Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible
2 Kings 18:1
The Messengers Of The King of Assyria Call On The People Of Jerusalem To Surrender And In So Doing Seek To Demean Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:18 to 2 Kings 19:1).
We may wonder why this incident was described in such detail and the answer would be that it was in order to underline the greatness of the king who would be pitting himself against YHWH, prior, of course, to his being brought down. The prophetic author wants us to recognise to the full the greatness of YHWH's opponent. It would then lead to the obvious question, ‘who could possibly bring this great king down when everyone else has failed?' And the answer, of course, will be ‘YHWH'. Thus the final aim is to underline the glory of YHWH.
There is also in this initial passage a determined effort on behalf of the Assyrians to demean Hezekiah (compare 2 Kings 18:19 with 2 Kings 19:10). Note how, when they are speaking of Hezekiah, the term ‘king' is firmly omitted all the way through in the first interview addressed directly to the people, something which is in deliberate contrast to the term ‘great king' used of the king of Assyria. In the second interview, however, when Sennacherib is trying to win Hezekiah himself over, he will be ‘Hezekiah, king of Judah' (2 Kings 19:10). This is an incidental confirmation of the fact that the two incidents are deliberately consecutive.
The arguments used by the king of Assyria are carefully built up over the speech as each argument that ‘Hezekiah' might have used is dismissed. Thus:
· He emphasises the unreliability and untrustworthiness of Egypt, something unquestionably true in the past (2 Kings 18:21).
· He emphasises the fact that Hezekiah has upset YHWH by destroying the multiplicity of high places at which He was worshipped, which is how Hezekiah's reforms would appear to the Assyrians, and how they had appeared to some Judaeans whom he had captured (2 Kings 18:22).
· He emphasises the weakness of the Judaean army as compared with his own strength, drawing attention to the fact that they have no cavalry to speak of (2 Kings 18:23).
· He stresses that it is in fact YHWH Who has sent him (2 Kings 18:25).
· He later points out that none of the gods of the great nations have been able to withstand him (2 Kings 18:33).
His overall aim is to weaken the resolve of the people, knowing that they will have plenty of time to think about his words as they slowly starve.
Analysis.
a And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller's field (2 Kings 18:17 b).
b And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder (2 Kings 18:18).
c And Rabshakeh said to them, “Say you now to Hezekiah, Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this in which you trust? You say (but they are but vain words), ‘There is counsel and strength for the war.' Now on whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me? Now, behold, you are trusting on the staff of this bruised reed, even on Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust on him” (2 Kings 18:19).
d “But if you say to me, ‘We trust in YHWH our God,' is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?' ” (2 Kings 18:22).
e “Now therefore, I pray you, give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. How then can you turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put your trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? Am I now come up without YHWH against this place to destroy it? YHWH said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it' ” (2 Kings 18:23).
f Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, “Speak, I pray you, to your servants in the Aramaean language, for we understand it, and do not speak with us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people who are on the wall” (2 Kings 18:26).
g But Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master, and to you, to speak these words? Has he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?” (2 Kings 18:27).
f Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and spoke, saying, “Hear you the word of the great king, the king of Assyria” (2 Kings 18:28).
e “Thus says the king. Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you out of his hand” (2 Kings 18:29).
d “Nor let Hezekiah make you trust in YHWH, saying, ‘YHWH will surely deliver us, and this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria' ” (2 Kings 18:30).
c “Do not listen to Hezekiah. For thus says the king of Assyria, Make your peace with me, and come out to me, and eat you every one of his vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink you every one the waters of his own cistern, until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive-trees and of honey, that you may live, and not die, and do not listen to Hezekiah, when he persuades you, saying, ‘YHWH will deliver us'. Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? W here are the gods of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they among all the gods of the countries, who have delivered their country out of my hand, that YHWH should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?” (2 Kings 18:31).
b But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word, for the king's commandment was, saying, “Do not answer him.” Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, came to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and told him the words of Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18:36).
a And it came about, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he tore his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of YHWH (2 Kings 19:1).
Note that in ‘a' the enemy ambassadors came in their pride and stood by the conduit of the upper pool (where Ahaz had rejected YHWH's help), and in the parallel Hezekiah humbly went into the house of YHWH. In ‘b' Eliakim, Shebna and Joah went out to face the three Assyrian ambassadors from the shelter of the city wall, and in the parallel they returned to Hezekiah with their clothes torn in anguish. In ‘c' Judah are challenged as to what they place their trust in, and in the parallel the downfall of those who had similar trust is expounded. In ‘d' they are told of the folly of trusting in YHWH, and in the parallel they are warned against letting Hezekiah make them trust in YHWH. In ‘e' the reasons are given as to why they have no hope of deliverance, and in the parallel they are warned against letting Hezekiah convince them that they will be delivered. In ‘f' they call on the ambassadors not to speak in the Jews' language, and in the parallel they deliberately speak in the Jews' language. Centrally in ‘g' the Rabshakeh emphasises that his words are for the common people who are in such dire straits.
‘And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller's (launderer's) field.'
The Assyrian forces arrived at Jerusalem and the three Assyrian official come to ‘the conduit of the upper pool which is in the highway of the launderer's field'. They may well have seen the water source as a reminder to the besieged people that they would soon be short of water (something later emphasised in 2 Kings 18:27. The Assyrians were not aware of the Siloam tunnel which Hezekiah had built to in order to provide a safe supply of water to the city, compare Isaiah 22:11). And they may have been inspecting it in order to discover what water resources the city had. It is probably not accidental that this conduit of the upper pool was where Ahaz had disgraced himself in the eyes of YHWH (Isaiah 7:3) by refusing His offer of a sign which would prove that if he trusted in YHWH he would be delivered. Now Hezekiah was being put to a similar test. (This would then be another evidence of the priority of Isaiah's account, if priority there was, for only Isaiah mentions the offer). There is much (undecided) debate among scholars as to where exactly it was.
‘And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder.'
The three Assyrian ambassadors demanded the king's presence, but were instead face with three important Judaean officials. Hilkiah was the high chamberlain and prime minister (compare Isaiah 22:20 ff), Shebnah the leading Scribe and probably the expert in Artamaic, and Joah the one who would keep the official record of what was said.
‘And Rabshakeh said to them, “Say you now to Hezekiah, Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this in which you trust?”
The Rabshakeh, as the leading political figure, acted as spokesman. He was clearly fluent in both Aramaic (the official diplomatic language) and Hebrew. His tone was clearly derogatory as his reference to the king as ‘Hezekiah' underlines (contrast 2 Kings 19:10). Note the contrasting ‘the great king, the king of Assyria. ‘Great king' (sharu rabu) was a self-assumed title by Assyrian kings. His stated aim was to undermine their confidence, and he will deal with what he sees as all the possible grounds for confidence.
“You say (but they are but vain words), ‘There is counsel and strength for the war.' Now on whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me?”
That they had such confidence in something comes out in what they had decided. They had met in war council and had decided that they had ‘counsel and strength for war' (otherwise they would not be resisting). So he wants to know precisely in what their confidence is grounded.
Alternately we may render, ‘Do you find counsel and strength for war in mere words?' (i.e. they say ‘in vain words there is counsel and strength for war'). It is easy to boast until the situation actually has to be faced, and then all their clever words and policies will come to nothing.
“Now, behold, you are trusting on the staff of this bruised reed, even on Egypt, on which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust on him.”
Suppose for example it was in Egypt (as it certainly partly was). Did they not realise that by trusting in Egypt, who constantly let people down, they were trusting in what appeared to be a stout staff, but was actually a bruised reed? And it was of such a nature that if they leaned their hand on it, it would pierce their hand (see Isaiah 30:1; Ezekiel 29:6). That is what Pharaoh king of Egypt was like to those who trusted in him.
There was some truth in this as the past revealed, but it must not be overlooked that Egypt did send two armies at different stages, and it was not their intention that those armies should be defeated, although the defeats could not have been too great as the Assyrians did not follow them up. The Rabshakeh, however, summed Egypt up dismissively on the basis of their past failures
“But if you say to me, ‘We trust in YHWH our God,' is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?' ”
But suppose they were trusting in their God, YHWH? Did they not realise that Hezekiah with his reforms had offended YHWH by taking away His high places and His altars? That was undoubtedly the Assyrian view of the matter. In their eyes the more high places and altars there were the better the gods were pleased. But here was Hezekiah insisting that they all worshipped at one altar in Jerusalem. How could that be pleasing to YHWH? (We should note that this was the Assyrian parody of the situation, not necessarily the full truth). It must surely be admitted that YHWH was offended and that that was why the invasion had happened. No doubt a good number of those listening agreed with these sentiments, for not all had agreed with Hezekiah's reforms. (This incidentally confirms that these reforms had already taken place, as does the evidence of the dismantling of the altar at Beersheba)
“Now therefore, I pray you, give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them.”
But suppose they were trusting in the strength of their armed forces. Let them compare cavalries. The Assyrians had thousands of cavalrymen, many no doubt visible from the walls. But what about Judah? Why if they could find two thousand cavalrymen among their forces the king of Assyria would gladly supply the horses for them, and not even miss them. But everyone knew that Judah were not famed for cavalrymen (they were mainly militia-men and part-timers), and the inference was that such numbers could not be found. How then could they hope to resist mighty Assyria?
This is a case where the less grammatical language in Isaiah is smoothed out, and indication that at least Isaiah was not copied from Kings. (It may have been the other way round, or they may both have used the same source).
“How then can you turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master's servants, and put your trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?”
How then, if their trust is in Egypt for chariots and horsemen (as he has proved it to be), will they be able to face even the meanest of the king of Assyria's cavalry captains? For the danger of trusting in Egyptian horses see Isaiah 31:1 ff.
The two constructs in apposition are very unusual but defensible, and we must remember that it was a foreigner speaking. His Hebrew may not have been perfect..
“Am I now come up without YHWH against this place to destroy it? YHWH said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it.' ”
Then he comes up with his trump card. Do they not realise that he has actually come up with YHWH on his side? Who do they think had told him to come up to destroy Jerusalem? Why, it was YHWH Himself. It may in fact well be that renegade prophets of YHWH from Israel had prophesied favourably to Sennacherib (for good payment), especially in reaction to his religious reforms, thus this may not just have been a propaganda move. And in his arrogance he may actually have believed it. We can also compare Isaiah 10:5 ff, a prophecy which might have been known to his spies. So even their own prophets supported his case.
‘Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebnah, and Joah, said to Rabshakeh, “Speak, I pray you, to your servants in the Aramaean language, for we understand it, and do not speak with us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people who are on the wall.”
This was probably not a plea based on their fear of the people's response. It would hardly have been wise to make the request in this way if that was so, as the reply given could only have been expected. Rather it was a firm affirmation that they did not need to be treated like barbarians as though they could not understand Aramaic, as in fact they could speak it quite adequately. Thus they were requesting that negotiation take place in the diplomatic language recognised by all and that they be treated as intellectual equals in the negotiations. Such things were for negotiators, not for common people. In a sense it was a question. Were these serious negotiations, or were they just propaganda? They soon received their answer.
‘But Rabshakeh said to them, “Has my master sent me to your master, and to you, to speak these words? Has he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?” '
The Rabshakeh made clear that he was not interested in serious negotiations with the king. His aim was to reach the common people and persuade them to rebel against their leaders. These same tactics had been used by the Assyrians at Babylon when Tiglath-pileser III sent a delegation to the king of Babylon when he was in revolt who similarly argued their case to those gathered on the city walls. Such behaviour was a deliberate insult to the three Judaean negotiators. Note the basis of his reasoning. As a result of the famine caused by the siege he had no doubt that they were already having to survive by eating their own excrement, and drinking their own urine. That was what eventually happened in sieges, as he well knew (compare 2 Kings 6:24). His words were meant for people who were in that state, not the slightly better provided for high officials
His crude way of putting things stands in contrast to the dignified attempt of the three Judaean negotiators to keep things on a high level. There may in all this well be an intended contrast, stressing the polite diplomacy of Judah, and the arrogant and crude diplomacy of Assyria. Judah are clearly gentlemen, whereas Assyria are merely bullies.
‘Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and spoke, saying, “Hear you the word of the great king, the king of Assyria” '
Suiting his words to his reasoning the Rabshakeh then raised his voice and shouted up at the walls in ‘the Jews' language' (the Judaean dialect of Hebrew). Once again he stressed that he was speaking on behalf of ‘the Great King, the king of Assyria'. he wanted them to be in no doubt about whose majesty they were opposing.
“Thus says the king. Do not let Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you out of his hand,”
His first emphasis was on the fact that there was no way in which ‘Hezekiah' himself, whatever his meagre resources, could deliver them out of the king of Assyria's hand. They must therefore not let him deceive them into thinking that he might be able to do so. He simply did not have sufficient forces at his command.
“Nor let Hezekiah make you trust in YHWH, saying, ‘YHWH will surely deliver us, and this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria.' ”
Nor must they listen to ‘Hezekiah' if he told them to trust in YHWH. They must take no notice of any assurance from him that YHWH would deliver them and would not allow their city to be delivered into the hands of the king of Assyria for it was simply not true, as the examples of other nations and cities would make clear.
It would seem clear that his intelligence sources had informed him that there were voices in the city saying, ‘Trust in YHWH', which was, of course, the message of Isaiah. This explains why his words here are so emphatic. He is trying to counter what they have been told.
“Do not listen to Hezekiah. For thus says the king of Assyria, Make your peace with me (literally ‘make a blessing with me'), and come out to me, and eat you every one of his vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink you every one the waters of his own cistern, until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive-trees and of honey, that you may live, and not die, and do not listen to Hezekiah, when he persuades you, saying, ‘YHWH will deliver us'.”
Indeed they must not listen to anything that ‘Hezekiah' said. Rather they must listen to ‘the king of Assyria' when he told them to come and ‘make a blessing' with him, that is, a pact which results in blessing or brings them into the king's sphere of blessing. If they ‘came out' to him (the regular expression for surrendering a city) and did ‘make a blessing' with him they would immediately be free to return to their own homes, to enjoy the produce of their own trees and to drink water from their own cisterns. And then later he would come and take them away to a land like their own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive-trees and of honey. Under the dreadful conditions of the siege it would sound like a wonderful alternative. Of course it was very much hyped up. What the Assyrian troops would do after the surrender had taken place would be very much open to question, for there would undoubtedly be brutalities; their time at home, if any, would be very limited and even then they would undoubtedly find their trees bare and their cisterns defiled; and the journey to foreign parts would be both uncomfortable and painful. The Assyrians were not noted for their gentleness. Thus the offer would not turn out to be as attractive as it sounded. But it might still appear a better alternative to certain death. At least then most of them would live and not die. Thus they would be foolish to listen to Hezekiah's persuasive assurance that YHWH would deliver Jerusalem from the king of Assyria's hand, a policy which would result for them in certain death.
“Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?”
Let them consider all the gods of the other nations. Did they know of any gods who had delivered their nations out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Strictly speaking they might have given the island fortress of Tyre as an example. Assyria had devastated mainland Tyre but had been unable to subdue the island fortress which had been supplied by sea. It was, however, a rare example and undoubtedly due to special circumstances (Jerusalem was not surrounded by sea).
“Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?”
He then listed a number of such foreign nations, people from some of which had been transported to Samaria (see 2 Kings 17:24). Had they been delivered out of his hands by their gods either before or after being transferred to Samaria? Regardless of their gods they were still under the heel of the king of Assyria. The question might have had in mind knowledge of the fact that Samaria had itself engaged in disquiet even after their arrival, something which had had to be subdued. (There were certainly disturbances in Samaria a year after the surrender of the city of Samaria to Sargon, and it is probable that all these peoples when they arrived kept in touch with their ‘homelands' and resented their situation).
Alternatively he may have been shortcutting his description and have really meant, ‘have they delivered their nations out of their hands and have they (the gods of Samaria, YHWH, Baal, Asherah) delivered Samaria out of my hand?'
“Who are they among all the gods of the countries, who have delivered their country out of my hand, that YHWH should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?”
He then parallels the gods of the nations with YHWH. What other gods have delivered their countries out of his hands? the answer is, none. So why should YHWH? What difference was there between YHWH and the other gods?
But these words were a mistake for two reasons. Firstly because Judah did see their God as different from the gods of the nations. Indeed His forte was known to be that He could deliver His people, as witness the Exodus of which they sang in their Temple, and which they commemorated in the feast of the Passover and their other feasts, and the accounts in the Book of Judges and Samuel. He was therefore by these words unknowingly stirring up their latent faith. But secondly it was dangerous because YHWH was in fact different, and would react accordingly. It was a direct challenge being laid down to YHWH. a very dangerous thing to do.
‘But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word, for the king's commandment was, saying, “Do not answer him.” '
Meanwhile he received no reply. No one answered him. For the king had given the command ‘Do not answer him' and his guards would be on the watch for anyone who was disobedient. To speak would mean instant death. It was a studied insult to the great men of Assyria.
‘Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, came to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and told him the words of Rabshakeh.'
Having listened to the Rabshakeh's words the three Judaean representatives tore their clothes in anguish, and then reported back to Hezekiah, informing him of what the Rabshakeh had said.
‘And it came about, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he tore his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of YHWH.'
When king Hezekiah heard what had been said he also tore his clothes in anguish, and he covered himself with sackcloth, a sign of humility and fasting, and went into the house of YHWH to fulfil his priestly responsibility of intercession (as priest after the order of Melchizedek). This idea of the king as the nation's intercessor occurs quite frequently (see e.g. 2 Samuel 24:10; 2 Samuel 24:17). Note the first reference to him as ‘king Hezekiah' since 2 Kings 18:17. It was as the king that he went in to make intercession.