Here we are going to venture a commentary on the book of the prophet Isaiah. While it seems as though it may be a long journey, and I am persuaded that it may take as long as a year and a half to complete, the Genesis commentary had taken that long to complete. I can only pray that it is worth the time and effort in the end. As we discussed here last week, I am still pondering some supplementary material for the Genesis commentary, so I may occasionally revert to that in the near future. The Book of Isaiah is nearly as long as the Book of Genesis, about 37,000 words in the King James Version where Genesis has just over 38,000, and the dives into ancient history and some elements of the language may be nearly as deep. However we also hope to elucidate its close relationship to the Gospel of Christ and the epistles of His apostles in ways beyond those we have already discussed in our New Testament commentaries.
A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 1: The Sinful Nation
The prophet Isaiah describes himself as the son of Amoz, and little more can be known about him with any absolute certainty, aside from the apparent fact that he was a man of Judah. Being a man of Judah, he could have been of the tribe of Judah or of Levi, or perhaps even of Benjamin, and the only indication is found in circ*mstantial evidence later in his writing. There it is also evident that Isaiah had been married with children, as he recorded in chapter 7 that he had been told to go to meet Ahaz the king, and to bring “Shearjashub thy son” along with him. If this were the only reference to a son, we may think the Hebrew term בן or ben (# 1121), which is literally a son, was being used metaphorically, as it is used on many occasions. But in the subsequent text there is another indication that he did indeed have a wife and children, and very much in the same fashion that the prophet Hosea had children – as an example to the people for whom he had prophesied.
In Isaiah chapter 8, the prophet also seems to have been a man in some position of authority in Jerusalem, where Yahweh had spoken to him, and he wrote: “1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.” Then Isaiah’s actions indicate his interpretation of what he had been told, and we read: “ 2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. 4 For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.”
The name of Isaiah’s earlier son, שׁאר ישׁוב or shar iashub (# 7610) is a phrase defined in Strong’s Concordance to mean “a remnant will return”, which is prophetic. The name of this child is also a Hebrew phrase, מהר שׁלל חשׁ בז or maher shalal chash baz (# 4122) which is defined in Strong’s Concordance as meaning “hasting to the booty, swift to the prey”. Therefore, just as it had been with Hosea, Isaiah also had children and had given them names which represented the things which had been about to come upon Israel and Judah.
Under the circ*mstances which are apparent in these passages, Isaiah’s ability to meet with Ahaz the king, and also to command scribes and priests to accompany him as witnesses, indicates that he must have been a man of rank in Judah, and perhaps even a member of the royal court. For that reason, it is evident that he was most likely of the tribe of Judah and he may even have been related to the family of the king, since he seems to have held this status throughout the entire time of his ministry. But Isaiah was not a Levite, since there is no indication that Isaiah was a priest himself, especially one in a position to command other priests.
Isaiah is listed first in the traditional ordering of the sixteen recorded prophets, but if it were up to us, his book would be third, or perhaps more accurately, even fourth. As we have said in the past, the prophet Jonah must have been the earliest of the recorded prophets. In the time of Jeroboam II, the king of Israel, who had ruled for forty-one years, a prophecy of Jonah is mentioned in retrospect in 2 Kings chapter 14, in a context which preceded Jeroboam’s twenty-seventh year. But the substance of the prophecy indicates a likelihood that Jonah had given it no later than the early years of Jeroboam’s rule, which spanned 41 years and which we estimate to have been from about 793 BC to about 753 BC. In our last presentation, given here last Friday, we discussed A Post-Genesis Chronology which I thought would help bridge some of the historical and chronological gaps between the end of Genesis and the Book of Isaiah. But that is quite a leap, because Genesis ends with the death of Joseph, some time around 1595 BC, and Isaiah begins some time before the death of Azariah, who was also called Uzziah, in 739 BC.
There were political reasons why Jonah had appeared to prophecy at that early time, and why he feared going to Nineveh. As we had said in that last presentation, Ahab ruled Israel from about 874 to 853 BC. In an Assyrian inscription from the time of Shalmaneser III, who ruled Assyria from 858 to 824 BC, Ahab is mentioned as “Ahab the Israelite” where he is described as having sent 2,000 chariots and 10,000 foot soldiers in a coalition with Damascus, Hamath and other cites of the Levant to make war against the encroaching Assyrians. [1]. Both Damascus and Hamath, as well as neighboring districts, were under the rule of Judah from the time of David, and they were apparently inhabited in part by Israelites, who may even have provided them governors or appointed their kings. In an example of this, Elijah the prophet was sent by Yahweh to anoint Hazael to be king of Syria, or Aram, in 1 Kings chapter 19. But apparently, from the time of Ahab to that of Jeroboam II, Judah had begun losing its control of these provinces to the Assyrians, and Jeroboam II had recovered them for Israel, as it is described in 2 Kings chapter 14. This history is all relevant to the circ*mstances of Judah and Israel at the dawn of the ministry of Isaiah.
Relating to Jonah, in the relevant passage from 2 Kings chapter 14 we read: “23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years. 24 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 25 He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher. 26 For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel. 27 And the LORD said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. 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?”
As he opens the book of his prophecy, Isaiah does not mention any of the kings of Israel in connection to the time of his ministry, and he does not mention Jereoboam II at all. But Hosea does mention Jeroboam II, where in the opening verse of Hosea chapter 1 he wrote “1 The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.” Jeroboam II died in the 38th year of Azariah, or Uzziah, king of Judah, as it is explained in the events of 2 Kings chapter 15. There we read that “8 In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah king of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria six months.” So if Jeroboam II died in 753 BC, which is at least very close to when he must have died, then Azariah must have begun his reign around 790 BC, and he is said to have ruled for 52 years. (Last week we used a different method to date the beginning of his rule to 791 BC, however that is fairly accurate within reason.) So the ministry of Hosea began before 753 BC, before any of the children of Israel in Palestine had been taken into captivity. However Azariah ruled for as many as another 14 years after the death of Jeroboam II, and he seems to have died near the beginning of Isaiah’s ministry, where we read in Isaiah chapter 6, as Isaiah had a vision, that: “1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” This is evidently at a time very early in Isaiah’s ministry, since chapters 2 through 5 are a record of the second vision which he had recorded, a warning of destruction which concerned Judah and Jerusalem.
After the death of Uzziah, Isaiah did mention Pekah, a king of Israel, in Isaiah chapter 7. According to 2 Kings chapter 15, Pekah began to rule Israel in the last year of king Uzziah of Judah, but there seems to have been 13 or 14 years between the time of Jeroboam II and Pekah. Hosea did not mention Pekah or any king of Israel after Jeroboam II, and therefore we can generally assume that Hosea had begun his ministry before the start of the ministry of Isaiah. However Amos also evidently started before Isaiah. Amos opens his prophecy with “1 The words of Amos, who was among the herdmen of Tekoa, which he saw concerning Israel in the days of Uzziah king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel, two years before the earthquake.” Unfortunately that particular earthquake was not recorded elsewhere in the surviving books of Scripture. But with that, we are persuaded to date Jonah as the first of the prophets and much earlier than any of the others, while Hosea and Amos had very likely begun their ministries before that of Isaiah, since Isaiah seems not to have known Jeroboam II, and had begun late in the rule of Uzziah.
Here in Isaiah chapter 1, it is apparent that parts of Israel had already been destroyed, and that process began in the later years of Uzziah, which is when he must have begun prophesying. However that interpretation is not certain, because Isaiah had very frequently written about things which had not yet happened, as if they had already happened. This is a facet of the prescience of the Word of God which was described quite skillfully and in a few words by Paul of Tarsus in Romans chapter 4, where he described “God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.” In that passage, where Paul was referring to the promise to Abraham, that his offspring would become many nations, Paul was explaining that Yahweh God in His Word had referred to those nations as if they had already existed, even though they had not yet existed. So in our translation, which is quite literal but which does not follow the same word order, we have “17 … before Yahweh whom he trusted, who raises the dead to life, and calls things not existing as existing”.
The words of an authentic prophet of Yahweh God being true, the things uttered by his prophets were, and are, guaranteed to happen, to become true. So the prophet, being sufficiently confident that the Word which had come to him would be fulfilled, was confident enough to write them as if they had happened, and that must have strengthened the ominous expressions found in the prophecies at the time when they had first been given. Critics who doubt the Word of God disbelieve this aspect of the ability of His prophets, and they make claims that Isaiah must have written these things after the fact, or that there was more than one Isaiah, or that Isaiah had help, because other men added to his prophecies at some later time. They make any excuse to avoid the admission that the prophets of Scripture had forebode future events with startling accuracy. They do these same things to the prophet Daniel, because they deny the power of Yahweh just as they had denied His Christ.
Where his name is mentioned where he is quoted in twenty one verses in the New Testament, Isaiah was explicitly called “the prophet” in eleven verses, and his prophecy as “the prophecy of Esaias” in one verse. It was not “Isaiah a prophet”, but “the prophet”, referring to a particular Isaiah. Those twelve verses cite passages from Isaiah chapters 6, 40, 42, 53, and 61. Therefore the apostles of Christ had believed that one particular Isaiah had written the entire book of the prophecy of Isaiah which is known to us today. Of course, Isaiah is cited on many other occasions in the Scriptures of the New Testament, but those passages support the assertion that there was only one prophet Isaiah, and that the same Isaiah had written all of the words of the book which bears his name. Over 50 passages from Isaiah are cited in 65 passages in the New Testament. Nearly sixty percent of the citations are from the last 26 chapters of the book, which the critics insist belong to a second or later Isaiah, or to someone who appended Isaiah.
So first, the New Testament writers treated the entire work as though there was only one Isaiah, and that includes Christ Himself as He was often described as having attributed passages to Esaias the prophet. But secondly, there is an important reason why the prophecy of Isaiah seems to be divided after chapter 40. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah are concerned with all of the warnings and deportations of Israel and Judah in the days of the Assyrians, including indications of what would become of Israel and Judah and also what would become of those nations which had oppressed them, namely Assyria and Babylon. At the point where those chapters end the Assyrians portion of the deportations had been completed, at least for the most part, and there was very little Assyrian activity which followed. But Hezekiah is warned that for the things which he had showed the ambassadors from Babylon, that Jerusalem would be pillaged and his sons would go into captivity in Babylon. Then chapter 40 offers comfort to Jerusalem in spite of that ominous judgment which was about to come upon her.
But beginning with Isaiah chapter 41, the scope ad the focus of the prophecy of Isaiah changes completely. The purpose of Yahweh God is expressed in its opening verse where we read “1 Keep silence before me, O islands; and let the people renew their strength: let them come near; then let them speak: let us come near together to judgment.” The reference to the people is to the children of Israel in captivity. The reference to islands is to the coastlands and nations which Israel would come to inhabit in captivity, and in their early stages many of them are listed in Isaiah chapter 66. From that passage in chapter 41 and the subsequent chapters, the entire focus is set upon Israel in captivity, with promises of salvation, redemption and the reconciliation of Israel with Yahweh God throughout the last 26 chapters of the book.
So in a nutshell, the first 40 chapters of Isaiah deal with Israel going into captivity, and the last 26 chapters deal with Israel in captivity, and how Israel would be delivered from captivity. The same prophet Isaiah had prophesied both portions, but from those two different perspectives. Therefore his ministry lasted for at least some years after the siege of Jerusalem, but there is no indication of how long that would have been. It is not extraordinary, for Isaiah to have had a ministry spanning 50 years or longer. Azariah king of Judah ruled for 52 years. So like him, Isaiah may have been a very young man when he was called to prophecy, but he also evidently already had one son, Shearjashub, so apparently he was at least in his mid-twenties or perhaps a little older.
As in all of our Old Testament commentaries, we shall follow the King James Version of the Bible, but also offer and discuss readings from the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls wherever they diverge significantly from the translations based on the Masoretic Text. In certain passages of Isaiah there are crucial differences, and the outcome of our investigations into some of them has not always produced a result which we might have expected. But the way in which the apostles of Christ had understood a verse should also be an important component of our understanding. In this regard the foremost of the passages which I have in mind are found at Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6. Since most all of Isaiah is preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, I also hope to discuss at least many of the issues which those manuscripts have raised.
Wherever I refer to Strong’s Concordance, or Strong’s original Concordance, I am speaking of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Complete and Unabridged, and published without any further editing. While this Concordance was published or reprinted on many occasions, the copy I have always used was printed by the Baker Book House Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1987. While Strong’s Concordance is not perfect, and it is difficult to find original copies, many modern, adulterated versions have been printed. I have always found that in spite of its errors, the original is better in almost every way over any of its revised or derivative editions. For other references, such as definitions from Gesenius or Brown, Driver, Briggs, I shall provide proper citations in the text, as I had also done for the recent Genesis commentary.
Returning to our last presentation, A Post-Genesis Chronology, in that endeavor we sought to set a course allowing us to described within reasonable accuracy the historical background of the beginning years of the ministry of the prophet Isaiah. So while it is not a perfectly clear picture, it is evident that Jeroboam II had ruled Israel from about 793 BC to about 753 BC, and much of that time was contemporary with the rule of Uzziah king of Judah, which lasted for 52 years from about 791 BC to 740 or 739 BC. Most likely, it is within the time of 752 to 740 BC that Isaiah had begun his ministry.
Therefore, since it seems probable that Isaiah was just beginning his ministry some time after the death of Jeroboam II, that the events of 2 Kings chapter 15 and the first deportations of Israel from the lands of Israel proper, the original territory of the twelve tribes, may have already begun to take place. [One circ*mstance that is often overlooked is that Israelites had dwelt along the coasts of the Levant and in the interior in Damascus and Aram as far north as Hamath since the days of David, and many of them had also been taken into captivity by the Assyrians.] So we read, from verse 17 of that chapter: “17 In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah king of Judah began Menahem the son of Gadi to reign over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria. 18 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 19 And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. 20 And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land.” Menahem was a usurper, who killed Shallum the son of Jeroboam II after he had ruled for only one month. His ten years of rule in Israel seem to have begun in 752 BC.
The name Pul in Scripture is commonly believed to represent Tiglath-pileser III, who is said to have ruled Assyria from 744 to 727 BC. But 2 Kings chapter 15 places the invasion of Israel by a king called only by the name Pul to a time shortly after the death of Jeroboam II, and the 38th year of Azariah king of Judah, which is too early for Tiglath-pileser III. The Assyrian king Ashur-nirari V is said to have ruled Assyria from 755 to 745 BC, during the time when this invasion had likely occurred, if the timeline of the Assyrian kings is truly accurate.
But it it is clear that Tiglath-pileser III conducted later invasions into Israel. In inscriptions which preserve the annals of the third year of his reign, which would begin in 742 BC, we read the following, in part:
I received tribute from Kushtashpi of Commagene (Kummuhu), Rezon (Ra-hi-a-nu) of Damascus (Šaimerišu), Menahem of Samaria (Me-ni-hi-im-me Sa-me-ri-na-a-a), Hiram (Hi-ru-um-mu) of Tyre, Sibitti-bi’li of Byblos, Urikki of Qu’e, Pisiris of Carchemish, I’nil of Hamath, Panammu of Sam’al, Tarhulara of Gurgum, Sulumal of Militene, Dadilu of Kaska, Uassurme of Tabal, Ushhitti of Tuna, Urballa of Tuhana, Tuhamme of Ishtunda, Urimme of Hubishna (and) Zabibe, the queen of Arabia, (to wit) gold, silver, tin, iron, elephant-hides, ivory, linen garments with multicolored trimmings, blue-dyed wool, purple-dyed wool, ebony-wood, boxwood-wood, whatever was precious (enough for a) royal treasure; also lambs whose stretched hides were dyed purple, (and) wild birds whose spread-out wings were dyed blue,7 (furthermore) horses, mules, large and small cattle, (male) camels, female camels with their foals. [2]
Our chronology of the kings of Israel is not without problems. We have estimated that the twenty two year rule of Ahab, king of Israel, had begun in 874 BC and ended in 853 BC. If Assyrian chronology is accurate, then 853 BC would be the 6th year of Shalmaneser III, and that would be the year in which Ahab sent troops to fight against him, according to the inscriptions. So Ahab’s rule could not have been any earlier than that. Struggling with this left me with an unnoticed anomaly of ten years in the chronology of the kings of Israel in our last presentation, of which I have since made notes. Measured against the Assyrian Kings’ List, which is documented from multiple ancient sources, it is difficult to push the fall of Samaria forward to a date later than 721 BC, as that is said to have been the first year of Sargon II, and the year when his inscriptions state that he conquered Samaria. [3]
So as we have said, Ahab’s rule could not have ended earlier than 853 BC, the 6th year of Shalmaneser III, and Menahem’s rule could not have ended any earlier than 742 BC, or the 3rd year of Tiglath-pileser III, and that is where we have them. However that leaves only 21 years, at most, for the rules of Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hoshea, who are said to have ruled for 2, 20, and 9 years respectively, or a total of 31 years. There could not have been any co-regencies during this period, since Pekahiah ruled for only two years after his father’s death, and he was slain by Pekah, who ruled for 20 years when he in turn was slain by Hoshea.
That Pekah certainly seems to have ruled for 20 years is apparent in 2 Kings chapter 16 where we read that “1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.” The twenty-nine rule of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, seems to have begun in 726 BC, and if there was no co-regency with his father, Ahaz seems to have ruled from 742 to 726 BC. The rule of Hezekiah could not have begun before 726 BC, since he was mentioned in Scripture as having been king of Judah in events which happened in both 723 and 701 BC, and he lived for some years beyond 701 BC. The 723 date is the 7th year of Hoshea’s 9-year rule in Samaria, when the city was first placed under siege. The 701 date is the time of the siege of Jerusalem and the taking of most of Judah, in the early years of the Assyrian king Sennacherib.
So if Pekah ruled from 740 to 721, then Ahaz would not have come to the throne of Judah until 724 BC, which is impossible. If Pekah ruled from 750 to 731, which is in line with events of the period, 734 BC is still too early for Ahaz to have taken the throne, unless there was a co-regency of eight years with his son Hezekiah. Thus are only some of the challenges to understanding a sound chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah.
The Israelite king Pekah, however, is mentioned in another Assyrian inscription, however unfortunately it is fragmented and the precise date is unknown. It is another inscription from the annals of Tiglath-pileser III and it is presented as having been some time after his 9th year, which began in 744 BC, so the events it recorded had apparently occurred some time after 736 BC although that is not entirely certain. There are also many lacuna, or missing words or lines, in this inscription, where we read, in part:
As to Hanno of Gaza (Ha-a-nu-ú-nu Ha-az-za-at-a-a) who had fled before my army and run away to Egypt, [I conquered] the town of Gaza … his personal property, his images … [and I placed (?)] (the images of) my [… gods] and my royal image in his own palace . . . and declared (them) to be (thenceforward) the gods of their country. I imposed upon th[em tribute]. [As for Menahem I ov]erwhelmed him [like a snowstorm] and he . . . fled like a bird, alone, [and bowed to my feet(?)]. I returned him to his place [and imposed tribute upon him, to wit:] gold, silver, linen garments with multicolored trimmings … great … [I re]ceived from him. Israel (lit.: "Omri-Land" Bit Humria) … all its inhabitants (and) their possessions I led to Assyria. They overthrew their king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and I placed Hoshea (A-ú-si-’) as king over them. I received from them 10 talents of gold, 1,000 (?) talents of silver as their [tri]bute and brought them to Assyria. [4]
Since Hoshea could not have been king for more than 9 years until the first year of Sargon II, and if Sargon II destroyed Samaria in 721 BC, as the inscriptions attest that it was destroyed in his first year, then this inscription is from 730 BC, which was about the 14th year of Tiaglath-pileser III. This account is reflected in 2 Kings chapter 15, even if the appointment of Hoshea as king by Tiglath-pileser III is not mentioned. There we read: “27 In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years. 28 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.”
Here we must ask a question. If Menahem ruled from Samaria for ten years, and his son ruled for two years in his place, as the text of 2 Kings chapter 15 states, why is he mentioned in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser III at the same time as the end of the rule of Pekah, when Pekah is described as having slain Pekahiah and as having ruled for twenty years from that time? But if Menahem and Pekahiah had faced Pekah as a contenders for the throne in Samaria, and if Menahem first had to bribe Pul to retain his throne, and had later given over Samaria to Tiglath-pileser because of a struggle with Pekah, then perhaps the inscription, and the ten extra years in the chronology, may begin to make sense. So with that we may also speculate upon the possibility that the twenty years of Pekah may have overlapped that of Menahem and Pekahiah by ten years, but there is no support for that view in Scripture.
So on the other hand, this possibility is refuted in the account as it is given in that passage of 2 Kings chapter 15, which dates the start of Pekah’s reign to the 52nd year of Azariah, or Uzziah, king of Judah, and that also agrees with the start of the rule of Ahaz in the 17th year of Pekah, and with the fact that the end of the rule of Jeroboam II was in the 38th year of Azariah, which is apparent in 2 Kings 15:8. So if Hezekiah was king of Judah in 626 BC, or for 4 years by the time of the 7th year of Hoshea, as 2 Kings 18:9 suggests, and the final year of Uzziah, or Azariah, began in 740 BC, that leaves only 14 years for the 16 year rule of Jotham, who succeeded Azariah, and the 16 year rule of Ahaz, who succeeded Jotham, and there is a ten year problem even if Ahaz and Hezekiah shared the throne for eight years, which they evidently did not.
Provided the timeline of Assyrian history is correct, we cannot push back the reign of Hezekiah, nor can we push it up, because of the contexts in which he is mentioned in Scripture in relation to Hoshea and the fall of Samaria, as well as his mention over twenty years later in the annals of Sennacherib after the failed siege of Jerusalem. So there are only 14 years between Azariah and Hezekiah, and two kings who ruled for 32 years. This, however, is resolved in some degree in 2 Kings chapter 15, where we are informed concerning Azariah that “ 5 … the LORD smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house. And Jotham the king's son was over the house, judging the people of the land.” So all the time that Azariah suffered leprosy, his son Jotham sat as king of Judah, and therefore Jotham’s 16 years must overlap the 52 years of Azariah to a great extent.
But there is no apparent overlap in the rules of Ahaz and Hezekiah. In 2 Kings chapter 17 we read that “1 In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years.” So if Hoshea became king of Israel in 730 BC, then that was the 12th year of Ahaz, who must not have died until 726 BC. Then Hezekiah’s 4th year was the time when Samaria was first put under siege, in 723 or 722 BC, in the 7th year of Hoshea. This also informs us that Ahaz must of become king around 741 or 740 BC, but that is very close to the time when Azariah had died. This would inform us that Jotham had spent nearly his entire 16 years as king in co-regency with his father, and had to have died shortly after his father had died.
But this all falls apart as we continue reading, and the text raises irresolvable issues. Further on in 2 Kings chapter 15 we read: “30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.” This would be 20 years after Azariah died, but it erases the possibility that the time of Jotham’s rule should be counted in co-regency with his father, and returns us to wonder how to squeeze 32 years into a gap of only about 14 years. However this statement in 2 Kings also contradicts a passage in 2 Chronicles chapter 27 which states that “1 Jotham was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem….” Then, even further on in 2 Kings chapter 15, we read: “ 32 In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign. 33 Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem.” But the beginning of the rule of Jotham was already described near the beginning of that chapter where we read: “7 So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Jotham his son reigned in his stead.” Why would the beginning of the rule of Jotham be described twice, and in contradictory circ*mstances? This will take some significant time to sort out, if it can be resolved at all.
As we had exhibited briefly in our last presentation on the post-Genesis chronology, these problems and others of this period have haunted academic historians of the Old Testament for many years, and at least since the dawn of Near Eastern archaeology. So, for example, in the Wikipedia article for the Kings of Israel and Judah, chronologies from four such scholars, all of them archaeologists, are presented, the American Methodist William Albright, the American Seventh-Day Adventist Edwin Thiele, an israeli jew called Gershon Galil who is currently a pretender in Jewish history at a university in Jerusalem, and Kenneth Kitchen, a British professor born in Scotland in 1932, who is still living. These four, respectively, date the beginning of the rule of Hezekiah at 715 BC, 716 BC, 726 BC and 735 BC. [5] While Galil certainly was not my source, his is the only date here with which I may agree.
My own sources are simply an attempt to reconcile the established Assyrian chronology and my own knowledge of ancient history through inscriptions, and it is evident that Galil used that same method. But later, Galil extends the rule of Azariah beyond the co-regency and beyond the entire 16 years of his son Jotham, which is entirely impossible and conflicts with all the Scriptures which mention the death of Azariah, and the rule of Jotham, especially in relation to the rule of Pekah and other kings of Israel.
The problems which we face with this chronology are not helped in regard to the early years of the ministry of Isaiah in either Isaiah or in 2 Kings, where Isaiah is often mentioned. That is because outside of the introduction of Isaiah in its opening verse, and the one mention of Pekah, king of Israel, and Jotham, king of Judah, in Isaiah chapter 7, Ahaz the son of Jotham is mentioned only in chapters 7 and 14, and no other king of Judah is mentioned until the rule of Hezekiah in chapter 36.
So for now, this is all the time we shall spend on the problems with the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah, but we hope to continue this investigation in the near future, or perhaps even as we progress through Isaiah. In any event, Isaiah had apparently begun his ministry in the latter part of the rule of Uzziah, and the first and only time he mentions any king of Israel is found in chapter 7, where he mentions Pekah as being king of Israel at a time contemporary with Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah. That is where we would expect Pekah, however it is difficult to place his twenty years as king between Menahem and Pekahiah, and the time of Hoshea, unless the first 10 years of the rule of Pekah had overlapped that of Menahem and Pekahiah, which the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III which we have cited seem to suggest. The only other possibility is that the accepted timeline of Assyrian history is wrong, and Samaria was not destroyed until 711 BC, rather than 721. That is also a possibility which we hope to be able to investigate in the near future, but it would also force us to have to reconsider the time of the siege of Jerusalem, and the rule of Hezekiah to that later date proposed by Albright and Thiele.
So with this general understanding of the history leading up to the time of the prophet Isaiah, and into the early years of his ministry, and some unresolved problems which inhibit a complete understanding of the precise chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah in that period, we shall commence with our commentary on the words of the prophet himself. Doing this, we will surely repeat some of the details of the history at the appropriate places.
1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.
The form of the name Hezekiah in English is actually a poor transliteration of יחזקיהו or yechizqiyahu or sometimes, yechizqiyah (# 3169), a phrase defined in Strong’s Concordance to mean strengthened of Yah, which is of course a shortened form of Yahweh which appears in many names of the period. This spelling is supported in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the shortening of the name had apparently started as early as the time of the Septuagint, where it is generally Ἑζεκίας or Hezekias. We will continue to use the popular form, Hezekiah. Now the prophet moves on immediately to make his first announcement:
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
And they have rebelled against Me: In the history of Israel, it is evident that there were prophets throughout the early periods, in the era of the Judges and the early years of the Kingdom. But when the nation was at least mostly righteous, and when it seems that most of the people sought to follow Yahweh the God of Israel, those prophets only dealt with narrow matters, and sometimes functioned as judges. So there was Deborah the prophetess in Judges chapter 5, and an unnamed prophet in Judges chapter 6, who was called to admonish the people just before the time of Gideon. Then there was Samuel the prophet, who admonished the people as they sinned by demanding an earthly king. Samuel appealed to Yahweh, and Yahweh let the people sin as they desired, ostensibly so that they would learn from their resulting failure and punishment.
In the time of David there was Nathan the prophet, who had even chastised David himself, and also Gad the seer, men who were notable among other prophets. There seems to have always been other prophets, as the unnamed prophets described in 1 Kings chapter 13, one of whom had been disobedient. At the end of the chapter, it is said that the incident was an example to Jeroboam I, king of Israel, and Jeroboam had ignored the warning. After that there was Ahijah the prophet, and another named Jehu the son of Hanani, before the first appearance of Elijah the Tishbite, in 1 Kings chapter 17. Elijah was a notable prophet, evidently because the sins of the children of Israel, and those of the rulers of Israel, must have reached new peaks in the time of Ahab. Then Elijah was followed by Elisha, and the death of Elisha is not recorded until Jeroboam II became king of Israel, in 2 Kings chapter 13, which is little more than fifty years after the death of Ahab. At that time, Jonah must have made his prophecy concerning the deeds of Jeroboam which is recorded in 2 Kings chapter 14.
So it seems that Yahweh always had prophets in the land, but the prophets of Yahweh did not stand out until the sins of the people necessitated their admonishment, and that is the most likely reason that those admonishments were not recorded in separate books until certain critical moments in history. In times of peace and obedience, it is apparent that prophets have no need to stand out in that manner. Therefore if Israel had not become such a sinful nation, we may never have known of Jonah, Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, or even of Elijah and Elisha. Here it is clear that Isaiah was raised up as a prophet by Yahweh solely because “they have rebelled against Me”, and on that basis the prophet continues:
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider. 4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.
So farm animals, who know enough to return to their stalls at night, are better than disobedient people who refuse to hear the voice of their Master. The word translated as consider in the phrase “my people doth not consider” may have been rendered as understand.
Here Isaiah is not only addressing Judah, but rather, as we shall see when we proceed, he seems to be addressing all of Israel, both Israel and Judah. The term for nation in verse 4 is the expected term גוי or goy (# 1471), and the word for people the expected term עם or am (# 5971), so both words were translated literally. But even though they were now two separate kingdoms, each with their own rulers, the people of Israel were still one people, and one nation, and that is how they were always addressed in captivity in spite of the fact that Israel was prophesied to become many nations.
A seed of evildoers: the word for seed is זרע or zera (# 2233), which is translated literally, and the word for evildoers is from a plural form of the Hebrew word רעע or ra’a (# 7489), which is defined in Strong’s Concordance as “to spoil (literally by breaking to pieces); figuratively to make (or be) good for nothing, i.e. bad…” The Brown, Driver, Briggs lexicon breaks the definition of the word into two parts, but pretty much agrees with Strong, where it first has “be evil, bad” and then it has “break”. However they state that this later definition was an “Aramaic loan word” even though their examples of its use contradict that statement, since they cite its use in that context in passages as early as Isaiah chapter 24 (24:19), and much earlier, Proverbs chapter 25 (25:19) and even earlier than that, in Job chapter 34 (34:24). This is well before any supposed Aramaic influence on the Hebrew language. We have asserted that Hebrew and Aramaic are similar because they are both dialects of Akkadian, which was the language of the patriarchs.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translation of Isaiah, the phrase “children that are corrupters” is translated “corrupt children”, which is a better representation of the Hebrew grammar. The Septuagint has “lawless children”. The New American Standard Bible has “sons who act corruptly”, and the word sons is a more literal translation of the word for children, which is בן or ben (# 1121).
In the sense reflected by the definition of the word רעע or ra’a as it is found in Strong’s, the seed of Israel had become evil because their ancestors had gone off into sin, and therefore they were a broken people, corrupted children in a civil and religious sense, for which reason it seems that the Septuagint translators must have written lawless. But the seed of Israel was not inherently evil, and they still had the ability and opportunity to do well. So we read in one of the promises of their ultimate reconciliation which are found in the later chapters of Isaiah, in chapter 60: “21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.”
Here, however, Israel is a sinful nation, and that was the need for Yahweh to have raised up prophets such as Isaiah. Without Isaiah and the other contemporary prophets, they would have had no warning of the coming punishments for their sins, and, once that punishment was executed, no hope in a future repentance, redemption and reconciliation. So a significant purpose of Isaiah is found in this fact: that once the children of Israel in captivity would receive the Gospel of Christ, they would have the opportunity to read Isaiah and know everything which had happened to them as a people. They would be able to bridge the gap from the Old Kingdom to the Kingdom of God which is in Christ in the understanding which is provided here in Isaiah, and also found in his fellow prophets Hosea and some of the others. Christ had come to fulfill both the law and the prophets, but the modern churches largely ignore the prophets, except for the few passages which prophesy of Christ. However most of the words of the prophets prophesy of the people, and those portions they ignore to their own peril.
Now there is a call to reason which should result in repentance, except that at least most of the people would refuse to hear it:
5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.
Here the children of Israel are compared to a body which is sick from the things which it has suffered. So it has been beaten with its own sins, it is covered with wounds, sores, and bleeding, from the lowest portions, or people, all the way up to the head, or king, there is no health, and as the final clause suggests, the wounds have not been bound or dressed. Now the next verse is a parallelism with verse 6, as Isaiah expresses what happened to the body of the people in somewhat different terms:
7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.
How does this not describe America and Europe today, where the formerly White cities are now all filled with strangers, and the substance of the surrounding lands is being devoured? But history repeats itself because we never learn from its lessons.
As we have said here, it seems that Isaiah did not begin his ministry until some time in the latter years of the rule of Uzziah, or Azariah, as he was also called. Therefore it is plausible that when he wrote these words, the events of 2 Kings chapter 15 had already taken place, where we read: “17 In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah king of Judah began Menahem the son of Gadi to reign over Israel, and reigned ten years in Samaria. 18 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 19 And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. 20 And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land.” This would have occurred about a year after the time of the death of Jeroboam II, as his son Zachariah ruled Israel for six months in the 38th year of Azariah, as it is explained earlier in that same chapter of 2 Kings (15:8).
If Isaiah had begun his ministry as late as we may suspect, in the closing years of the rule of Uzziah, then Tiglath-pileser III invaded Israel once again, in the third year of his rule, around 742 BC and not long before the death of Uzziah, which is recorded in an inscription which we have already cited. There he had said only that he received tribute from Menahem of Samaria, the king of Israel. Therefore as Isaiah had spoken here, these things are evidently happening, or they were very close to happening and the prophet is speaking as if they had already happened.
Continuing, he describes the result of these things, in a manner which seems to be prophetic of the state of Jerusalem:
8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.
If Isaiah is prophesying around 742-740 BC, the kingdom of Judah proper had not yet been molested by the Assyrians, something which would not happen until about 702-701 BC under the Assyrian king Sennacherib. By then, Samaria was destroyed, most of Israel taken into captivity, and Sennacherib took all of the fenced cities of Judah, and most of Judah into captivity, leaving only the inhabitants of Jerusalem after his siege of that city had failed.
Where Isaiah uses the phrase “daughter of Zion” later in chapters 10 and 16 of his prophecy, and where it is used in Jeremiah chapters 4 and 6, and especially throughout his Book of Lamentations, the phrase is an epithet for Jerusalem. This is in spite of its use in Micah and in later chapters of Isaiah, where it becomes an epithet for the center of power and government of the people of Israel in captivity, regardless of where they may be, and where it therefore represents an allegorical Jerusalem.
But here in this passage, it refers to Jerusalem, and it is a prophecy that for the sins of both the people and their rulers, the city shall be left alone, because all of Israel and Judah which surrounds the city shall be removed. This was not fulfilled until the siege of Jerusalem in the time of Sennacherib, around 701 BC, or about forty years after Isaiah had begun his ministry.
Now he describes how the city and its inhabitants would, by the grace of Yahweh their God, escape a a complete and total destruction:
9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
As it is recorded in Genesis chapter 18, when Abraham had heard that Yahweh had intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities of the plain, he petitioned Him on their behalf. Many of these people of Sodom were the people that Abraham himself had delivered along with Lot and his family, and had returned to their king, after they had been taken captive in the battle of the kings as it is described in Genesis chapter 14. So during Abraham’s pleading with Yahweh, it was found that there were not even ten righteous men in Sodom, as Yahweh had promised that “I will not destroy it for ten's sake”, but He nevertheless destroyed the city saving only Lot and his daughters, because there were not even ten righteous men.
As we had recently explained in another context, in the time of David his servant Joab, he had numbered a million five hundred and seventy thousand men in Israel and Judah, as it is recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:5. But no more than about a hundred and twenty or so years later, in the days of Ahab, out of all of these men, Elijah was promised a mere seven thousand men who would hearken to his words. Now here in Isaiah, another hundred or so years after Elijah and with portions of Israel having already been taken into captivity, there are probably far less than seven thousand righteous men remaining. But Isaiah is telling the people that Jerusalem would be preserved for their sake, even if it is to be left “as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.”
Now, when we continue with Isaiah, he commences by addressing the rulers of Israel as the rulers of Sodom, and the people as the people of Gomorrah.
Footnotes
1 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Related to the Old Testament 3rd edition, James Pritchard, editor, 1969, Harvard University Press, pp. 276-279.
2 ibid., pp. 282-283.
3 ibid., p. 284.
4 ibid., pp. 283-284.
5 Kings of Israel and Judah, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Israel_and_Judah, accessed July 26th, 2024.
