter where we read: “29 … therefore will I put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.”

So now, without any further information, we read:

36 Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. 

From the text of Isaiah, we can assume that this happened shortly after these words were spoken, however in 2 Kings chapter 19 they are portrayed as having happened immediately after Isaiah had conveyed them to Hezekiah, where we read: “35 And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.” However this seems unlikely, because if this happened immediately, Sennacherib must still have been in Libnah, or perhaps en route to Jerusalem from Libnah. But it also seems unlikely, on account of the prophecy which says that the children of Judah at Jerusalem would have to forage for their food for two years, in which it is apparent that they would be constrained from planting. On the surface, it is reasonable that the only reason that they would have been constrained from planting is if the Assyrian presence had prevented them.

So in spite of the interpretation in the King James Version, examining the Hebrew phrase in 2 Kings 19:35 which reads ויהי בלילה or veyhei balila, only means “and it happened at night”, and not necessarily that night. The Greek of the Septuagint reads, as Brenton had translated it, “and it came to pass at night”, which is also not necessarily that night. There certainly was a siege at Jerusalem, which prevented the people from planting for two years, but one night before any offensive against the city could be launched, Yahweh God Himself had destroyed a significant part of the Assyrian army, which compelled Sennacherib to raise the siege and return to Nineveh.

On account of this, in the same inscriptions which recorded the Annals of Sennacherib which we had followed up to this point when we had discussed Isaiah chapter 36 and the Assyrian Captivity of Judah, where we had left off with the taking of the forty-six fenced cities of Judah by the Assyrians, the very next event which the inscription describes is this failed siege. However Sennacherib attempted to portray it as a victory, rather than admitting a defeat, in a remarkably early example of what is now called “political spin” where he had continued speaking of Hezekiah and said:

As for him (Hezekiah), I confined him inside the city Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I set up blockades against him and made him dread exiting his city gate. [So the people of Judah could not plant. - WRF] I detached from his land the cities of his that I had plundered and I gave (them) to Mitinti, the king of the city Ashdod, and Padî, the king of the city Ekron, (and) Ṣilli-Bēl, the king of the land Gaza, (and thereby) made his land smaller. To the former tribute, their annual giving, I added the payment (of) gifts (in recognition) of my overlordship and imposed (it) upon them.

As for him, Hezekiah, fear of my lordly brilliance overwhelmed him and, after my (departure), he had the auxiliary forces (and) his elite troops whom he had brought inside to strengthen the city Jerusalem, his royal city, thereby gaining reinforcements, (along with) 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, choice antimony, large blocks of …, ivory beds, armchairs of ivory, elephant hide(s), elephant ivory, ebony, boxwood, garments with multi-colored trim, linen garments, blue-purple wool, red-purple wool, utensils of bronze, iron, copper, tin, (and) iron, chariots, shields, lances, armor, iron belt-daggers, bows and uṣṣu-arrows, equipment, (and) implements of war, (all of) which were without number, together with his daughters, his palace women, male singers, (and) female singers brought into Nineveh, my capital city, and he sent a mounted messenger of his to me to deliver (this) payment and to do obeisance. [11]

Of course, this is not the account which we have in Scripture. In light of the actions of Hezekiah, and the way that other kings of the region had been treated much more harshly for similar actions, the political spin is evident and therefore it indirectly favors the Biblical accounts.

Now, bearing in mind that Yahweh had spoken in reference to Sennacherib and said, as it is recorded in verse 7 of this chapter, that “… I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land”, we shall read the final verses of the chapter:

37 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh. 

For reasons which we shall explain, I would esteem this to be the last verse of the chapter which actually could have belonged to Isaiah, or to a scribe who lived during his life. But there is one more verse as we have it today:

38 And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer his sons smote him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Armenia: and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead. 

This last verse of the chapter certainly seems to be a later interpolation. Using the popular date for the fall of Samaria for an anchor, which is 721 BC, the event was said to have occurred in the sixth year of Hezekiah king of Judah, in 2 Kings chapter 18. Counting back from that, Hezekiah would have begun his rule no later than 726 BC, and his father Ahaz, who ruled for 16 years, in 742 BC. Earlier in this commentary, we had commented that the death of Ahaz was within one year of the time of the death of Tiglath-Pileser III, who must have also died around 726 BC. That is evident, where his successor Shalmaneser V ruled for only five years, and Samaria fell in the first year of Sargon II, who had followed him on the throne. Therefore if Ahaz began his rule in 742 BC, as those records suggest, Jotham his predecessor must have began his own sixteen-year rule in 758 BC. So 758 BC is the year that Azariah king of Judah, who is also called Uzziah, had died after having ruled for 52 years, and the ministry of Isaiah had begun some time towards the end of his rule. The surviving Assyrian records indicate that Sennacherib ruled until 681 BC, and it seems highly unlikely that Isaiah had lived that long, from earlier than 758 to later than 681, in order to write this himself.

By all popular accounts, Esarhaddon, one of the sons of Sennacherib, came to rule in his place in 680 BC. Sennacherib is esteemed as having died in 681 BC. The space of the year is accounted in one of the earlier inscriptions of Esarhaddon, which attests that he was the youngest of his father’s sons, and that in spite of that, he was hand-picked by his father to be his successor, and then he described a fight over his father’s throne, in which he had prevailed, as his brothers had become alienated from him.

So he wrote that when he had moved into the palace of the crown prince, “(When) the real meaning (of this act) dawned upon my brothers, they abandoned godliness, put their trust on bold actions, planning an evil plot. They originated against me slander, false accusation, (whatever is) disliked by the gods, and constantly were spreading evil, incorrect and hostile (rumors) behind my back. (Thus) they alienated from me—against the will of the gods—the heart of my father which was (formerly) friendly, (though) in the bottom of his heart there was (always) love (for me) and his intentions were (always) that I should become king.” Then he explained that the gods “made me stay in a hiding place in the face of (these) evil machinations” and “They (even) drew weapons in the midst of Nineveh (which is) against (the will of) the gods, and butted each other—like kids—to take over the kingship. Thereupon, my brothers went out of their senses, doing everything that is wicked in (the eyes of) the gods and mankind, and (continued) their evil machinations.” [12] But in all that, he did not describe the death of his father. He only proceeded to describe the fight against his brothers in which he had ultimately prevailed.

In a later, heavily fragmented inscription, we read the following:

[As for me], who was submissive to the will (lit., heart) of my father, since the gods were not angry with me, and his heart was … and mercy had taken possession of him so that his mind (lit., ears) was set [upon my accession (to power)], … and moved my soul. [My brothers … trusting] in their own counsel, … committed unwarranted [acts]. Their evil … my prayer, … they received my supplication … before the evil deed … their kindly protecting shadow … me for the kingship … everything which toward the gods … they plotted evil … they rejected. The gods … above. (Short break in text.) 

They revolted (?). To gain the [kingship] they slew [Sennacherib, their father.] Assur, Sin, Shamash, Bel (Marduk) and Nabu, Ishtar of Nineveh, Ishtar of Arbela, looked with disfavor upon the deed of the villains which was committed in defiance of the will of the gods and did not aid them (lit., come to their side). But they [the gods - WRF] brought their forces to utter confusion (lit., possession by demons) and made them submit themselves to me. [13]

So it seems that the Scripture is correct, even if it is only partly corroborated in the poorly preserved Assyrian records. Therefore, without any reliance on Scripture, the details of the death of Sennacherib continue to remain obscure. However in a later inscription of Ashurbanipal, the son of Esarhaddon, we read the following:

I tore out the tongues of those whose slanderous mouths had uttered blasphemies against my god Ashur and had plotted against me, his god-fearing prince; I defeated them (completely). The others, I smashed alive with the very same statues of protective deities with which they had smashed my own grandfather Sennacherib—now (finally) as a (belated) burial sacrifice for his soul. I fed their corpses, cut into small pieces, to dogs, pigs, ztbu-birds, vultures, the birds of the sky and (also) to the fish of the ocean. After I had performed this and (thus) made quiet (again) the hearts of the great gods, my lords, I removed the corpses of those whom the pestilence had felled, whose leftovers (after) the dogs and pigs had fed on them were obstructing the streets, filling the places (of Babylon), (and) of those who had lost their lives through the terrible famine. [14]

The editors of Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament, our source for this inscription, explained that the inscription was chosen to be included in that volume “To illustrate the still mysterious circumstances of the death of Sennacherib”. So after the death of Esarhaddon, his son corroborates, at least in part, his fragmented account of the death of his father. But once again, the truth of Isaiah is upheld by archaeology. 

This concludes our commentary on Isaiah through chapter 37. 

Footnotes

1 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume I: From the Earliest Times to Sargon, Daniel David Luckenbill, Ph.D., University of Chicago Press, 1926, pp. 240 and 247.

2 ibid., pp. 275-276.

3 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament 3rd edition, James Pritchard, editor, 1969, Harvard University Press, p. 279.

4 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume II: From Sargon to the End, Daniel David Luckenbill, Ph.D., University of Chicago Press, 1926, p. 13.

5 Origenis Hexaplorum, Fridericus Field, AA. M., Volume II, Clarendon Press, 1875, p. 500.

6 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament, p. 274.

7 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume II, pp. 432-439.

8 ibid., pp. 433-438.

9 ibid., pp. 207, 213.

10 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, pp. 833-834.

11 Sennacherib 004, Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus, http://oracc.org/rinap/rinap3/ Q003478, accessed June 20th, 2025. 

12 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament, p. 289.

13 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume II: Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End, Daniel David Luckenbill, Ph.D., University of Chicago Press, 1926, pp. 200-201.

14 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament, p. 288.