E. The Reign of Hezekiah
28. The Drunkards of Ephraim and the Foolish
S. Amsler and 0. Mury, “Yahweh et la sagesse du paysan.
Quelques remarques sur Esa’ie 28,23-29”; RHPR 53(1973)1-5;
G. R. Driver, “‘Another Little Drink’-Isaiah 28:1-22,” Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to D. W. Thomas (ed. P. R.
Ackroyd and B. Lindars; London: Cambridge University Press, 1968)47-67; C. Exum, “Isaiah 28-32: A Literary Approach,” SBL 1979 Seminar Papers (ed. P. Achtemeier;
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), vol. 2, 123-51 = Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature (ed. D. J. A. Clines et al.;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982)108-39; K. Fullerton, “The Stone of the Foundation,” AJSL 37(1920)1-50; W. W. Hallo, “Isaiah 28:9-13 and the Ugaritic Abecedaries,” JBL 77(1958)324-38; S.
H. Hooke, “The Corner-Stone of Scripture,” The Siege PeriZous (London: SCM Press, 1956)235-49; W. H. Irwin, Isaiah 28-33: Translation with Philological Notes (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977)1-43; L. Koehler, “Zwei Fachwijrter der Bausprache in Jesaja 28,16,” TZ 3(1947)390-93; J. Lindblom,
“Der Eckstein in Jes. 28:16,” Interpretationes ad Vetus Testamenturn Sigmundo Mowinckel (Oslo: Forlayet Land og Kirke, 1955)123-32; 0. Lore& “Das Prophetenwort iiber das Ende der Konigstadt Samaria (Jes. 28:1-4),” UF 9(1977)361-63;
P. G. Mosca, “Isaiah 28:12e: A Response to J. J. M. Roberts,”
H7’R 77(1984)113-17; D. L. Petersen, “Isaiah 28, a Redaction Critical Study,” SBL 1979 Seminar Papers (ed. P. Achtemeier;
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979), vol. 2, 101-22; G. Pfeiffer,
“Entwohnung und Entwohnungsfest in-t Alten Testament:
Der Schliissel zu Jesaja 28,7-13,” ZAW84(1972)341-47; J. J. M.
Roberts, “A Note on Isaiah 28:12,” HTR 73(1980)49-51;
Roberts, “Yahweh’s Foundation in Zion (Isa. 28:16),” JBL 106(1987) 27-45; A. van Selms, “Isaiah 28:9-13: An Attempt to Give a New Interpretation,” ZAW 85(1973)332-39; S. C.
Thexton, “A Note on Isaiah XXVIII 25 and 28,” V T 2(1952)81-83; E. Vogt, “Das Prophetenwort Jes 28:1-4 und das Ende der Konigsstadt Samaria,” Homenaje a Juan Prado
(ed. L. Alvarez Verdes and E. J. Alonso Hernandez; Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificios, 1975)108- 30; J. W. Whedbee, Isaiah and Wisdom (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971)51-68.
Chapters 28-33 of Isaiah reflect the period of Ephraim’s last years as a state and thus chronologically belong after Isaiah 18. The rebellion that broke out in the west in the last year of Tiglath-pileser (728-727) was not thoroughly suppressed until Sargon’s campaign in 720. In the intervening years, Shalmaneser was almost continuously occupied with the revolt in the west, but was not able to deal it a death blow. He continued the campaign begun by his father. As we have noted, this was probably the occasion for Hoshea’s initial submission to Shalmaneser (II Kings 173).
An Assyrian eponym list reports that Shalmaneser spent 726
“in the land,” that is, he did not personally lead his troops in battle but stayed in Assyria. Why the king did not campaign that year is not stated. Josephus, in describing Shalmaneser’s actions in the west (Ant IX 28387), reports that several Phoenician cities had quickly submitted to him (probably in 727). He then notes that Shalmaneser “turned back again after having initially withdrawn and this time placed Tyre under siege and sought through employment of a Phoenician navy to capture the island city of Tyre. When this failed, Shalmaneser continued his land blockade of the city.
This course of events is best explained by assuming a scenario in which Shalmaneser carried through on the campaign against the west begun by Tiglath-pileser. During 727, the Assyrian forces moved against Damascus, Moab, Phoenicia, and Ephraim. Shalmaneser was certainly not as successful as he had hoped and the revolt had not been squelched as quickly as Isaiah had imagined (see Isa. 18:5-6).
The following year, 726, Shalmaneser stayed in Assyria, probably mustering additional forces in hopes of more successfully facing the broad rebellious front in the west.
During this year of the Assyrian king’s absence from the front, the leaders in Samaria, believing that Assyrian power was weakening, thought the time opportune to appeal to Egypt for assistance (II Kings 174; Isa. 3&31). Since the Ethiopians had sent ambassadors to nations along the
321
lsaiah
Mediterranean seaboard only shortly before (see above on Isa. 18; chap. 4, sect. 20), the Ephraimites probably had reason to believe Egyptian aid would be forthcoming.
Apparently, at the time, there was also growing sympathy in Judah and Jerusalem, where Hezekiah had only recently ascended the throne, to support Ephraim’s cause (Isa.
28:14-22). This support, which Isaiah opposed, led the prophet to assume that Jerusalem might also be laid under siege (Isa. 29). Judeans supported the Ephraimite cause at least to the extent of allowing Ephraim’s ambassadors to move through the country on their way to Egypt (Isa. 30:6-7).
Isaiah consistently denounced Ephraim’s gamble and pre- dicted that the Egyptian appeal would prove useless (Isa.
30-31).
When Shalmaneser returned to the west in 725, Hoshea was subsequently taken captive (by Assyrian troops sta- tioned in Samaria?), and Samaria was later placed under siege (II Kings 17:4). The length of the siege, three years (II Kings 17:5), was probably the consequence of Shalmaneser’s being simultaneously engaged in efforts against Tyre and possibly elsewhere. Even after Hoshea was arrested (or surrendered?), revolt continued in Samaria and rekindled after the death of Shalmaneser (see above on Isa. 19, chap. 4, sect. 21).
The following is an outline of chapter 28.
Denunciation of the leaders of Samaria (1-13) Denunciation of the leaders in Jerusalem sympathetic to Ephraim’s revolt (14-22)
Yahweh will not thresh forever (23-29) Isaiah 28:1-13
Isaiah’s woe denunciation of Ephraimite leadership in the first section of this speech seems to presuppose a situation in which the country is again moving toward rebellion against Assyria. Since there is no reference in this chapter to any appeal to Egypt for help (see chapters 30-31), an early stage in the planning would seem to be the most likely setting.
The specific historical situation was probably the months following Hoshea’s initial submission to Shalmaneser
Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives
(probably in 727) but prior to Ephraim’s sending of ambassadors to Egypt to secure aid (726). Late in 727 or early in 726 would seem to be the historical horizons.
Isaiah compares the political planning and chicanery going on in Samaria to a drunken brawl and the leaders to a group of inebriates. The politicians and religious leaders offer advice worthy of a bunch of drunks. At the same time, the leaders are spoken of as a floral arrangement or garland. The course of Samaria’s revolt indicates that the move to rebel against Assyria was a policy strongly supported, if not originated, by the general population. This popular support is indicated by the fact that even after the king was imprisoned in 725, the rebellion continued, and after Shalmaneser took the city in 722 rebellion again erupted before Sargon reached the area in 720.
The prophet opens with an identification of those he denounces:
Woe, 0 majestic garland, drunkards of Ephraim, fading flower of its glorious beauty,
which is upon the head of a rich valley;
0 those overcome with wine.
Samaria is here called the glorious beauty that adorns the head of a rich valley, and its leaders are depicted as the wreath or garland that adorns the city. But the wreath is described as drunkards, as those senseless from wine.
In verses 2-4, Isaiah issues an announcement: Yahweh has one strong and mighty-namely, Assyria and Shalmaneser -who is like a mighty storm and a torrential stream and who will cast down to the ground. The leaders of the city will be trodden underfoot and consumed as quickly as one devours the first ripe fig of summer. Thus Isaiah predicts that the leadership of Ephraim will be swiftly dealt with once hostilities begin.
Verses 5-6 describe what conditions will be once the leaders are squelched. “In that day,” Yahweh will become a glorious garland and a beautiful wreath to the remnant that is left. The removal of the leaders will allow the true leader (Yahweh) to function. The prophet proceeds to single out two among the remnant for whom Yahweh will be special.
323
Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives
probably was not intended to communicate except through imitation:
One of these is the person “who sits upon the justice.” This is not a reference to a judge or to one who lives a particularly just pattern of life. Here the phrase refers to those who favored adherence to the principle of justice-that is, in this case, adherence to the terms of the vassal treaty instituted earlier between Hoshea and Shalmaneser. The second,
“those who turn back the battle in the gate,” does not refer to warriors but to those who opposed rebellion in the deliberations about revolt. The gate was a place of popular deliberation and trial. Here the prophet speaks favorably of those who stand up in such deliberations against going to war. The fact that such deliberations among the common people took place-in the gate-would indicate that rebellion was more the result of popular pressure than a state policy initiated by the king.
In verse 7, Isaiah singles out prophet and priest for condemnation. These also are condemned for drunkenness, which is the prophet’s metaphorical way of describing the foolishness of their participation in the planning of rebellion.
The imagery of inebriation is carried throughout the verse, but the references to staggering in vision and stumbling in judgment make it clear that political matters, not rowdy drunkenness, are the real issue.
Verse 8 functions as a summarizing statement: Samaria is like a place after a drunken brawl-vomit is on every table and filth is everywhere. If we transpose this into political language, Isaiah says that alI Samaria supports the ill-con- ceived plans for revolt and the city staggers toward its destiny like a drunk reeling from too much wine. The city is inebriated with the wine of revolt.
Given the situation in Samaria, where everyone seems drunkenly deluded, the prophet asks, “Who could one teach knowledge and make understand what ought to be heard?”
(v. 9~). To his question, he offers a sarcastic, hypothetical answer; “Those newly weaned from milk; youngsters just off the breast” (v. 9b). His explanation of the manner in which they would have to be taught, in verse 10, is generally understood either as gibberish, imitating foreign speech, or as the way young children might be taught, perhaps the rudiments of the alphabet. It may be nothing more than imitation of “baby talk.” The text hardly makes sense and
saw lasaw saw lasaw qaw laqaw qaw laqaw.
If this is a play on alphabetic instruction, the only thing proper seems to be the order of the letters, since 9 comes before 9 in the Hebrew alphabet. Isaiah is probably playing on both infantile instruction or childish gibberish and what appeared to the Israelites as peculiarities in Akkadian speech. In 18:2, he refers to the Assyrians as the qaw qaw nation. That Isaiah is referring to Assyrian speech in verses 10 and 13 is suggested by verse 11. Yahweh will have to speak to this people (in Samaria) by means of stammering lips and an alien tongue. God had tried to say to them, “This (non-rebellion) is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose,” but they would not listen (v. 12). Instead of accepting foreign domination for a time and finding rest after two rebellions and a period of bloody civil war, the people of Samaria were hastening into another frantic revolt. They had learned nothing; they were like newly weaned children fresh from the breast. So Yahweh’s word to them will be like childish gibberish but will be taught by the Assyrians: “saw lasaw saw lataw qaw laqaw qaw laqaw” (v. 13). In their actions, they wilI prove to be helpless children: “Thus they will walk, and they will totter backward, and they will hurt themselves, and become entangled, and be caught.”
Isaiah 28:14-22
In verses 14-22, Isaiah shifts his focus and denounces le leaders in Jerusalem, many of whom were apparently in favor of supporting the brewing Ephraimite revolt. Shal- maneseis failure to suppress the rebelling powers in the west during his initial campaign may have encouraged Judean leaders to think f0
Ephraim’s cause. revolt or at least to give support to The references to a “covenant with death” in this section are to be understood as sarcasm. What Isaiah probably is referring to is the argument of some Jerusalem leaders that the city would escape harm if it offered assistance to Israel or
325
Isaiah
even rebelled. The references to deception and falsehood could imply that the Judean leaders argued that they could operate undercover and not be detected. Some may have even concluded that the Assyrians were now incapable of putting down open rebellion.
Isaiah’s talk about a covenant with death or an agreement with Sheol does not necessarily allude to a god of death, or mot, although such a figure does appear in mythological texts from thirteenth-century B.C.E. Ugarit in northwestern Syria.
The prophet’s sarcasm pokes fun at those advocates of rebellion, who, perhaps drawing on the belief in Zion’s inviolability, claimed immunity from the normal course of events. Such an appeal at this time in history, Isaiah declared, was based on lies about as realistic as a covenant with death that promised immortality. For Judah and Jerusalem to have aided the rebels while continuing as a vassal state to Assyria would, of course, have constituted deception and disloyalty, lies and falsehood.
In a Yahweh oracle, Isaiah has the Deity point to the true source of confidence (w. 16-17a), and pronounce destruction on the pro-rebellion Judeans and their expectations (w.
17b-20). The opening of the Yahweh oracle in verse 16 is difficult to translate and has engendered a host of interpre- tations. There are two primary problems.
First, the words of Yahweh, in the Hebrew, open with a first person reference, “Behold me” (or “I”), but immediately shift to a third person singular verb form. One would expect a participial form of the verb if the thought in the text is continuous. (Such forms appear at this point in the Isaiah scrolls from Qumran.) If the third person verb is retained, the following possibilities suggest themselves. (a) The hinni-
“Behold I”-is an error for hinneh-“Behold” without a pronoun reference-or else the pronominal signifier is to be ignored. The third person verb would thus refer to someone other than Yahweh. (b) One can retain the hinni and assume that Yahweh is depicted as saying, “Behold I, the one who. . . . ” (c) Isaiah may have been deliberately ambigu- ous, alluding to both Yahweh and the one (Hezekiah) who was carrying out Yahweh’s work in Zion.
The second problem is the fact that Isaiah uses various forms of the word ysd, meaning “to lay” or “to found” or “to
326
Isaiah’s Preaching and the Isaianic Narratives
construct.” This type of terminological repetition appears in many places in the book (see especially 25:lb and 33:1), and such wordplay seems to have been a feature of Isaiah’s preaching. In addition, verse 16 contains other terms, relating to architectural construction, whose meanings are not clear.
We assume the following about verse 16. (a) The text has more than one level of allusion referring not only to what Yahweh has done/is doing in Zion but also to what Hezekiah has done/is doing in Zion. (b) The architectural construction, noted above, has reference to construction projects under- taken by Hezekiah in Jerusalem. (c) Hezekiah’s new construction work in Jerusalem embodied what Isaiah saw as the proper attitude for the time-namely, not frantic rebellion but attention to the needs of the present with an eye to the future, when Yahweh, himself, would lead the people in a movement of liberation from Assyria. (d) The expression at the end of the verse-“He who stands firm will not be in haste/‘-was not only a recommendation of policy but was also Isaiah’s nickname, or perhaps a throne name, for Hezekiah, who displayed the opposite attitude to the political position of Ephraim’s leaders. The use of the term
‘mn here is similar to that in 7:9 (see above, pp. 128-29), denoting standing firm in a policy of non-alignment with anti-Assyrian forces. The following is a tentative translation of verse 16:
Therefore, thus says the Lord Yahweh,
“Behold I, the one who is laying stone in Zion, proven stone, the splendid corner,
firmly constructed;
‘He who stands firm will not be in haste.“’
The figure of Hezekiah and his stance of non-cooperation with the anti-Assyrian forces lie at the background of this oracle. Both the king, himself, and the royal projects undertaken by him, as well as Hezekiah’s attitude in this time of crisis and uncertainty, are given Yahweh’s seal of approval by the prophet.
Exactly what construction project in Jerusalem is alluded to by Isaiah remains uncertain. Two possibilities from Heze- kiah’s reign may be indicated. First, according to II
lsaiah Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives
circumstances, what would these terms denote? That they refer to certain moral standards or ideals seems too general.
The issue at hand was whether to cooperate in an anti-Assyrian revolt. Such a move required vassal states to repudiate unilaterally whatever alliance relationship they had with the reigning Assyrian monarch. Justice and righteousness in this case would denote fidelity to treaty commitments. This is why Isaiah can describe the plans for rebellion as lies and falsehoods.
With verse 17b, Isaiah implies a strong contrast between what Hezekiah and Yahweh are doing-namely, erecting a firmly built construction in Zion-and the proposals of the pro-rebellion leaders. Their plans are only a temporary expedient, only an impermanent refuge or shelter, which the hail and waters of an Assyrian attack will quickly overwhelm and sweep away. Hezekiah’s and Yahweh’s program and policy, that supported by Isaiah, call for patient waiting and continued submission to Assyria, not some hasty, half-baked plan for asserting independence. When the Assyrians attack like an overwhelming “scourge,” like a roaming flood, the anti-Assyrian alliance-the covenant with death-will be annulled and will collapse, and the scourge will beat down its proponents (v. 18). Verse 19 asserts that the scourge of the enemy will not be a momentary phenomenon that quickly passes but a constant feature of life. Once the Assyrians move into Judah-that is, once they have to take action to put down a Judean revolt-their presence will become a constant feature of life, and the message they bring and the lesson they teach will be sheer terror.
In verse 20, which may be a part of the Yahweh oracle, Isaiah quotes a proverbial expression used to describe a person in dire straits: “The couch is too short for stretching out, and the cover too narrow for curling up” (NJPSV). When the scourge hits home, when the Assyrians move in, there will be no way to find comfort.
In verses 21-22, Isaiah turns to his depiction of what will happen if rebellion becomes the policy of state. Yahweh will fight against his own people. As he rose up at Mt. Perazim (presumably an allusion to events now reported in the story in II Sam. 5:17-25) and was wroth in the valley of Gibeon Chronicles 29:3, Hezekiah opened and strengthened the
doors of the temple. The chronicler explains this as if it meant that the temple doors had actually been shut previously and, therefore, worship had been cancelled (29:6-7). This seems more like a theological homily than a description of actuality. Probably what Hezekiah did was to widen and rebuild the temple entrances (see II Kings 18:16).
This construction, however, hardly seems to be what Isaiah is talking about in this verse. Second, II Chronicles 32:5 notes that Hezekiah rebuilt the collapsed city wall, strengthened the Millo of the city of David, and constructed a second wall.
The repair of the collapsed wall (earlier damaged in the siege of the city?) may be related to other information preserved about the walls of Jerusalem. After the northern king, Joash, defeated the Judean king, Amaziah, four hundred cubits of the Jerusalem city walls were said to have been pulled down.
Second Kings 14:13 says that the wall was destroyed “from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate.” The Hebrew expression for the latter gate is sha’ar happinnah (see also II Chron. 26:9). Apparently the sha ‘ar happinnah was a gate near the northwestern comer of the city. If so, the pinnah of Isaiah 28:16, translated “corner” above, would have been the northwestern comer of the main Jerusalem/Zion wall, one of the city’s most vulnerable spots. Thus in repairing the city walls (II Chron. 32:5), Hezekiah rebuilt, or completed the reconstruction of the northwest comer, the pinnah of the city wall Pinnah is also used to refer to a leader, a “comer” of the community (see Isa. 19:13). The precious pinnah laid by Yahweh is, therefore, not only the comer of the city wall but also Hezekiah, the firm support, the leader of the city, the one who stands firm. The proven stone mentioned in this verse thus denotes not only good stone for construction but also Hezekiah, who had stood the test and had not joined the earlier rebellion.
The construction imagery is continued in verse 17a. In this text, Isaiah picks up the word qaw, used earlier in verses 10 and 13 and employs it here in its’ technical sense of a
“measuring line.” In addition, he uses the term plummet, denoting the weight attached to a cord for measuring the vertical angle of a wall. “Justice” and “righteousness” are said to function as the standards for measurement. Given the