E. The Reign of Hezekiah
24. He Took Away the Covering of Judah
lsaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives God; he has announced only what he has heard (v. 10). The
Judean population, recently threshed and winnowed by Sargon’s troops (see below, chap. 4, sect. 24) and hoping against hope that Sargon would fail and Merodach-baladan be victorious, is told what will happen. The watchman can only bear the news of what he sees and hears, disappointing as it may be.
Isaiah 21:11-17
The oracles on Dumah (w. ll-12), Arabia (w. 13-15), and Kedar (16) all refer to regions and groups in the Arabian Desert, stretching from Sinai to Babylonia. At the time of Merodach-baladan’s aggressive expansion, numerous Chal- dean tribes in Lower Mesopotamia, south of Babylon, and Aramean tribes in the desert south and west of Mesopotamia were in league with him. Sargon refers to many of these tribal groups in describing his southern campaign, but none of the names in Isaiah 21:11-17 appears in his inscriptions. In the next century, references to Arabia and Kedar become common in Assyrian inscriptions.
In the oracle on Dumah, a desert oasis (see Gen. 25:14), the question and answer seem to imply that no clear perception of events can be expected for a while. Or perhaps the sense is that Dumah should not expect good times (“morning”) to come, since bad times (“nighf’) are not yet past.
The oracle on Arabia plays on the theme of military danger and flight from battle. Caravans must guard their where- abouts, and fugitives, overcome with hunger and thirst, must be cared for as they make their way to the oases, fleeing the weapons of battle.
Finally, Isaiah issues a prediction over Kedar, which, like Arabia, may have been an inclusive term for much of the Arabian desert. The prediction, formulated as a divine oracle, declares that Kedar, after a long, burdensome year, will lose its glory, and its warriors will practically cease to exist-that is, within a year, Sargon and the Assyrians will have completed their job of suppressing revolt in the Sealand and the adjacent desert regions.
276
24. HE TOOK AWAY THE COVERING OF JUDAH
Isaiah
household’ (Lord Chamberlain), the same position held by Jotham during the illness of his father, King Uzziah (II Kings 15:5). Hezekiah apparently had no son to whom he could turn over the reins of government as had Uzziah. Hezekiah’s son and successor, Manasseh, became king in 697 at the age of twelve; therefore, he was born in about 709. Third, it was Shebna and his associates, rather than Hezekiah, who ventured to participate in the revolt in spite of Isaiah’s drastic warning (see Isa. 20). Fourth, the Siloam tunnel was apparently excavated during Shebna’s leadership. If 22:llb refers to Hezekiah, then the tunnel whose construction he had planned was built without his consultation. (It is interesting to note that in Sargon’s description of Ashdod’s actions at the time, reference is also made to the construction of a moat or tunnel so that “20 cubits down they reached the nether waters”; ARAB II § 195, ANET 287.) The inscription carved in the wall of the Siloam tunnel makes no reference to the king, which would be surprising if Hezekiah oversaw its construction but not if Shebna supervised the work. (The inscription, however, is fragmentary and, therefore, its full text is unknown.) Fifth, after the debacle of the revolution and Hezeiah’s recovery, Shebna was demoted from his post as chamberlain, although he remained a high official (Isa.
36:3). In his speech denouncing Shebna, Isaiah seems to have recommended far more drastic measures.
The absence of any reference in Assyrian texts to military action against Judah in 712/11 is a bit surprising. Sargon clearly mentions Judah’s association with the rebel city Ashdod (ARAB II 0 195; ANET 287) but says nothing about Judah in describing the suppression of the revolt. In his inscription set up to commemorate the restoration of Ashur-nasir-pal’s palace, Sargon does refer to himself as
“subduer of the land of Judah, which lies far away” (ARAB II 0 137; ANET 287). It is doubtful that this refers to any action against Judah taken in 712111, since this inscription mentions Judah just before noting the capture of Hamath in 720. The text also treats the capture of Carchemish (717) as if it were Sargon’s latest triumph, thus indicating a pre-712 date for the text. At any rate, to speak of himself as “subduer of Judah”
may mean nothing more than that Judah was his vassal. (In fact, “Judah” here may be the north Syrian region of Yaudi.)
278
Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives
Sargon may have failed to mention action against Judah in 712/11, since what occurred was only a minor skirmish and Judah was a secondary participant, rather than a ringleader in the revolt. (No mention is made of action against Moab, Edom, or other participants either.)
The title for this speech, traditionally translated “Valley of Vision,” is derived from verse 5 and represents the annotation made on a copy of the speech for identification purposes. “Valley of Vision” is a rather peculiar expression with regard to the content of this speech. The address is, first of all, almost entirely concerned with past events.
Second, the events described recall Judah’s defeat at the hands of the Assyrians in 712/11 as a consequence of their participation in the Ashdod-led revolt. Two other options instead of “vision” could make sense in this context. First, Isaiah may have been referring here to an actual geographi- cal site, an actual valley in which a military encounter occurred. Unfortunately, we know of no valley bearing such a name. Second, the Hebrew noun hizzayon may be better translated here as “calamity” rather than “vision.”
An Arabic cognate has this same meaning, and the Hebrew verb heza may have a similar sense in Job 34:32. The heading in 29:l might then read, “the oracle on the valley of calamity. ”
If Isaiah does here use the term vision, then he may have employed the term sarcastically. The leadership of Jerusalem had dreamed their great “vision” of freeing themselves from Assyrian domination. In rallying their support, and in countering Isaiah’s position against the revolt, they may have spoken of this “vision. ” After their calamitous debacle, Isaiah chides the leadership, mocking their great expecta- tions,which now lie in ruins around them.
The address may be divided into the following sections:
(1) A denunciation of the city’s celebration of its surviva:
(Ib-4)
(2) A description of the past day of Yahvm-‘- ‘r O-’
(3) A second description of the past day (UP11) (4) A third description of the past day (12-13) (5) The verdict of Yahweh (14)
279
lsaiah Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives
“tumult and trampling and trauma in the valley of calamity.”
The air was filled with the cries of battle. Troops from Elam and Kir in the army of Sargon led the assault. Chariots spread out through the valleys, and horsemen moved into the gates of Judean cities.
For Isaiah, the saddest and most devastating blow of all was not the humiliation in battle. It was the consequence of the people’s participation in revolt: “He has taken away the covering of Judah” (v. 8~). Judah had never before been treated by the Assyrians as a hostile power (see 18:7). In the 734-32 wars, Judah had remained loyal to Assyria. In 728-722, Judean leaders had given only token aid at the most to Ephraim’s cause, but either it was not sufficient to warrant Assyrian reprisal or else Shalmaneser had been unable to move against Judah because of his involvement on so many fronts. Under Sargon, Judah had received preferential treatment (see above, chap. 4, sect. 21). Now that was all over and Judah’s special status was gone. Sargon took away Judah’s covering, its exemption from normal treatment.
Although Isaiah does not spell out the full details of Judah’s new status, it undoubtedly involved a new phase of close supervision and the establishment of an Assyrian citadel and force in Jerusalem (see 28:19 and, below, chap. 4, sect. 27).
Isaiah 22:l b-4
Isaiah opens his address with a denunciation of the behavior of the people (lb-2u). Jerusalem’s population had been celebrating and shouting, no doubt as the main Assyrian force withdrew from the area to join Sargon’s attack on the Sealand. The recent events, Isaiah says, certainly did not warrant celebration, but the opposite (see w. 12-13). The prophet’s description of what happened, in verses 2b-3, has been translated in various ways, but all the translations agree that whatever happened, the episode was a shameful affair.
If one assumes that the verb ‘ST in this text means “to huddle together,” one gets the following translation:
2b. Your slaughtered ones were not slaughtered by the sword, they were not war casualties.
3. All your leaders fled together, out of bow-shot they huddled;
all of your captured ones had huddled together, they had fled far away [from the field of battle].
This passage suggests the following about the Assyrian encounter with the Judeans: (1) The Judean military commanders abandoned the field of battle when the Assyrians attacked. (2) They fled together, huddling out of danger, to save their lives. (3) When the “battle” was over, some of those Judean leaders were captured and executed.
Without the leadership of their king and with opinions divided over the feasibility of revolt, Judean society seems to have been tom into factions. The army that had taken the field had little heart for battle, and its commanders had even less courage.
Isaiah declares that this explains his attitude after the calamity (v. 4). He had wanted, as he told the people, only to be left alone to weep and mourn over the absurd disaster that had befallen the people and the city of Jerusalem.
Isaiah 22:5-8a
In verses 5-Ba, Isaiah describes the past day of Yahweh, the day when the Assyrians moved against Judah. It was a day of
Isaiah 22:8b-11
In verses Bb-11, Isaiah provides another review of past events. This time he summarizes the efforts carried out in Jerusalem in preparation for the revolt against Assyria. A number of the leaders’ activities are noted. (a) They “trusted”
(nbt) in the weapons of the House of the Forest (v. Bb).
Isaiah’s charge here is probably two-pronged. First of all, the leaders did not trust in Yahweh, whom Isaiah had said all along had his plans and purposes for Assyria. Second, the leaders had apparently taken over the royal arsenal and its military supplies. The House of the Forest had been constructed by Solomon (I Kings 7~2-5; 10:17), and, during the illness of Hezekiah, the rebels in Jerusalem had used its armaments without royal sanction. (b) Weak places and breaches in the city of David, the royal palace complex, had been repaired (v. 9a), probably with the idea that it could
281
Isaiah
serve as a last bastion of defense if needed. Such encroachments on royal terrain no doubt infuriated Isaiah, being the loyal royalist he was. (c) Some type of work was done on the lower pool, probably to be identified with the modern birket el-hamru, which lies just over two hundred yards below the modern pool of Siloam. The reference to
“collecting the waters” of this pool may mean either that it was dammed up to increase the available water supply for the city and the increase of soldiers and horses in the vicinity or that it was obstructed as a result of the construction noted in verse 11 (v. 9b). (d) Houses in Jerusalem were demolished to provide an immediate supply of stones for strengthening the city walls (v. 10). Again, Isaiah’s condemnation was probably based not only on his opposition to the rebellion, but also on other factors. The demolition of houses would have left some citizens of Jerusalem homeless, forcing them to abandon the sacred city. For the prophet, the right to reside in Jerusalem was a unique honor and having the opportunity to live within its walls was almost a religious privilege (see 4:2). In addition to his opposition to the displacement of Jerusalemites, Isaiah would have opposed the leaders’ usurpation of royal prerogatives with regard to the holy city. The reigning Davidic monarch was responsible for the welfare of the town’s citizens. If the entire city of Jerusalem was crown property, the demolition of houses without royal sanction would have been a serious matter. (e) The construction of a resevoir between the two walls for the waters of the old pool (v. lla) probably refers to the construction of the Siloam tunnel, which brought water from the Spring of Gihon under the city of Jerusalem to the pool of Siloam. The two walls noted in verse lla refer to the old wall of the city and a secondary city wall built to enclose the expansion of the city to the west.
Isaiah concludes his enumeration of the misdeeds of the Judean leaders with the comment that they “did not look to (nbf) him who had planned it; or have regard for the one who had purposed it long ago” (v. lib). Two main options for interpreting this passage are possible. First, the leaders are condemned for prematurely carrying out a rebellion against Assyria, which Yahweh had planned all along. Second, the leaders are condemned for having constructed the tunnel
Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic klarratives
under the city without consulting Hezekiah, who had planned the project earlier. Given the literary context (all the actions condemned by Isaiah in Bb-lla represent the leaders’
presumptive encroachment on royal prerogatives) and the historical conditions (Hezekiah’s incapacity), the latter alternative is preferable.
Isaiah 22:12-13
In verses 12-13, Isaiah returns to the issue of the celebration of the city noted in verses lb-2. When the main Assyrian force withdrew, Jerusalem rejoiced. Isaiah declares that what “that day” needed and what Yahweh had called for was not celebration but exactly the opposite. The people should have lamented with weeping and mourning and by shaving their heads and wearing sackcloth. Instead there was a festival atmosphere, an “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die” attitude. Oxen and sheep were slaughtered; feasting and drinking were the orders of the day.
Isaiah 22:14
Isaiah concludes his caustic address with a divine oracle, which he claims Yahweh revealed to him in his ear (v. 14).
The divine word is given in oath form: “This iniquity of yours will not be purged until you are dead’ (see below, on 27:8-9, pp. 317-18).
25. TWO OFFICIALS CONDEMNED (22:15-25)